Talk:Funicular/Archive 2

Marocchi source

However, as we are on the subject of sources, how about this one [1] that I have just found. It is in English, so no issues with translation. It is available on the web, so easily verifiable. It is from the web site of the OITAF, the International Organisation For Transportation By Rope, so it is reputable. And it is from their 2017 congress in Bolzano, so it is recent. And its says, inter alia, The inclined lift is actually a light funicular manufactured using lift components ... From the point of view of transportation engineering and political decision, there is no difference between a funicular and an inclined lift ....
— User:chris_j_wood

The source cited in this post is Cableways for urban transportation: History, state of the art and future developments by Andrea Marocchi.

Let's check this source in the light of WP:IRS:

• It is in English, so no issues with translation -- the WP guideline does not state the English is a prefered language for a source
• It is available on the web, so easily verifiable -- availability on the Internet doesn't mean a higher level of verifiability of the source
• It is from the web site of the OITAF -- OITAF is likely to be a reputable organisation, but the source does not presents an opinion of this institution. As it comes from its text the source is an opinion of an author of this publication
• it is from their 2017 congress in Bolzano -- the source dated 2011, not 2017

The publication doesn't heave any references, so it's not possible to check how does it rely on secondary sources. It's also difficult to check how it been vetted by the scholarly community. For example, Google Scholar gives only a single reference on this publication. In this regard it could probably be considered as an isolated study.

As a matter of fact, this publication looks more like an essay than a scholarly material. It is quite poorly structured, illustrated. Some of its parts are merely collection of facts and statements poorly related to each other.

As per WP:SOURCE

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

All three can affect reliability.

So Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.

In this regard the sources (Pyrgidis, 2016) and (Arcay, 2003) are of a superior quality than the Marocchi source. Both ones are dedicated to a descriptive classification various transportation systems. (Pyrgidis, 2016) is an extensive scholarly monograph published by a respected publishing house while (Arcay, 2003) is a University-level textbook,a collective work by the Coruña university scholars. Both sources have a substantial corpus of references to third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

--Vаdiм (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry Vаdiм, but there is an awful lot of POV in that. A couple of points.

1. I have nothing against (Pyrgidis, 2016) and (Arcay, 2003) as sources, which is why I kept them in the version of the article you have just reverted. The problem isn't that they aren't good sources, the problem is that they don't support the text they are being quoted as sources for. Both of them clearly admit of funiculars with only one car, and Pyrgidis explictly says The inclined elevator is a variant of the elevator which clearly contradicts the statemen An inclined elevator is not a funicular that you reverted back into the article.
2. The Marocchi source is a perfectly good source. It is a symposium paper delivered to professional body. I think your views on how good it is a source are clear POV, but ultimately irrelevant because it doesn't in any way contradict what the two other sources say, which is that an inclined elevator can (in at least some circumstances) be regarded as a type of funicular.

--chris_j_wood (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(Marocchi, 2011) is among the Other papers which have been submitted to the international congress, but will not be presented verbally by their author Papers of O.I.T.A.F.-congress 2011 in Rio de Janeiro. There is no evidence on how it was received at this congress, so, taking into account the aforementioned arguments, it's rather likely it presents an isolated study. As per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. --Vаdiм (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Inclined elevators

As per (Strakosch 2010)^[1]: Inclined elevators were an outgrowth of the funicular railways that were quite prominent in the early 1900s, many of which have survived.... and An inclined elevator is a descendant of the inclined railway. In this regard when (Pyrgidis, 2016) is saying The inclined elevator (or inclined lift or inclinator) is a variant of the funicular then one should read it as "The inclined elevator if variation on the funicular". The rest of its text confirms inclined elevators and funiculars are different categories --Vаdiм (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a definition from an American National Standard by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers^[2]

elevator, inclined: an elevator that travels at an angle of inclination of 70 deg or less from the horizontal

And TCQSM^[3]:

inclined elevator -an elevator capable of both horizontal and vertical movement along a fixed path. Differs from inclined planes in that only one cabin is used and no attendant is needed to operate it.

Note the keyword elevator in both definitions --Vаdiм (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual

Or TCQSM, 3rd Edition by the Transportation Research Board (one of seven program units of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine)^[3]:

funicular railway- a passenger transportation mode consisting of a pair of rail vehicles (or short trains) permanently attached to two ends of the same cable, counterbalancing each other. It may have a single track with a turnout or a double track. In the former case, wheels on one side of the car(s) will have double flanges, on the other side, no flanges. This system is used to overcome steep gradients. See also ropeway, inclined plane, and inclined elevator

One could find there many other useful transportation definitions --Vаdiм (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Is a 'funicular' something which Reliable Sources describe as a funicular?
— User:Andy Dingley

Yes, at last such a source was eventually discovered, see #Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM). What quite remarkable with it is that this academic work is an outcome of collective effort of a whole number of institutions. The definition there is quite clear. It's also quite remarkable that ASME, another institution, does agree this this definition.
— User:Vаdiм

Please don't quote other editors out of context, to make them look as if they're asking idiotic questions, and also to raise a context that's the precise opposite of what they clearly intended. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley If it's about me quoting you when I'm sorry that it might look so. First, I didn't mean it's something idiotic at all. Second, I'd probably misunderstood your sentence. On the contrary, difficult questions are good --Vаdiм (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

As I've said above, this 'at last' really worries me. It seems that you (and, I presume, others) have looked at lots of sources, most of which are unclear or ambiguous as to what the difference is between funiculars and other forms of inclined rail system (like inclined lifts, gravity inclines and inclined planes). Certainly that is my experience. Now you have found just one that gives a definitive answer, and you think that is the answer. But to me, that suggests this source is an outlier, and that the general consensus of all the sources is that there isn't a clear cut distinction. And that is what we should say in our article. As I've several time before in this thread, it is no part of WP's function to create a taxonomy where none exists; nor should we push an outlier taxonomy that is not accepted by most of our sources. I tried to make a start on changing the article to confirm to the 'no clear cut distinction' and got reverted by Vаdiм. @Andy Dingley, @Vаdiм - where do we go from here - chris_j_wood (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@chris_j_wood If you don't mind I'd suggest to leave this section to the discussion on "Gravity inclines in mines". If so, the you could move your post to another relevant section in this page --Vаdiм (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vаdiм - No problem - this ok? - chris_j_wood (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually we were discussing sources in the previous section. Let's move it there --Vаdiм (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

it is no part of WP's function to create a taxonomy where none exists; nor should we push an outlier taxonomy that is not accepted by most of our sources
— User:chris_j_wood

For starters this "taxonomy" was not invented here, instead it's a representation of a quite established academic definition of the matter in question.

WP says a good definition is important and one could notice this article was falling apart without it. As it was pointed out some dictionaries were able to give their versions, but a selection of academic was scarce.

Indeed (Arcay et al, 2003) had specifically emphasized the lack of clear definitions in this field and they had applied some effort on observing and classification of various aspects of it. (Pyrgidis 2016) has made his own attempt in this direction.

(TCQSM) in this regard is a quite specific kind of work. It's an official publication authored by numerous institutions, and so it represents not only a great amount of work and knowledge in transportation, but also a solid amount of consensus on this field of knowledge.

What one could also see is that the other quality sources, albeit being not so specific, but do agree in general with TCQSM's definitions. TCQSM on the other hand, simply due to its nature, represents the terms which were agreed upon a much greater basis.

TCQSM claims itself, and not without a reason:

a comprehensive reference resource for public transit practitioners and policy makers. It assembled for the first time in one place a set of methods for evaluating the capacity of bus and rail transit services and facilities, and introduced a framework for evaluating the quality of transit service from the passenger point of view.

TCQSM isn't perfect though. Apparently one could find examples where its definitions struggle to work adequately. But as said, we aren't to invent something of our own --Vаdiм (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• You seem keen to adopt TCQSM as the only permitted source, and to then take the narrowest possible interpretation in order to exclude as many examples as possible. This is wrong. That is not how we work, or at least should work.

The TCQSM source is simply too short to be a full definition covering all cases. It ignores many aspects: it is silent on whether a tail rope is required, forbidden or irrelevant. Whether a funicular may be braked from above or below. Whether balancing is the only motive power permitted, or whether water balancing is essential to a funicular. It also, literally, excludes the very common pattern of three rail funiculars, as these are neither a double track, nor with double flanged wheels. It also makes the specific claim that a single cable is used, excluding those with two cables and a braking drum (rather than a single sheave). Now whilst this is a reasonable claim to make for describing the canon funicular, I do not see it as strong enough evidence to exclude other funiculars. That is simply not what this definition is for, or is detailed enough to attempt to do, and to fillet articles on such a basis is to mis-use such a source. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You seem keen to adopt TCQSM as the only permitted source, and to then take the narrowest possible interpretation in order to exclude as many examples as possible
— User:Andy Dingley

This is misinterpretation of what I had wrote above. My reasoning was that TCQSM has significantly more weight and represents a wider auditory than the other sources discovered so far.

As to the definition: if something possesses all the attributes given by a definition then it belongs to the entity defined this definition. It doesn't matter if that something has got some other attributes as well. This way one can be, for example, a mode of transportation, a railway, a cable railway and a funicular simultaneously. --Vаdiм (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You are removing other sources. This is what I mean by "only permitted source". Yet it is not a complete or unquestionable source.

You are also removing examples of funiculars (let's stick with Gütsch Funicular for the moment) and claiming that they are outside this definition. yet without any explanation or evident justification.

You seem to think that this single, terse source is the only possible definition of a funicular, and that it is also a complete definition for funiculars. Neither are true, particularly not the idea that something so brief can approach being a complete set of criteria, rather than a convenient description. You are misusing this source and you are blanking all other sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

If you have any sources on hands please bring them here. Let's review them --Vаdiм (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Pyrgidis, Arcay and Marocchi have already been presented. But you chose to reject (and delete) them, over the opposition of other editors.

This should not be a contentious topic. There is no arcane research question as to the nature of the funicular, there is no political spin one way or the other. But we do need to do some editorialising here (which is why we're discussing it on talk: first, not pushing it directly into the article). Which aspects of which sources do we agree with supporting, such that we can produce a reasonably full definition. Also see my previous point that this definition may vary as to defining what a funicular is in an ontological sense, whether we describe particular instances as funiculars, and whether we list instances in lists or list articles. The last, in particular, may be a looser definition. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Pyrgidis, Arcay and Marocchi have already been presented. But you chose to reject (and delete) them, over the opposition of other editors.
— User:Andy Dingley

One could check some sources with the Google Scholar for citation rates:

• Marocchi - Cited by 1
• Arcay - Cited by 3
• Pyrgidis - Cited by 9
• TCQSM - starting from 98 as per the topmost 2 entries then the whole list continues for the next 100 pages

Marocchi was discussed already. Arcay was an early approach to classification. It was used due to the lack of more reliable sources. Pyrgidis isn't bad actually. The section 10.2, The funicular (pages 251-259), does agree with the definition given, but there is some contradiction at the beginning of the chapter 10. Nevertheless, the Pyrgidis wasn't deleted from the article as it was referenced at the Funicular#Inclined_elevator. I do agree though that it can be mentioned at the Funicular's lead section.

The Giessbach article is also quite important as it's an official publication of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, in which they put the Giessbach Funicular to the list of Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmarks and where they give their own definition of a funicular. --Vаdiм (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)