Jump to content

Talk:Millennium Bridge Inclined Lift

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Name of article and considering use of "katabasis and anabasis" versus "descent and ascent"

[edit]

See this edit on my talk page.

I came across the name originally in this article List of funicular railways and like you was intrigued as the City is not known for its steep hills. I think that your research is most useful, but I am not sure that the proposed alternative Millennium Inclinator is necessarily any better than the current name, as the official name used by the City of London Transportation Committee seems also to be "Millennium Bridge Inclinator".

The number of ghits for "Millennium Bridge Inclinator" and "Millennium Funicular" is about the same (around 800) although the reliability of eight of sources for the "Millennium Bridge Inclinator" indicates it is the official name (all eight of them at www.cityoflondon.gov.uk), while there are about 150 hits for "Millennium Inclinator" two of which seem to be reliable sources.

While I know what a funicular is until you did your research I had never heard of an "inclinator", so I am included to suggest that the article remains where it is as I think for most people the current title is more descriptive than "Inclinator", and we alter the name in the text from "Millennium Inclinator" to "Millennium Bridge Inclinator". If my reasoning does not convince you then we can discuss it further, or you can put it up for a WP:RM and we can see if a consensus emerges. -- PBS (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've made a redirect from Millennium Bridge Inclinator, so we've got most of the alternative titles covered - might make a couple more from "London ...." variants. Redirects are cheap and reduce the likelihood of someone else making an accidental duplicate article. As well as helping the readers find it. I've got no strong feelings about the name - will wait to see if anyone else chips in here. PamD 18:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source I used uses "Millennium Bridge Inclinator" rather than "Millennium Inclinator" this was deliberate as the term "Millennium Bridge Inclinator" is used in more reliable sources than " "Millennium Inclinator". I like the use of katabasis as it allows someone who does not know the word to learn a new one and it is more precise (and a play on words) than "decent" as it is a decent to the coast. -- PBS (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not in the business of teaching people new words while they are trying to understand an article: ascent and descent are standard English words and more useful in this article. From WP:MOS: "Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." I do not believe that katabasis and anabasis are "Plain English", and they are inappropriate here.
You seem to have one reliable source which calls it "Millennium Bridge Inclinator" under item 7 of an agenda. The other reliable source is an entire report on the inclinator, using the title "Millennium Inclinator". Please stop removing this name from the text. PamD 14:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And do you have any reliable source for the article title? It seems to come from a couple of un-reliable enthusiast sites only. PamD 14:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only include one link because there is no point putting in lots of them: 21 hits and while "Millennium Inclinator" is the slightly more common name on that website it is less common away from it. "ascent and descent are standard English words and more useful in this article". This is not Simple English Wikipedia. Katabasis is not jargon, it is more specific than decent (because it is a decent to the coast) and it is not a complex-word, and for those who do not know the word there is a link to an article about it. As for the article tile I have explained why I think it is the better name but if you disagree then please use the WP:RM process to decide the issue. -- PBS (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Why did nobody observe that 'London Millennium Inclined Lift' gets 19 million Google hits so is likely the popular favorite. Since this debate was already relisted once, it seems unlikely that a further relisting would help. Feel free to continue the discussion on Talk. If the 'Inclinator' people and the 'Inclined lift' people could combine their efforts and pick one of the two, it would probably win. EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London Millennium Funicular → Millennium Bridge Inclinator – No reliable sources seem to use "funicular". While reliable sources use both "Millennium Inclinator" and (slightly less often) "Millennium Bridge Inclinator", the latter is more informative as the inclinator serves the bridge, so is probably the better title. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC) PamD 16:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's additional comment: per BDD's request below. While I still think that Millennium Bridge Inclinator is the best title for the article, my next preferences would be, in order, Millennium Inclinator, Millennium Bridge Inclined Lift, Millennium Inclined Lift. They're all redirects already, so all except the chosen title will continue to be so. PamD 19:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • "Millennium Bridge Inclined Lift" is not a common name. It is only mentioned by two web sites [1][2] both of whom were involved in the manufacture and installation of the contraption. There is no Wiliepdia article on Inclined lifts instead inclined lifts are included as a subsection in Funicular as they are defined as a subspecies of funicular. As to your question of is funicular a words that anyone uses well a simple google search will show you that the answer is yes -- far more often than the phrase "Inclined lift". -- PBS (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, funicular is the closest English has to a word for it, but to me the concept is more like that little indent right above the middle of your lips--perhaps not everyone knows it has a name, and even though it does, people in actual conversation and even semi-formal (written) usage generally use descriptive terms for it rather than its "name". I would personally probably not call it a "funicular" but rather an inclined railway. If I were British I probably would call it an "inclined lift". Red Slash 23:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems extremely disingenuous for Red Slash to refer to Wikipedia:FUNICULARISNOTAWORD and Wikipedia:INCLINATORISNOTAWORD to support this position. Those WP:POINTy redirects were just created by Red Slash within one minute of the above comment that refers to them. I don't know whether inclinator is a word or not, but funicular is definitely a word, and it definitely gets used. It appears in every dictionary I have checked, and I have personally encountered it outside of dictionaries on various occasions. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am startled and stupefied to find that in a post where I explicitly said that those redirects were redlinks, someone would consider it even remotely disingenuous. Have you confused making a point with making a WP:POINT? Red Slash 15:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original redlink remark was very unclear, and within one minute they weren't redlinks anymore, because you immediately created redirects at those locations. If you had left them as redlinks, I would not complain. But to create redirects that make it appear that Wikipedia has some policy against using particular terms is WP:POINTy. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be clear you support a move to "Millennium Bridge Inclined Lift" as proposed by Red Slash or "Millennium Bridge Inclinator" as proposed by PamD. -- PBS (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Millennium Bridge Inclinator per the initial proposal. I don't actually oppose "Millennium Bridge Inclined Lift", but I do dispute the reasoning for it - "funicular" is a common, and correct English word. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow the sources. On the article name, my position is pretty much per PBS in the pre-survey debate. Funicular is a perfectly normal word, Red Slash, one I've certainly used several times in ordinary conversation and as the existence of the Funicular article implies, it's the WP:COMMONNAME for two-train systems at least. Maybe I'm weird because I've spent quite a lot of time in the Alps where they are common, and also have an interest in the history of the English seaside - there was a real vogue for installing them in English holiday resorts in late Victorian times to allow people to get down from the cliffs to the beach. I'd not come across either "inclined lift" or "inclinator" before. But I'm happy to accept my ignorance and respect the fact that's what the sources use, they seem to be the accepted terms for one-car systems. I'd note that the project managers Dunbar & Boardman use the term inclined lift but note that technically it is too shallow to be called a lift per EN81 even though it was originally certified under the Lift Directive. Despite having gone past it often enough I was slightly surprised that it was enough of a "thing" for it to have its own article at all, so I don't think you can say that this particular installation has a WP:COMMONNAME and hence you should go with the "official" name as used by the owners, the CoL. Unfortunately that seems to be "inclinator". It is a horrible neologism that should have been strangled at birth, but if it's too shallow to be a "lift" per EN81 then I guess we have to go with it. Aside from following the official usage, I can see arguments for all three versions and don't feel strongly about any of the three. Le Deluge (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW I first encountered the word "inclinator" when visiting Luxor Las Vegas in 1995 and the 1939 "Elevator Code" from the Los Angeles Board of mechanical engineers contains many uses of the term [3] (and that's just the earliest use on page 1 of a google books search, there may be earlier uses), so it's not really fare to call it a neologism. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move leave it where it is as it is probably most comprehensible title for someone who is not an expert on such vehicles. -- PBS (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

To answer the closer's question

[edit]

"Why did nobody observe that 'London Millennium Inclined Lift' gets 19 million Google hits ...?" Because Google says "No results found for "London millennium inclined lift".", although nearly 19 million for the various words taken separately. PamD 14:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion on "katabasis and anabasis" versus "descent and ascent"

[edit]
Response to third opinion request (Should "descent and ascent" or "katabasis and anabasis" be used in describing the External Link?):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on London Millennium Funicular and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I agree with User:PamD on this issue. While katabasis and anabasis are not jargon per say, they are uncommon English words, and even technical articles gear towards usage of more commonly used words. After doing some research, 'katabasis' and 'anabasis' are generally used in more technical circles and do not fit well with the way they are used here. see here ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 04:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Simple English Wikipedia. In its use here Katabasis is not jargon or a technical word, it is more specific than decent (because it is a decent to the coast), For anyone who does not know what katabasis means there is a link to an article to help them. -- PBS (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the use of "ascent" and "decent", there is no need to use the significantly more uncommon more specific words when there is no danger of misunderstanding or confusion when using the accessible words. Indeed, using "Katabasis" here would be technically incorrect as it refers to a descent towards the coast, particularly following the course of a river. The funicular that is the subject of this article runs approximately perpendicular to the course of the river, and while the river is tidal here it is not regarded in common usage as being the coast (London is not regarded as a coastal city) - it's not even estuarine at this point, the coast is regarded as being much further east and as the bottom is maybe 1-2 metres further west than the top it takes you further away from it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (second, third opinion) Use ascent/descent per Occam's razor. We're not here to teach vocabulary, we're here to communicate encyclopaedic facts. Using obscure words hinders that mission. Sure this isn't SEW - but there's no need to use obscure words when common ones convey the same meaning. I may have enough of a classical education to work out from scratch what katabasis means, but it's not a word I'd come across before. I note also that the sense of moving towards a coast is not strong - the Shorter OED merely gives the literal meaning of a descent. In which case you might as well just say descent - anything else is just intellectual snobbery. Le Deluge (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third third opinion: ascent/descent per Le Deluge. --BDD (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 18:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London Millennium Funicular → Millennium Bridge Inclined Lift – Appears to be the best supported title, from the previous failed RM discussion. Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC) PamD 15:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • comment The previous close stated "Why did nobody observe that 'London Millennium Inclined Lift' gets 19 million Google hits so is likely the popular favorite". the person who did the search did not enclose it in quotes. the the phrase is "London Millennium Inclined Lift" is enclosed in quotes not one page is returned, let alone any reliable sources. -- PBS (talk)
  • Oppose "Millennium Bridge Inclined Lift" is not a common name. It is only mentioned by two web sites [4][5] both of whom were involved in the manufacture and installation of the contraption. There is no Wiliepdia article on Inclined lifts instead inclined lifts are included as a subsection in Funicular as they are defined as a subspecies of funicular. Leave it where it is as Funicular is a well known descriptive word.-- PBS (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "London Millennium Funicular" is not a common name, and the article Funicular begins by defining a funicular as having two counterbalanced cars (although then contradicts itself by having a section on single-car inclined lifts). PamD 13:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there isn't really a common name for it, other than being the Millennium Bridge Lift, although may I suggest adding London in the name as there are also similarly named ones at Salford Quays and Newcastle. Simply south...... fighting ovens for just 7 years 13:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an interesting read, including the article. What I found most interesting was the references. They are all over the board for the name. I can see how the argument is made that the current name is not the common name. However, I don't see any real data for what is the common name. I was going to just comment until I decided to check the claim that "London Millennium Inclined Lift" returns 0 Google hits. Well, I just did that very query and guess how many hits there are? Obviously not 0 but 16,200,000. So based on that, Support. Oh, as a reference, "London Millennium Funicular" returns 12,500 hits (only 29 if you add '-wikipedia'). And then there is the point about what a funicular is that was raised by Pam. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Vegaswikian your search returned 16 million hits because you did not put it in double quotes eg if you assume that [] represents the box on a Googel Search then you entered [London Millennium Inclined Lift] which means it looks for any article that has any of the those words in it. If instead you enter the same search surrounding it with double quotes to match the phrase ["London Millennium Inclined Lift"] you will get back zero hits. But no matter how many hits any phrase brings back, one has to look at the individual articles to see whether it is a reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Millennium_Bridge_Inclined_Lift&oldid=1204007333"