Talk:List of funicular railways

message: inside of the jefferson exspansion memorial. or more commonly known to everybody as the saint louis arch. there is a funicular type of train inside and it carries people to the top of the arch and people can look out the windows up there and get great views of the city of st.louis and nerby land across the missisippi in the state of illinos. why has there been no mention of the funicular in the st. louis arch? 69.221.168.185 (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about the funicular inside of the st.louis arch? 

message: List alphabetically by country (state ot province), City and name as is done (at least partially) for United States 
--Peter Horn 17:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe 

message: Surely Pennsylvania, US, doesn't have the majority of funicular railways in the world. Discuss DannyM 11:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Pennsylvania has a disproportionate number of these for several reasons: 1. It has the hills  2.It had the engineers, such as Caroline Endres and Samuel Diescher 3.  The steel cables, designed by John Roebling, which made them practical were made in Pittsburgh. 4. The Pittsburgh Coalfield is elevated above the Monongahela River, and several "inclines" or funiculars were built to deliver coal from these seams to the water level for transportation.  At one time, Pittsburgh alone had 17 of them! Pustelnik (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The separate articles for the UK and Switzerland are probably distorting this global list. Thryduulf 01:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged the UK entries. Will look at the much larger Swiss list once I've digested this change. -- Waterstones 11:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged in the UK entries, and put the entries for Japan, the UK and the US in the format used by the rest of the list. I cannot see any justification now to say that this article lacks global perspective, so I've removed the tag. I still havn't merged the Swiss list, and I'm a bit hesitant about this because of the list size; perhaps best to leave this as is. Thoughts?. -- Waterstones 13:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalise 

message: Peter Horn removed the TOCright template from this article. I've reinstated it, as IMHO it seems it fits better with this geographically based list article than the default TOC behaviour, in that it gives the first-time reader a flavour of what the article is about on first sight. There may be good reasons for Peter's change, but as there was no useful edit comment I cannot know this. I'm therefore reintroducing the template; if you want to re-revert please do but pray tell why. -- Chris j wood 11:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully support !! Some editors seem particularly twitchy about using TOCright, etc, presumably as it "does not comply with the MOS". Personally I much prefer their use since this invariably avoids acres of whitespace at the top of articles -- which particularly applies to lists such as this one. For my own part, I now think twice before adding them since I am more aware of windows-size change issues and the variable layouts that can ensue from different monitor resolutions. But I still apply them, especially where the lede is short but the TOC is long (again, as here). -- EdJogg 11:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately use of TOCright obviously irritates some editors, as it essentially precludes the article showing images alongside most entries from Asia. I personally don't think this a huge problem, but I've got bored with removing images that interfered with the TOCright. Recently an editor switched to TOCleft, so as to add an image of the Carmelit funicular. Unfortunately TOCleft looks horrible, and certainly does come close to violating our MoS. So after five years (check the date on my post above) I'm afraid I've decided that if you cannot beat them, you might as well join them. I've reverted to a standard TOC, and am currently adding images for Asia. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinstated template TOCright 

message: Certaldo has a funicular from the old to new town and return. TRIKER1 (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that Certaldo. No mention of a funicular on that page. Peter Horn User talk 20:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I found these:  Peter Horn User talk 21:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certaldo, Italy 

message: I have removed the entry for Garmisch-Partenkirchen from the list of German funiculars, because (a) it is uncited and (b) I can find no evidence of there being any funiculars in Garmisch-Partenkirchen.
Specifically:
* The wp:de counterpart to this page does not list Garmisch-Partenkirchen.
* The usually authoritative Speers & Wall Eisenbahnatlas Deutschland does not show any funiculars there.
* Google search for 'Garmisch-Partenkirchen funicular' lists lots of hits, but all appear to be by people who cannot tell the difference between a funicular and a rack railway, or a funicular and a cable car.
If you added this, or know there is a funicular in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, then please re-add and annotate with a citation. -- Starbois (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garmisch-Partenkirchen  

message: It is all very well to mention the cities in which the funiculars were located, but what about the actual names of a few of them in the list of funicular railways? Peter Horn User talk 14:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The names of systems 

message: Would it be easiest to tabulate this differently so it could be sorted by
Name, country, inclination ?
106% Switzerland, Gelmerbahn funicular
122% 52 degrees Katoomba, Katoomba Scenic Railway http://www.smh.com.au/news/take-five/top-five-funicular-railways/2005/10/29/1130400400382.html
--Dave Rave (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steepest ? 

message: When I have time, I will probably turn this list into a chart, similar to the one in List of metro systems. Any Objections? Staglit (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of funicular railways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930154841/http://www.funiculars.net/funiculars.php?sok=valparaiso&pos=0 to http://www.funiculars.net/funiculars.php?sok=valparaiso&pos=0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of funicular railways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415003303/http://www.descubrepatagonia.com/en/bariloche/activities/cerro-otto/ to http://www.descubrepatagonia.com/en/bariloche/activities/cerro-otto/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930015541/http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/alpha_lists/clifflist.htm to http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/alpha_lists/clifflist.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User Gidonb added extra structure in the Asia and Europe sections. In the case of Europe this was to introduce sections for North, South, East and West Europe. The trouble with this is that it pushes the country names (which I would respectfully suggest are the things anybody looking something up in the list is most likely to know) out of the contents table, and replaces it with something much more arbitrary and more confusing. For example, when I tried looking up the United Kingdom, I couldn't find it because I assumed it would be in the 'Western Europe' section, whilst it was actually in 'Northern Europe'. And I only live in the damned place!.
In truth there are no well defined definitions of Northern, Southern, Eastern or Western Europe. If they exist at all, they do so as overlapping cultural concepts rather than as geographical entities, and as such are not useful as a sorting mechanism, which is essentially what this list is. And besides making the list less useful, they also increase the chances of sterile arguments (for example, is Slovenia in Southern Europe or Eastern Europe, when it is probably in both).
So I've removed the extra layer, whilst retaining any other changes Gideonb may have made. If you think I'm wrong, please discuss here. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi chris_j_wood, why not discuss before undoing? You could have solved your entire "intuition" problem by increasing the TOC level by 1! Also please refrain from giving marks to your colleagues in titles. For now we can discuss both matters below because this is not how things are normally done. Additionally, combining the discussions will make things easier as, obviously, there is a lot of overlap between the multiple discussions that you started. gidonb (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

text: On the positive side, you did preserve the other changes that I made. Let's salt this particular discussion and continue below. gidonb (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, moved the discussion to #Extra structure in this article -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed well-intentioned but not helpful extra structure in Europe 

message: As indicated above, Gidonb also added extra structure in the Asia section. I'm tempted to do the same as I did above with this, but I feel I'm on less firm ground as to how well-defined and/or arbitrary the definitions are. I'd welcome comments on this before I do anything. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris j wood, would have been good if you had taken the same approach also in Europe. With a sole change of Iran, the subcontinents exactly follow the UN standard. Europe exactly follows the UN standard. Please discuss before you mess up the work of others. There may be another solution to your "intuition", like the one suggested above. gidonb (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, moved the discussion to #Extra structure in this article -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra structure in Asia 

message: There is an ongoing debate at Talk:Funicular about what is, and indeed whether there is, a distinction between a funicular and an inclined elevator. I've amended the lead of this article to hopefully remove it from that debate, by making explicit what was always the intention of the list. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted these changes as per Talk:Funicular#So,_what_is_a_funicular? --Vаdiм (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement of coverage 

message: As we have now moved Turkey into Europe, how do you propose we should handle Russia?. We have two funiculars listed, one in Sochi and the other in Vladivostok. Apparently, despite being well to the east of Istambul, Sochi is normally considered as being in Europe. Vladivostok clearly isn't. Should we split Russia and list it both in Europe and Asia?.
Are there any other continent spanning countries we need to consider?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries spanning continents 

message: I have paid attention only to the English list. The long-gone Broadstairs is not a funicular if it had only one car, and the Southend-on-Sea cliff lift is also not a funicular for the same reason. I removed both. If the list includes single cars with counterweights, we have hundreds of thousands of "lifts" or "elevators" to list here. The list already excludes the "cliff lifts" at Whitby and Shanklin, which are vertical elevators, that is, single cars with counterweights. I think we need to follow the definition that requires two cars that counterweight each other. JoeBrennan (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Lifts and elevators aren't publicly accessible from outside the building. Where they are (street lifts are around in a few towns, such as Lisbon, Ebbw Vale and Turku) then they're included here too.  Additionally, 'lifts' (by the main definition, although the term varies nationally) are vertical and don't carry their weight on rails, as funiculars do (but then, South Wales also had a number of vertical industrial water balance lifts, sometimes included). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funicular means two cars that counterweight each other 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion