Talk:Elevator/Archive 1

Archive 1

Way too few citations/references

For the detail, there are too many sections that have no references or footnotes whatsoever. Too lengthy for me to correct; anyone available to handle this?

70.105.206.173 (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

should this be added?

i just recently found this article, but I do not know if it is to be included in this article.| link to the newspaper article about it | link to youtube film about it

Olof nord (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Numbering merger

• Keep It's fine as it is. The numbering schemes mentioned are specific to elevators and are relevant to the article. --Kerowyn 05:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Unique Elevator Systems

I added two sections, one on the elevator system found in the Gateway Arch, and the Fourth Street Elevator in Dubuque, Iowa. And I also put these articles, plus the part of the article on the Hannover City Hall elevator into its own section called Unique Elevator Systems.

How about we move this section into its own topic ? We could easily fill several pages with unique installation details. Let's not detract from the basic information about elevators. OZ_Rhett 07:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I point out to you the it:Ascensore Castello d'Albertis-Montegalletto, an innovative horizontal-vertical lift in Genoa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.87.74 (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Sabbath elevator"

Can anyone confirm the existance of a "sabbath elevator"? That bit sounds like a joke, particularly the pun about "useful work" at the end.--Yakiniku 05:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ask Google; see http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/39/Q1/ jdb ❋ 06:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Working for an elevator company, I can confirm that we do offer a sabbath day service operation, and have done for several years OZ_Rhett 07:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Really? This seems really rather strange... if not wonderfully apt. I was about to move it to BJAODN. --Sum0 14:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As a response to the existing example requested in that section, I'm not sure if this still exists but see [1]. Graham talk 07:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, it would be nice if there was a bit about "extra" buttons beside the floor buttons, ie. the "close door" button that is usually present in Japan but not in England, and the "emergency stop" button that is usually present in movies but not in reality, etc.--Yakiniku 05:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've rarely seen elevators in the US that don't have _some_ kind of emergency stop switch, although newer ones are rarely operable without a key. jdb ❋ 06:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most of the elevators over here in australia have an "Emergency Stop" Button fitted. Emergency stop mode can be exited by pressing another floor button. James Garrod, Brisbane Australia 13:13, 24 March 2006 (AEST)

In the United States, Emergency Stop Switches (they are called rather than buttons) are a code requirement. The key used to stop it, usually is placed in the machine room for the mechanic to access it and stop the elevator if they wish. [jpalnow]

In the US, elevators are required to have both a) an emergency stop switch and b) an emergency call button. The stop switch (called the 'rape switch' by elevator mechanics) latches in position, the idea being that the person actuating it is then free to fend off an attacker. The emergency call button is a momentary contact button that sounds either a bell atop the car, a bell on the exterior of the building, or sounds an alarm at the building's security console. At least this was the situation when I worked at US Elevator in the early 1970's. LorenzoB 00:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish General Hospital has sabbath elevator service. If you don't believe me and want to kill about 20 minutes, see for yourself.

I believe that some large hotels have this as an option. You're not likely to attract, say, a convention of rabbis without it. WHPratt (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's very common to have these types of elevators in hotels in Israel, as you may have guessed. --Fez2005 (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha stupid Jews. If they actually honoured their God they'd use the stairs.

About extra buttons

The "close door" AND the "emergency stop" buttons is usually present in Norwegian elevators as far as I know, there is also usually an "alarm" button to alert security if the elevator gets stuck between floors. (Jan 19, 2005)There is an emergency stop button on every elevator in the united states by code

I'm not so sure of that. Many modern elevators that I've seen have an emergency stop switch, which can be activated with a key. (I've read that the unkeyed buttons led to mischief.) jdb ❋ 06:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, US law requires Emergency Stop buttons. On the contrary, places like Hong Kong and Japan have in recent years banned Emergency Stop switches in case it is misused. Some older elevators have had this button decommisioned. In these places Door Close buttons are also present to close the doors, whereas most US elevators do not have them. [gsblo]

Renovations

Occasionally building owners will have the entire elevator system replaced. I know of one case in Dubuque, Iowa where the Dubuque Building had elevators that were probably over 50 years old. A couple years ago they replaced everything. It struck me as kind of unusual to do that considering how much work would have to be done, but considering that the elevators were old and not in very good shape they probably figured it'd just be more cost effective to do that.
JesseG 02:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Here in the United States, we call them modernizations. We go in and rip out all old elevator controls. Usually the only thing remaining in the elevator systems are the rails, elevator cab, entrances, door sills, and door jambs. Everything else will be completly replaced along with all old wiring removed and traveling cable. The elevator control system (most often time called the Controller) will be replaced as well with new solid state engineering. Depending on the rise of the building, and the amount of elevators, Modenizations can take anywhere from 3months to years and years. The current Modernization happening at LAX (Airport) is quoted at around six years to modernize all elevators and escalators. Modernizing elevators can be cost efficent because in the long run it will take more to maintain it than it is to update it. Also parts come into factor, because after companies go out of business and elevators get older and older, parts become unavailable for the elevator, as in case for alot of Elser Elevator equipment and Westinghouse equipment. Fifty years old is not that old for an elevator, I've seen elevators as old as 1919 still running. Some building owners are too cheap to update. [jpalnow]

Its modernization everywhere as far as I know. There are different levels of modernization. Cost is proportional to how much you want to change. The control system is most likely replaced with new AC equipment. Quieter and smoother rides as well as lower power consumption are touted. Generally, elevators in Hong Kong are modernized anywhere between every 15 - 30 years or more. There are plenty of elevators without automatic doors running, and until the destruction of a recent building downtown, Hong Kong's first traction elevators at the Man Yee building were staffed with operators who controlled the elevators manually. Gsblo

The Caesar Park Hotel Taipei elevators underwent modernization by the same manufacturer, Mitsubishi, but only the buttons and displays were updated. The original cab's soft lighting and wood trim remain undisturbed. Thought this was worth noting :) Petershen1984 (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a section on Modernization in the main article! There are some very good facts in this discussion that could be used to expand the stub. 114.32.84.177 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Energy?

How much energy does it take for an elevator to go from one floor to the next? How much energy is required for each additional passenger? This question was asked here but didn't have a satisfying answer. —BenFrantzDale 08:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

On a recent modernization project, we measured the power consumption by an empty 550kg capacity elevator (7 people). It takes approximately 300kJ for it to descend 25 floors. Gsblo

I watched as an elevator technician tested a new Mitsubishi Elevator. A power clamp meter was attached to the controller (which adjusts power output to the traction motor). At 380 volts, the current was 12 amps at startup and 6 amps average. The power output changes depending on elevator position. When the elevator goes up empty, the counterweight helps to pull the car. But as the elevator ascends past midpoint, the traction motor needs to work against the counterweight to maintain its rated speed. These figures are given for an elevator doing 90 meters per minute, and carrying 600 kgs of payload (test weights) and an undetermined weight of the cab itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.32.84.177 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Fourth Street Elevator

Despite the name, the Fourth Street Elevator isn't an elevator at all, it's a Funicular. It was named at a time when "elevator" had yet to be fixed in its present meaning. However, it doesn't really belong in this article. I will remove this section if no-one objects. ProhibitOnions 16:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. ProhibitOnions 14:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Close" button

In my whole life I've only come across one elevator where the close button causes the doors to close. I've heard that it's always put there, but not hooked up to anything - to provide psychological relief while waiting - to give the occupants a sense of control. Is this true, or are the door close alogorithms such that pressing the button normally has no effect? Josh Parris#: 22:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hahah! They do work in my country, and one place where it doesn't is the Taipei Metro's handicap access lifts to the platforms and exits. In this case they once worked, but was disconnected to give passengers more time to enter and exit safely by defult (after all, the train doors don't have a door close button!!). Despite claims of "psychological relief" from your sources, it's actually annoying when it's not closing when you want it to.59.115.54.138 (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Close Button elevators actually work. They are seen everywhere - all of the new elevator's I've been to in Canada, Hong Kong and Japan have them. The moment you press them as long as nothing's obstructing the light gates at the door they close. [gsblo]

Close Buttons do actually work. I repair elevators for a living - most close buttons shorten the timer in the circuit and allow for faster door closing. If you ever come across an elevator on independant service, you will find out quickly that the door close button actually works. Also in Fire Service mode phase two, the open and close buttons must work according to code (in the United States) [jpalnow]

Ancient Egyptian Elevators ?

I have seen drawings of contraptions that lift things from Ancient Egypt. These looked very much like the oldest contraptions in this articles history section. Would they be relevant in this article?DanielDemaret 14:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Floor Numbering Convention

I don't think this has been mentioned, but in North America, floors are usually numbered G, 2, 3, 4... or 1, 2, 3, 4... whereas British (and places part of Colonial Britain) have floors numbered G, 1, 2, 3, 4. Gsblo 05:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that it usually depends on the building and what they wish to call the floor. I've seen LL (Lower level) G (Ground) B (Basement) P1 (Parking one), it all depends on the building's arangement. I would think it would be unfit to make that assumption about North American Elevators [jpalnow]

This has indeed been discussed a lot. Have a look at Floor. ProhibitOnions 01:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

i'm sure you mean Floor_numbering. Gsblo

Hydraulic elavators (from my talk page)

I noticed you made a change to the "Elevator" page in Wikipedia. You inserted "install a new elevator" instead of new piston.

I have worked as an Elevator Mechanic for many years. You do not modernize a elevator just because the old cynlinder is bad. You replace the cynlinder (most often referred to, as a jack) with a new one, and line it with a large PVC piping. You then install a new polished steel piston (free from straches), along with new packing around the piston. All this can be done without replacing the elevator.

Modernizing an elevator is a very large task, and just because a jack went bad doesn't force the owner of the elevator to modernize it, completly. A Modenization, as discussed, in the talk section of elevators, consists of replacing the Controls, Fixtures (including buttons, COP panel, hall signals, car signals), wiring, hoistway switches, selector unit, sometimes the motor and generator set.

Please reply to me, by leaving a comment on the discussion page for elevators, Thank You.

I have knowledge on Elevators and Escalators, I've been in the field for many years, any questions, just ask. Sorry I have not logged into my wiki account.

OK, sorry about the revert before, and thanks for explaining that paragraph. I have changed "install a new elevator" to "install a new piston", and also mentioned that the old cylinder must be replaced. I've also removed "logically" and "actually" as they disrupted the flow of that paragraph. I suspect that paragraph has been tampered by someone else, which is why it didn't make sense before. I'll check the history and report back if I find anything of note. Again,, thanks for your contributions; you can sign entries on talk pages with four tildes like this: "~~~~". Regards, Graham talk 10:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that I am responsible for that error. I tried to copyedit what was at that time a mess of an article; it contained most of the information in the article now, but it was much more disorganised and contained many misspellings and strange wording. I then tried to copyedit the safety section, and introduced the error. I feel horrible for that; I'm usually very cautious about changing the wording in fear that I might introduce inaccuracies like that. I probably should have been studying for mid-year exams instead of editing wikipedia on that day anyway. :)

Would you be able to check out the article elevator consultant, and perhaps expand it, correct it, add good external links ETC. I only recently discovered it, and it hasn't received a major edit since February 2005. Fifteen months is far too long to have an article go unnoticed like that. Graham talk 10:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Elevator News Stories?

Should someone start a new section in the article documenting some recent elevator accidents etc,.?

For example, elevators made by Schindler KK killed a kid in Japan when it started ascending with the doors open. Gsblo

-- Japan's is investigating into Schindler??? Thats weird, I'm sure the mechanic who took care of the elevator had something to do with it. I've have crazy stories of elevators trying to kill me because some fool jumped out a safety circuit. [jpalnow]

--- Yeah they are. They've raided their Japanese offices and seized documents. They are also sending people over to Switzerland to investigate, and "voluntarily" questioning Swiss execs going to Japan. They think its not a maintenance problem but a problem in the design, and all of the experts I know think the same too. The elevator no matter what should not be allowed to move like that with doors open. Gsblo 06:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I amended the article because in some parts it reflects only one point of view.

-- Please sign your name. Thanks! It seems like your edits have shown a more biased view. From the news stories on the Internet, it does not seem that anyone has said that Schindler is fully cooperating with the investigation apart from the company itself. When accidents of the same nature happen all around the world and all originate from the same company's products, i'm a bit surprised you're not questioning this. I work in the industry and for the past week, this topic has been discussed all week. No one in the industry believes that this is merely a coincidence. Please show me an incident where an elevator started rising with its doors fully open like the Tokyo case that does not involve Schindler. There are cases where the door is shut and someone gets caught in between, but that is different; the fact that these Schindler cases involve elevators all made in the same couple of years. I am willing to discuss these claims technically if you wish. Schindler is known for its outsourcing of parts in the industry - its how they keep prices low and win public tenders - that's why most of Schindler's Japanese elevators are in public buildings or areas. Walk around a department store and chances are you will see Mitsubishi, Hitachi or Toshiba, or even OTIS. Gsblo 14:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good to have someone in the industry here. I also wonder whether earthquake prone Japan is just going to expose the very worst about any elevator system, and especially those from a foreign maker like Schindler whose elevators might have been designed for and tested in a country where the ground is more stable. And all of this on top of the scandals about architectura and building firms falsifying earthquake proof data for so many buildings in Japan.

There is obviously a lot of rage in Japan about this accident and rightly so. This is reflected in some of the latest contributions such as in "Japan is now acting very angrily against Schindler" or how with no citation someone can say that most of 5000 elevators are faulty in their country. This does not often lead to unbiased writing by such authors, however. Non-Japanese reading this might also keep in mind that Japanese people and the law in some respescts tends to treat the accused and suspects in ways that convicted criminals are treated in other countries. The case of Live Door President Horie is a good example of this. Authorities locked him away in solitary confiinement all winter to intimidate him into giving a confession. Nobody in Japan objects to this. It is normal. I am not insisting that the Japanese change their ways, but merely pointing out this difference for the benefit of readers who may wonder why some outraged contributors may write some of the biased things they do.

Horie and Schindler may well be proved cupable in the end, I would agree. I merely question the notion of allowing verdicts to be posted ahead of their time in an article that purports to be objective or neutral.

Still, I might urge some restraint in edits of these shows of outrage perhaps until things cool down a little. With such outrage about it might only lead to an unproductive edit war. WC June 13, 2006.

-- I don't think it's to do with their inexperience with earthquake mechanisms. Hong Kong does not have earthquakes and yet the Fanling case took place in Hong Kong. I don't understand how earthquakes (or the possibility of earthquakes) can generate quirks with controllers (such as the inability to open doors upon landing). The fact that this story has made headlines in Japan every day since the incident shows that Japanese people are concerned. I saw on TV how the COO of Schindler, told reporters one minute that their elevators "have never resulted in fatalities due to its design", and when reporters ask for fatality records, they go "we do not publish figures on fatalities of our products".

Earthquakes are well known in Japan for knocking air conditioners out of balance so that the water trays don't drain properly and drip all over your room and you have to pay a lot to have some technician to come and fix it. I would not say their impact on elevators is zero. Hong Kong does have extremely high humidity and that can have negative effects on some materials. It isn't just Schindler. No elevator company publishes fatality figures that I know of. It would not be surprising to find that it was the fault of the maintenance staff. Japan is well known for its poor maintenance record in other areas. Such as with nuclear reactors as the one at Tokai Mura, or the current investigations into the fire shutters at that school where inspections were neglected and a boy was nearly killed.

Japan is the only country I know of where building firms were allowed to falsify so much earthquake proof data for all those hotels and condos they built that have been in the news for so many months. Is there any country that compares in having produced so many problems in the area of building saftey? In the news just today it was revealed that 100% of the contracts the goverment awarded for public works were deemed inappropriate in terms of bid rigging and awarding the contracts to companies which gave jobs to retired public executives in order to gain favors. It would not be surprising to find that such public works including public housing were badly designed stucturally and that this could endanger people as well.

I read the newspapers. The story isn't really headline news (in the senes of being one of the stories that gets strong emphasis as one of the top items) everyday--if something new comes up they simply report it, that's all. It is natural for some people who exagerate immediately following the accident, but it is still an exageration, and that needs to pointed out. It is in the news for sure. It is not the top news story anymore. Not everyday. Other bigger stories have pushed that one aside, like Bank of Japan Governer Fukui being involved with the tainted Murikami fund, the World Cup, and the Japanese woman who strangled the 11 year old boy. The story is not dead, by any means, but many other stories get more attention.

According to all the reports, the fault could indeed lie mainly with the Japanese housing corporation an entity of the local goverment (who failed to report many problems in earlier stages which might have lead to the prevention of this terrible accident) as well as Schindler. We do not know the outcome of all the investigations yet. It seems the whole industry including building management and elevator maintenance companies don't think they were doing enough in the past and are now rushing to upgrade the services they provide. I don't think all those people think that only Schindler elevators are vulnerable to such accidents. 218.218.61.59 11:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

--What about the accident of an elevator in the Hospital de Bellvitge, Barcelona (Spain)? On May 21st, 1989, one elevator of that hospital fell from the 7th floor down to the bottom, killing seven people who were inside it. The technicians determined a piece was broken, probably a bolt that subjected the cables, then the safety braking system didn't work as it was supposed, letting the cab fall at 70 Km/h and crash. A witness who heard the crashing told it was like a bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.152.226.238 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Schindler Incident and Length of Article

Everyone, I'd like to suggest that we try and keep contributions short. Wikipedia guidlines encourage this. If you want to make a sister project or another entry for Elevator accidents please feel free to do so. This page is just a general article about elevators after all.

When you add what an article says to this section you need not summarize the whole article in several lines. A summary of one line or slightly more than one line might be sufficient, using bullet points when possible. Readers can get the details from the articles you have cited. On the other hand, a key detail or two is useful like the date or location of the incident just in case the link expires and readers would like to have some indication of where and when the incident happened.218.218.61.59 12:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I've removed the section to Minato Ward 2006 elevator accident. I thought it was notable enough to keep.--Iorek85 02:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Split into lift and elevator

This would be a bad idea, right? Can someone tell JohnnyBGood that on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 11? He said the following:

Why would it be wrong to have a seperate article for "lift"? Infact it would go a long way to countering US bias.

--SPUI (T - C) 10:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Also at Talk:Highway with full control of access and no cross traffic#Suggested way forward. --SPUI (T - C) 19:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It would not only be a bad idea, but - I do believe - against current WP policy, which states that articles should not be split according to POV... and BrE/AmE differences could be regarded as POV. However, although I disagree with splitting the article as it's against WP policy, I do understand his point about "US bias". I am British.. and I fully understand these feelings. Since we currently only have one version of an "English" language Wikipedia, we must share our versions of English. As the policy says, all varieties of English are valid. However, one of my own bones of contention is that although all varieties of English are valid, there are a LOT more articles which are written in American English than there are in any other type of English. This is, I suppose, because the population of the USA is greater than that of any other (primary) English speaking country - therefore there are more American authors than there are anyone else. So it is understandable, but I think that more understanding must be made of other varieties of English.

This article itself states at the beginning: "Outside North America, elevators are known more commonly as lifts." Basically saying that they are known as "elevators" only in ONE primary English-speaking country, while in ALL the others they are known as "lifts". But despite the fact that the minority - only one country - uses the term "elevator", then the article is entitled as such anyway, just because there are more Americans on Wikipedia. I think this needs to be addressed. Just, not by splitting the article :) Thoughts, anyone? EuroSong ^talk 01:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Another example of how Europeans want to run everything. Just leave the article alone, you forget, not just the US refers to them as elevators, but Canada as well.

Hmm so that makes a grand total of lets see now....um two isnt it.....yeah, thats right TWO whole countries that call Lifts "Elevators". How many English speaking countries call them lifts I wonder? Jcuk 88.107.237.73 10:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I respect that Wikipedia encourages "fairly reflecting" all varieties of English, but one should also factor in the total population that uses a word. AFAIK, vertical transporation systems of all types are far more predominant in the United States alone than in any other (primay) English speaking country -- simply given the sheer magnitute of high-rises and supertall buildings for which they are a necessity in major metropolitan areas. To re-title the article to reflect the non-U.S. flavor of the term, would actually be far more misleading to the public at large. Choice of terms for article titles should not be just be about ratio of countries that use them, but ratio of the populace that uses them. The United States leads the world at 67% of the world's native English speaking population, The UK and Canada are only 22%. Hence, well more than half of English first-language speakers understand the term "elevator" over "lift". --Rkrause 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotations needed

Sources/quotations needed for lift accidents. --Akral 21:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Article rename?

"Outside North America, elevators are known more commonly as lifts". If this is the case shouldn't the article be moved to Lift (Transport) and the sentence read - "In North America lifts are known more commonly as elevators"--Mcginnly | Natter 19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Normally I don't bother with this kind of discussion. But this is different:

• With articles like behavior, changing to behaviour would be against WP rules - it's only a spelling difference
• With elevator, however, I think another rule applies: WP:NC(CN). The most common name should be used for an article, and the article clearly states that elevator is only used in N.America, thus being the less common variant. MrTroy 13:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with an article renaming. In fact, 'elevators' are not only called lifts in all other english-speaking countries, but is also common in other languages, an example being German, in which 'Lift' is just as accepted as 'Aufzug'.

WP:ENGVAR: "Stay with established spelling", "Follow the dialect of the first contributor", and WP:NC(CN): "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". Compare the number of significant terms with distinct, non-derivative meaning on Lift (4) and Elevator (disambiguation) (2). The article should stay where it is. -- Exitmoose 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There are many entries on both disambiguation pages, and Lift is used the world over - Elevator is not. You might as well say that we should rename the article Aufzug - it wouldn't clash with anything, but it also wouldn't help most of the world who aren't using the German word for the device; it being about as helpful to 90% of the world as using the term 'elevator'. --01:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)81.140.76.57 (talk)

The inventor of the elevator, being an African-American, called it an elevator. If some tip top ruddy cheeky bloke from England decided to call it a "lift" and it caught on elsewhere for some unfathomable reason, I think that's beneath the concern of this article. Cheers, like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.116.179 (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The inventor of the elevator was not African-American. 76.167.156.93 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. There are many inventions where the inventor's name for it never caught on. --81.140.76.57 (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do Brits insists on using their spelling with every word...Here it is... Elavator is the most common term with natual english speaker as America and Canada with a total Pop of around 340 million say that, UK,Australia,NZ and the other ones do not make up near that amount. More i importantly, an AMERICAN invented it so we should let him decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So why don't we let for example the Chinese name the fireworks for every one else? Or how about the Danes name the telephone their way? Or let the French make the name up for eveyone in the case of the hot balloon? No, the country where the invention was made is compleatly irrelevant with the name of the object. It is the language that matters (British English, for those that do not know, comes from England) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.136.121 (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

British but I prefer elevator over lift. Lift is used more as an everyday word whereas elevator is used in formal documents and signs for example. Also every British person knows that a lift is also called an elevator but there are some Americans who don't know this. It also seems that the inventor of the modern elevator was American and he used the name elevator. Leave the article name as it is but editors should feel free to use whichever term they wish while editing the article as only a moron would get confused - of course don't go reverting someone else's use of the word 'lift' or 'elevator' and replacing it with your prefered word.--217.203.144.11 (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Skylobby history incorrect

According to the article:

The former World Trade Center's twin towers were the first supertall buildings to use skylobbies, located on the 44th and 78th floors of each tower.

This is incorrect and seems to be an ongoing falsehood. The first installation of a skylobby elevator system was actually for the John Hancock Center (Chicago, IL) which was completed well prior to the World Trade Center. This is confirmed on the Otis Elevator Company site.

--Rkrause 00:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed this by removing the reference to being the first towers to use skylobbies from the image caption. Graham87 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also fixed it in sky lobby and World Trade Center; also see talk:Sky lobby. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Graham87 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Is an inventor's race really relevant?

The article states: "In October 11, 1887 Alexander Miles, an African American inventor, patented a method". Is the fact that he was African American really relevant? Davez621 16:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say not! --Esun 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont think so too--Pasbeat 05:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Number of major elevator companies

How many major elevator companies exist today? --84.61.77.164 13:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

-- Otis(unitec), Schlinder Elevator Group, Kone Elevator/Escalators, ThyssenKrupp Elevator, Mitsubishi Elevator, Fujitec Lifts.

The Elevator consultant article

The Elevator consultant article is almost 2 years old and has no sources, although it has been spam-bait off and on for various consulting firms. I became familiar with it doing some spam cleanup. Can some of the elevator-knowledgeable editors that maintain the main Elevator article take a look at this one? Perhaps it should be merged into this or another article or maybe it can be improved as a standalone article. Thanks! --A. B. ^(talk) 02:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

could you please let me know world top ten elevator manufacturer as s serial basis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.18.231.11 (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Safety

Is there any statistics which distinguishes between: Persons Injured per km traveled vs Persons trapped inside per km traveled.

Compared to car or aeroplane? Arnero 06:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What about the accident of an elevator in the Hospital de Bellvitge, Barcelona (Spain)? On May 21st, 1989, one elevator of that hospital fell from the 7th floor down to the bottom, killing seven people who were inside it. The technicians determined a piece was broken, probably a bolt that subjected the cables, then the safety braking system didn't work as it was supposed, letting the cab fall at 70 Km/h and crash. A witness who heard the crashing told it was like a bomb.

Photo request

I've seen a belt elevator in a parking garage before, and they are nifty. It would be cool to have a picture in the article. -- Beland 17:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The correct date of Otis' presentation of his safety device is 1854, not 53. In 1853 he just founded the company. This is also reported in Otis' own publications. (Printed ones, on some local sections of Otis' homepage it is also incorrect, e. g. Austria)

Furthermore the safety device presented in 1854 is not similar to the ones used today at all. It didn't use an overspeed governor so it didn't stop an overspeeding elevator - the device simply arrested the car to the toothed guide rail in case the cable would brake. (In fact Otis didn't invent what he presented - the same device was in use in European mines for several years.)

The "first elevator" installed to the Haughwout building is claimed by Otis to be the first passenger elevator. Magazines from that time don't mention this elevator at all - it was Otis competitor Mr. Otis Tufts, who installed an elevator called the "vertical railway" to the 5th avenue hotel in manhattan back in 1859. This elevator was mentioned in the newspapers (e. g. Harper's monthly magazine Vol. LXIV, dated december 1882 writing on the history of the elevator)while Otis' name wasn't mentioned at all. In the beginning of the industry Otis was not that famous and known - in 1855 people would have thought Tufts could become whaz Otis today is.

I have read a comment (not seen actual documentation from the time) that the elevator in the Haughwout was removed after a few years due to lack of public acceptance (Andreas Bernard - Die Geschichte des Fahrstuhls, Fischer, Germany - a dissertation)

I have read lots of historical writings and I'm sure that what people believe to be the history of the elevator is more or less influenced by today's market leader - the Otis Elevator Company. People tend to copy previous writings - a scientific analysis needs to be done. (A very good start has been made by Lee E. Gray's history of the passenger elevator in the 19th century. - that would require additional analysis of the significant european contributions and would need to be continued to the present.)

Jan - Germany (sorry for bad English)

Copyvio Problems

I'm unable to determine who contributed it, but the following sentence read very strangely to me:

This apparent simplicity belies a complex and sophisticated mechanical, electrical and microelectronic system.

A quick Google search reveals that it was quite probably taken from this PDF.

It seems astronomically improbable that this exact combination of words would be strung together by chance, although it is possible that the other site copied Wikipedia. However, even if that is the case, I still find the wording of that sentence to be inconsistent with the tone Wikipedia takes. Therefore, I have removed the sentence. Fogster (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This page's second paragraph is a verbatim copy of the paragraph in question. I find it more likely that this site has copied Wikipedia than vice versa, but wanted to mention it here for sake of completeness. Fogster (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

size

What are the dimensions of a normal elevator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.229.64 (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How long is a piece of string? Also, see the talk page guidelines. _TalkIslander 10:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving Wall

I could not see any reference to 'Moving Wall' elevators. These were common on Continental Europe (although not recently in the UK) and only have doors on the outside, from the inside of the car you can see the wall (containing all the doors) move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.233.63 (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Use the New Yorker's April 2008 Elevator article!

There's a nice article in The New Yorker about the history and construction of elevators (circling around the story of Nicholas White who was trapped in one for 41 hours). It might have some good info for this article. See:

Paumgarten, Nick. "Up and Then Down: The lives of elevators." The New Yorker April 21, 2008.

— Catherine\^talk 17:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just read it and it's excellent. Remember, the New Yorker owes its prestige partly to its old-fashioned habit of employing "fact checkers" to go through the articles. What you read in the New Yorker has had to pass muster, the way facts in a University Press book have to.Profhum (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dakota's elevators-- any information?

I'm surprised that the New Yorker story missed the most notorious elevators in New York: those of the historic Dakota building, famous from Rosemary's Baby, where John Lennon, Lauren Bacall, Leonard Bernstein and others lived. (And where Lennon died.) I can't afford the place but from 1977-81 I worked for a movie producer who lived there. The ancient hydraulic elevators were, building lore had it, the originals, designed by Stanford White, and were protected. I ask you experts-- could that have been true? You heard water leaking and running constantly when you were in the one on the Park side. When you got in water cascaded on the cab top. And slow? I would walk up the flights of stairs rather than stand for long minutes in the small dark well beneath the stairs, waiting, pent up with a miserable Yoko Ono, desperate for some privacy. Profhum (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dumbwaiter needs its own article

While dumbwaiters are a kind of elevator, they are more different than they are similar to other elevators discussed in this article. E.g., these sections don't apply to dumbwaiters: "Elevator safety", "Passenger service", "Entrapment", "Types of elevator hoist mechanisms", "Controlling elevators", etc. The two are quite different beasts.

The article needs expansion and qualification -- with more material that generally doesn't apply to other elevators -- another reason for a separate article. ASME A17.1 may be relevant, but for quite recent new construction. A friend's house in the US (not a Victorian) had a dumbwaiter. It hadn't passed inspection in decades -- if ever -- and also -- unsurprisingly -- children played on it -- if it was slightly bigger, they would have done it all the time! (Contrary to what the article says about "passengers never being allowed".) The speculation about the use in fiction as a metaphorical division between "upstairs" and "downstairs" seems Original Research. Dumbwaiters have very practical purposes -- which are to avoid hand-carrying heavy, full hot dishes up stairs! and to avoid breakage. It's a effective use of space, compared to a staircase for that purpose.

(They can also be used as a "speaking tube" to tell communicate with people at the other end what's needed.)

Since 4/5ths of this article references features that are not used in dumbwaiters, and since the dumbwaiter article would need a fair amount of qualification and expansion itself -- much of which doesn't apply to the broader technical workings of other elevators -- a different article would be more convenient and readable. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea. I have a suggestion, since you know so much about dumbwaiters why don't you make that article? Just a suggestion... TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good. 'Twill be done, unless there are other objections. I just found better references than I was hoping for, including a legal case describing complaints about running a dumbwaiter in 1916. There's considerable text, and vis-a-vis above comments, they're unrelated to other kinds of elevators. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Go for it, and I'm sure others will be aware of the article and help you with it. I can't object anything you just pointed out, I mean you're so right. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You know what? It looks very good, I personally like it. Dumbwaiters also looks like an interesting subject, might watch the page one day, but not now. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying, to some degree, to match the tone of this Elevator article. An interesting thing I learned in the writing process was that Zelda Fitzgerald was killed in a fire that came through a dumbwaiter shaft. Then I started reconsidering the dumbwaiter codes emphasizing "fire doors" and "fire walls". You're right, there's more to this subject, but at least for that, the best person might be a combination fireman and historian. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Added relevant template, alerting other editors and other readers to existence of this discussion; see also Dumbwaiter (elevator). --NYScholar (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Template added

[....Added talkheader, which says same thing.] --NYScholar (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)]

Sociology of elevators

Elevators are the subject of a lot of sociological comment (notably by comedians), particularly regarding the phenomenon whereby people tend to stand silently and look directly towards the doors when they are standing in an elevator. If ever I get bored one day I might do a bit of research to see if there have been any academic papers published on this, or I might include references to elevators by comedians. The elevator paradox would fit nicely into a section on elevators and society, as would comments on the increasing trend towards elevators rather than stairs for equity reasons. 58.165.128.6 (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Republic of China?

Country	Number of elevators installed
Italy	850,000
USA	700,000
Republic of China	610,000

Isn't it supposed to be the People's Republic of China? Because Taiwan doesn't have that number of elevators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fondestgreetings (talk • contribs) 04:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

corrected. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Elevator accidents

This list contained only recent elevator accidents, none of them particular noteworthy (either one dead victim, sometimes not even that). One could surely include elevator accidents, but they most be noteworthy, and one should also avoid a list that is biased towards more recent accidents. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Noteworthy might be an accident that embodied a pervasive design fault, and which was responsible for design changes. Or an accident that changed the way the public perceived elevator risk. Or which prompted legislation. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There's an infamous epitaph that reads: "Here lies John Doe. He looked up the shaft to see if the elevator was coming. It was." WHPratt (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Elevator vs. Freight lift requirements

After performing some research, it seems to be difficult to find information that accurately outlines requirements for determining whether you have a freight lift, or require the certification and annual inspection of an elevator (In the US). After numerous discussions with construction contractors, inspectors and material handindling companies, it seems that all is required is: A sign mentioning that no passengers are allowed and no controls on the inside of the car.

Can someone please clarify and support with documentation? TP 1940 7Jan09 (TX) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.64.215 (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below and WP:ENGVAR. Dekimasuよ! 13:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

---

• Elevator → Lift (transport) — Elevator is (as stated in the article) a north American term, not used elsewhere in the world. Hence it should be changed to Lift as this is . --81.140.76.57 (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The majority of English speakers being in North America, no move. Grsz¹¹_Review 23:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• "...The term used by the majority of English speaking countries." This is not how issues of differences are normally decided. See WP:ENGVAR for tips. — AjaxSmack 01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this name is not disambiguated 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose all such moves, per WP:ENGVAR. Leave well enough alone, and create a redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The name is fine, unless you want to rename it to plungebox. I would be cool with that.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the reasons above, but also the word elevator is highly distinctive, whereas the word lift has many different common meanings, and would be constantly confused with other kinds of lifting. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Agricultural elevators

OK, I'm English. This article describes what I'd call a lift. An elevator is what would be used on a farm to raise sacks/straw/etc to a higher level from the ground. Is there an article on Wikipedia covering these as linking to this article would be misleading. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• grain elevator IMHO that's a more specific title describing your agricultural vehicle. If elevator is not what you are used to looking for, there are disambiguation pages provided for that. :-) The term is also used for a vertical control surface on aircraft that only ring a bell to aviators. For most other people....status quo. :) Regards, Petershen1984 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Machine-room less elevator

I added this section because it is a fairly new concept. Any suggestions? Petershen1984 (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems somewhat irrelavant, with all the facts going in, but I'm not an expert on elevators. 69.136.72.16 (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Knizia elevators

Are there any Knizia elevators in Germany? --88.77.234.198 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Inclinator Luxor Las Vegas

The guest rooms are situated on the outer walls of the pyramid and are reached by riding in so-called "inclinators" that travel along the inner surface of the pyramid at a 39-degree angle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_Las_Vegas

Wikipedia editors have given us a way to use the word inclinator. I suggest we remove this sentence, 'Although people refer to this "inclined elevator" as an inclinator, this is incorrect.'

I believe we should replace it with, 'The guest rooms are situated on the outer walls of the pyramid and are reached by riding in so-called "inclinators" that travel along the inner surface of the pyramid at a 39-degree angle.' --Sponsion (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A related idea would be the cars in the St Louis Arch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.188.65 (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Confusable elevator companies

Are there any elevator companies which can be confused with board game designers? --84.61.167.221 (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there any elevator companies which can be confused with street vehicle manufacturers? --84.62.199.19 (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Point Of View

In many ways this article is among the most "encyclopedic" that I've read on WP. It does suffer, however, from a slight industry point of view with some puffery words that do not add any information. It could do with a good edit from someone outside the industry. Some examples are:

"a vertical transport vehicle that efficiently moves people" - efficient is not defined. Is that kj/m/kg or people/floor/second. How does that compare to stairs (less energy efficient than stairs)? In terms of time efficient they are less efficient in terms of total people per hour than ramps as used in sports stadiums. Perhaps the word quickly would be best. This word is puffery.

"Machine Room-less elevators have become a welcome alternative to the older hydraulic elevator for low to medium rise buildings." - A better choice of words, if there is a citation and depending on the facts, might be, "rapidly adopted," "adopted in several resent notable building," or "lauded in a recent publication."

"For all practical purposes, there are no cases of elevators simply free-falling and killing the passengers inside; of the 20 to 30 elevator-related deaths each year, most of them are maintenance-related - for example, technicians leaning too far into the shaft or getting caught between moving parts,[8] and most of the rest are attributed to easily avoidable accidents, such as people stepping blindly through doors that open into empty shafts or being strangled by scarves caught in the doors" - Besides the cases that contradict this on this discussion page, "easily avoidable accidents" is just papering over some basic design flaws. These are pure PR words from an industry and do not belong in a WP article.

Please, to be credible scrub your language of puffery and corporate PR speak. It has no place in a WP article and degrades the high quality of the rest of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.188.65 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

London Underground photo caption

"[...] The lift on the right shows its doors on either side of the car to serve different floors." Now, I'm not entirely familiar with each and every lift on the tube, but most of them (in the 'small footprint' stations, where they are the primary movers and aren't merely a substitute for stairways/escalators for wheelchairs/etc) serve just two levels, i.e. street level and the underground (or elevated, especially on the DLR) platform level. And in these cases, the reason for the doors at each end is to open the 'exit' and let arriving passengers flow out of the 'back' before opening the 'entrance' to let departing passengers in at the 'front'. Meaning a smoother transition, and no barging of one flow of travellers against another. The exit end is often (though not necessarily) the same at both served levels, backed up by signage/barrier configurations creating 'pedestrian one-way systems', so there's an agreeably fair FIFO/LILO system of conveyance.

So. Having noticed this when jumping here randomly, how about a rewording? "The lift on the right shows doors at each end, opened sequentially to allow egress of arrivals before the ingress of departees."..? Or "...of those arriving at the floor, before the ingress of those intending to depart.", if you prefer it a bit longer? (Assignment of Arrival/Departure is arguable, but I think I've gotten in the most understood way round. :) 195.137.54.23 (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

automotive lift

I feel like "automotive lift" should have it's own page. I don't know how to use wikipedia. groping in the dark here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.211.169 (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

elevator diagram

For an excellent public domain diagram of how an elevator works, see page 27 of the January 1921 issue of Popular Science. Kaldari (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Water elevator

Water elevators aren't mentioned, these are used in some buildings such as the Ciliwung Recovery Project skyscraper --> http://www.evolo.us/competition/water-purification-skyscraper-in-jakarta/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.227.212 (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Inspection Service Switch

It says in the article that after turning on the inspection switch inside the cab of the elevator, you can control the elevators movements by using the access key switches on the upper most and lowermost floors. How do you control an elevator with a cab inspection switch if there are no access key switches on the uppermost and lowermost floors? Do you control it from the hall station buttons? Or do you control it from inside the elevator? Theansulman (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Elevator air conditioning

Elevator air conditioning does not seem like it needs its own section; the subject is too specialized to belong in the article. Perhaps it should be summarized into another section of the article. Either that, or it could be completely removed. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the level of detail in this section is a little silly. For example this section goes into explicit detail on how to deal with one issue (condensation) in one subsystem (air conditioning) that may or may-not be on any particular elevator. This section should be removed entirely, with a short note in a previous section mentioning that one possible option for elevators is the addition of a air conditioning system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.20.21 (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Residential Elevator

I removed the reference to the first residential elevator being created by Clarence Conrad Crispen in 1929 despite reference to his company's website. I do not know when the first was created, but they were in use before 1929, e.g. Woodrow Wilson used one in his house in D.C. after his presidency before his death in 1924. It was converted from a trunk elevator, but he required it due to his stroke while in office. Quandrii (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Contribution deleted

My contribution was deleted by an automated bot, though it is not in violation of copyright and Wiki link guidelines [info] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewblog (talk • contribs) 23:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

New photo added by User:82.12.0.82

A new photo was added by User:82.12.0.82 to the gallery in the Design section. IMO, this article is over illustrated already, and I have removed several picture additions on that basis. In particular, I have removed several additions by User:Harrihealey02. The new picture, Single_loop_traction.JPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Single_loop_traction.JPG), was uploaded by Harrihealey02 on Sunday, and then added to this article by the IP user on Monday.

While this is actually an image different enough to be interesting, IMO, one of the others should be deleted in its place. Also a mention of the single-loop traction mechanism in the article would be good.

For the moment I'm avoiding deleting one of the other images mainly because I have removed several of Harrihealey02's additions in the past, and because of the perhaps coincidental nature of the addition by the IP user.

I'd appreciate comments on both the addition, and the number of images appropriate to this article. Rwessel (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Gaetano Genovese

A new paragraph describing an Elevator built by Gaetano Genovese was added today. That's fine (he did, in fact, build one), but I have my doubts about the assertion that the safety mechanism is "virtually identical" to Otis' later design. The description (admittedly not very comprehensibly written), does not seem to indicate that (wooden beams pressed into "jaggies" in iron plates vs. knurled rollers). Without a more accessible reference, it's hard not to say that this feels a bit like a WP:OR or WP:FRINGE problem. Comments? Rwessel (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

semi-protection

I note that most of the recent edit history of this article is taken up by anonymous users edit warring about the use of "lift" or "elevator", so I've semi-protected it for a week. Hopefully they will get the message to discuss things first. Thryduulf (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

--If the article is in American English, and consistently talks about elevators, why would there be one thing labelled differently? If a scone is made in Brooklyn, does it suddenly become an 'English savory dough ball?' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS:ENGVAR covers this in some depth. I'm not sure why this needs debating further here. Fraggle81 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does, and you have not said why you keep reverting good-faith attempts to make the article conform to that guideline. You run off asking for protection to settle the dispute instead of bringing it to talk as the IP editor had suggested previously to another reverter. Dicklyon (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently. The exceptions are:

   quotations (do not alter the quotation to match the variety used in the main text; but see typographic conformity, below);
   proper names (use the original spelling, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force);
   titles of works such as books, films, or songs (use the spelling of the edition consulted); and
   explicit comparisons of varieties of English

So, Since it's in an article consistently using one word, why should it be changed? According to the link you just gave, it should be elevator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Except its not - Scissor lift? Fraggle81 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"Scissor lift" is a common term in American English; "scissor elevator" is almost never used.

I've attempted to make the lead caption more explicitly conform to guidelines via the clause "explicit comparisons of varieties of English". Is this OK with you? Dicklyon (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• IMO lift is most appropriate, given the source of the picture. If we really decided that's confusing (although I really don't think so) lift (elevator) would be appropriate. The current "elevators (labeled 'lifts', since they are in England)" while a valiant attempt to sidestep the issue, is really clumsy, and should definitely not be retained. Rwessel (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you can reconcile your recommendation with WP:ARTCON, which is the only relevant guideline I see here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You have to read between the lines a bit, but I think the situation straddles the quotation and proper name exceptions. Rwessel (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean treating "Lift 1" as a proper name and quoting it? Seems like quite a stretch, as rationales go. Dicklyon (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the edit warring has resumed I've semi-protected the page for a further month. I personally don't care whether the picture is captioned "lift" or "elevator" but consensus needs to be established here before the status quo ("lift") is changed (and it would be inappropriate for me to opine here as I am WP:INVOLVED as an administrator). I will advertise this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of style. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thryduulf, this seems like an odd use of semi-protection, biasing an ongoing content dispute between one user with an account and one without. The IP long ago asked Fraggle81 to explain on talk why he wanted to go against WP:ENGVAR; this is not a random vandal, but an editor trying to edit style according to guidelines. Whether you agree with him or not, semi-protection is not an appropriate response here. Warn them both; and fully protect if warranted by ongoing edit warring. I doubt that it will go there; hopefully Fraggle81 will read the guideline and agree. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner, but I have only just seen this. I saw an IP user repeatedly making a change against consensus and a logged-in user repeatedly reverting to the consensus and asking the IP user to discuss on the talk page. Neither are correct to continue reverting, but as semi-protection suffices to stop the edit warring I chose to apply that in accordance with the principle to apply the least restrictive protection necessary. I explicitly note above I do not have an opinion on which should be used, but the discussion above shows that neither option is unambiguously supported or prohibited by ENGVAR. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There was certainly never a consensus. Before the cleanup efforts of the IP user, the article was about 12% "lift" and the rest mostly in American English. His cleanup was appropriate in light of ENGVAR. The rationale of Fraggle81 and one other guy in trying to draw a line to stop that cleanup at one figure caption certainly can't be called a "consensus", and the IP user was the first to invite a reverter to discuss what the problem was. Anyway, we're discussing now; I would suggest removing the semi-protection, as there's no evidence of the sort of problem for which that is an appropriate solution. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw edit warring over the picture caption. The status quo ante was "lift" and given that the bold change was reverted, it needs a consensus to change it. If you look at the page history you will see that when the semi-protection expired the first time the edit war resumed in less than 24 hours. I'm therefore not going to remove the semi-protection now until there is a clear consensus here as to what the usage should be (I'm not certain the discussion has concluded at the moment) and/or there is a consensus that the semi-protection is no longer needed (you are the only person who has commented on the protection). Of course any other uninvolved administrator can remove the protection too when they believe it to be no longer needed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

One possible solution would be to replace the picture of "lifts" with an equivalent picture of an "elevator", perhaps from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Elevators_in_the_United_States (or one of the other countries), that does not have the word "Lift" on it. Elevators are fairly common - if there's no suitable picture (eg showing the buttons), some one could probably easily just take a photo for the purpose. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I note that the article establishes (by using a parenthetical in the opening sentence) that an "Elevator" is called a "Lift" in the UK... ie that these are simply two different words for the same thing. Given this, we have several options. We could...

• Neutralize the captions - continue to use parenthetical clarification in the image captions... as in: "this is an image of the inside of a typical Elevator (Lift)"
• Neutralize the pictures... by swapping in pictures of that avoid including text.
• Balance the images... Alternate between images of "lifts" and images of "elevators" (labeled appropriately)
• Trust in the intelligence of our readers... accept that, since the article does clearly establish that "elevator" and "lift" are two words for the same thing, readers will not be confused by an image of a "lift" being captioned with the word "elevator" (or vice versa).

Personally, I like the last option best. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I had edited it to 'elevator (lifts)' in the caption, and was subsequently warned for vandalism, etc. I think that's a perfectly reasonable caption for it. I do trust in the readers, but why confuse them more than needed. What about people learning about this for the first time (the proverbial five year old on an iPad)? How do they benefit from a confusing caption? It is slightly annoying that IP editors are treated as second-class citizens while editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

On the same day that Blueboar made the observation [almost] immediately above, I noted that the opening sentence of the article currently does the exact opposite of that observation. But that isn't relevant to the determination of the correct resolution of the edit-war issue at hand. The bulleted list of proposed options in the second preceding paragraph obviously reflect a common sense approach, and are thus a laudable peace effort by Blueboar. But Wikipedia guidelines don't permit any of those four options to be the resolution of this edit-war issue.

Considering that WP:ENGVAR isn't itself the primary source for our solution, but only provides a framework container for possible solutions. These are the style guide factors that lead to determination of the resolution:

• The absence of WP:COMMONALITY. There is no alternative term in universal use (unlike escalator). Vertical Conveyances only convey awkwardness.
• The applicability of WP:ARTCON (absence of exceptions). Each of the exceptions are very unlikely to make an appearance in this article, so following the instructions in WP:ARTCON (Article Consistency), this article should consistently use one particular variety of English.
• The absence of WP:TIES (Strong National Ties). There is no strong national tie. It is pandemic. Even Wyoming has been described as "jam-packed with elevators" in contrast with the state's overall escalator count of two. The article and its subject aren't inherently tied to just one place.
• The applicability of WP:RETAIN (Retain the Existing Variety). Having determined that only one of the words elevator and lift should be used throughout the article, this style guide determines which of those two words is the one to be used. I didn't look at the whole history, but recent history suggests that the article was previously using elevator not exactly in a consistent manner, but in a clear majority of the appearances. Thus WP:RETAIN (Retain the Existing Variety) states that, the word elevator not lift should continue to be used in the body and title of this article. With just one exception in the opening sentence, existing instances of lift should be changed to elevator. This obviously doesn't apply to different terms like scissor lift.

Additionally, there should be a redirect page for Lift, and there should be a brief specific establishment of equivalence of the variant terms elevator and lift in the opening sentence. This is allowed by the fourth of four exceptions listed at WP:ARTCON. To avoid the current accidental establishment of one variant as inferior, and in an effort to include more than just two countries, please look at the formats successfully used elsewhere, such as in the article Hood.

I will try be very specific on the initial cause of this problem, its solution, and its explanation by way of an obvious but French analogy:

The WP:RETAIN style guideline is not violated by a photograph of a British lift, even if an image of the forbidden word can be identified within the photograph. To see why text identifiable within a photograph is not subjected to the same language rules as article texr, consider the rule that the French Wikipedia must be written in French. A photograph that includes the Hollywood sign in California is not prohibited from French Wikipedia, just because it contains an image of a word that is not in French. A photograph of anything accompanied in this article by the word lift is however a violation of the WP:RETAIN guideline, unless it is listed in the four exceptions of WP:ARTCON. That list of exceptions neither includes the white space between the four list items, nor any conjectures projected onto that white space. The list has four items, not more than four, even if it is lees than five.

I would address some of the individual concerns raised above, but I don't have nearly enough of the tact that would be needed (do the two Relapsers of Logic even know?) Send me a message if you don't see why the word is elevator and you'd like a response in a message. Post below if you are happy with a public exchange.

Many thanks to IP address. I know I usually achieve both, but I do hope this helped more than it hindered. ChrisJBenson (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to do with Blueboar's "Trust in the intelligence of our readers", and use the word elevator in the caption for the sake of article consistency. If it were a picture of a German elevator, with a sign saying Aufzug, would we be having this discussion? Probably not. The Automated teller machine article includes a picture of a Swedish uttagsautomat, abbreviated Uttag, but I doubt anyone would worry about that. If lift is the "English" word for the "Americanese" elevator, we treat it like any other "foreign" word in an image and "translate" it in the caption if necessary. (No offence intended by my use of "Americanese" and "foreign" here - I'm merely trying to illustrate the point of how we handle other images which have words in them that don't match the article.) Mitch Ames (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Somehow Blueboar forgot to comment on the solution that has been in the article since my edit a few days ago. I believe it is fully compliant with guidelines. Is everyone OK with it, or does anyone see a problem with it? Rwessel said he didn't like it, but his proposed alternative was to go back to just "lift" in the caption, which is not a solution at all. Dicklyon (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty straight-forward what MOS (and common sense) says about this. The article is written in American English, it should use elevator. I don't even think the "labeled 'lifts', since they are in England" is necessary; it's already noted that lift is another name for a lift. Jimp 09:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"(labeled "lifts", since they are in England) " is wordy and unnecessary. Just "A set of elevators in the lower level ..." would be fine. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with these two brief most recent statements above in their entirety, even though I am a lift-user myself. Although it had noble conciliatory intentions, I'd even go so far as to say that "(labeled "lifts", since they are in England)" breaks WP:ARTCON (article consistency). The individual complete sentence containing that phrase includes elevator and lift, so it is unarguably inconsistent. Its phrasing sounds awkward, because it was deliberately artificial to permit inclusion of lift, whose ulterior motive was its conciliatory role. That effort by Dicklyon (talk) was appreciated, unlike this shoddy and wholly inappropriate behaviour directed at an editor whose contribution was correct by a serial abuser who was not. ChrisJBenson (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? serial abuser? I have made the choice to leave this issue alone yet you still throw abuse at me. I asked the advice of an admin and another editor I also and warned the IP who was making a revert over and over again without any consensus which is undoubtedly disruptive. If you think I'm wrong that's fine - I left the community to work things out. You should also question the motives of an editor that tries to have a picture deleted simply because it contains the word lift. I've always done my best to assume good faith, but none is been shown towards me here. I would take a look at your own behaviour ChrisJBenson before criticising that of others. Fraggle81 (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

So having determined that in this article it is an elevator, not a lift, when going up. What are the two words for it going in the opposite direction that we should argue about, now? ChrisJBenson (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The parenthetical there was designed specifically to be compatible with WP:ARTCON's allowance for "explicit comparisons of varieties of English," and to address the concerns of the few editors who felt that just saying "elevator" for what is labeled "lift" in the image would look wrong to some. I'm OK just calling it an elevator, but I was trying to accommodate the concerns of our Brit friends who caused this mess by repeatedly reverting the IP's attempt to do it that way. Dicklyon (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

As a point of order, the nationality of editors is entirely irrelevant here (and most other places on Wikipedia). Please do not associate every editor from Britain with the actions of one person who may or may not be British. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you really do have a bureaucratic mindset! And still haven't undone the semi-protection requested by our Brit friend, even though the consensus has settled in favor of what the IP was doing. Dicklyon (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not find the tone of that comment at all appropriate. While it looks like there might be a consensus, we need to wait a bit longer before being certain the discussion has concluded. A subsequent discussion coming to a consensus that prefers the version of one side of an edit war does not justify or excuse the edit war or the actions of any participant in it.
Anyway, I have asked at WP:AN for an uninvolved administrator to review the semi-protection and the comments of all parties in this discussion (including me).[2] I will not be taking further admin action on this article until at least that feedback is received (whether I take any admin actions after that depends at least in part on what the feedback actually is). Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well the request for feedback didn't generate a flood of the stuff, but there was one comment at AN that basically said the initial protection was good but it is no longer needed and it is clear now that the discussion here has finished, so I'm about to remove the semi-protection. Any admin may revert this if they disagree. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Elevator vs. lift

Seeing the discussion just above, I'd like to remind people of a relevant chunk of a core policy, Wikipedia:Article titles. One of its sections, WP:NATURAL, says If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names...Sometimes, this requires a change in the variety of English used; for instance, Lift is a disambiguation page with no primary topic, so we choose elevator as the name of the lifting device. Please don't seek to change this article's title or American English usage; if you disagree with the current state of things, you'd be better off asking for a change at Wikipedia talk:Article titles or another naming conventions page. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy Vertical People Transporter? Vertical Travelling Urinal? Just throwing some ideas out there... Guy (Help!) 15:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no desire to change the name of the article but I did restore the "stage elevators" section to "stage lifts" because that's what they're most commonly called in US English. Several other articles call them "lifts" for that very reason, and have linked to the "stage lifts" section of this article for quite awhile -- links that were all broken when this section was changed to "stage elevators". Lambtron (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Many problems; Expert (in the subject) needed

The most egregious anomaly with the article as it currently stands is the fact that, in the History section, Industrial era subsection, the 7th paragraph states that Otis' invention has to do with a governor device that “engages knurled roller(s), locking the elevator to its guides should the elevator descend at excessive speed”. That is indeed the way modern elevators work and it provides for a quick stop “but not so abruptly as to cause injury” (as mentioned in the article). But the Otis elevator patent drawing (currently included in the article) shows that the part of the invention that had to do with safety was the use of toothed rails (note: I don't know the technical terms) on each side, into which pegs would latch if the cable holding them back is released, which happens automatically when the cable or chain hoisting the elevator is severed, because they are linked together. Speed has nothing to do with that original mechanism, which obviously meant a totally abrupt stop in case of emergency. But one must remember that Otis was demonstrating a freight elevator that would move quite slowly. The two main references provided in the article regarding Otis' invention (one to windypundit.com and one to newyorker.com) are of the type that (I believe) is not normally accepted in Wikipedia in such circumstances (magazine/newspaper articles or blogs). In any case, they certainly don't demonstrate that Otis' invention was a governor-controlled mechanism; They just imply it.

Other problems:

• The first paragraph of the Design section states that the enclosed space is “called a shaft or sometimes a "hoistway"”, and the last paragraph of the same section refers to “the well”. The Elevator doors section refers to “the shaft way”.
• The Elevator doors section should be named Elevator doors design, because door control mechanisms are explained in the General controls section.
• The sentence “The door is unlocked and opened by a machine sitting on the roof of the car, which also drives the doors that travel with the car”, from the General controls section, should be moved to the Elevator doors design section. But that sentence is contradicted by one in the Elevator safety section (Cable-borne elevators subsection): “[...] accidents, such as people stepping blindly through doors that open into empty shafts”. How can the doors open into an empty shaft if the machine that opens the doors sits on the roof of the car?
• The principle described in the Machine room-less (MRL) elevators section seems to be the same as the one alluded to in the Climbing elevator section. Neither of these sections contains any references.
• In the General controls section, the sentence “Door controls are provided to close immediately or reopen the doors, although the button to close them immediately is often disabled during normal operations, especially on more recent elevators” should be removed because it is unsourced and repeats a notion that is more detailed in the previous bullet.
• In the bullet that starts with “Large buildings with multiple elevators of this type also had an elevator dispatcher stationed in the lobby [...]”, what does “elevators of this type” refer to? And what does “[...] to signal the operator to leave [...]” mean?
• There is a reference to a blog as a source (here); Isn't that inappropriate? At the very least, the sentence “[…] leading to frequent but incorrect reports that the door close button is a placebo button” should be worded “leading to frequent but sometimes incorrect reports […]”.
• In the Emergency power operation section, Traction elevators subsection, the last sentence (“In order to help prevent entrapment [...]”) seems to state the same thing as the first sentence of that same paragraph.

66.130.179.8 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Schindler plates in Chiba

I condensed this discussion that was going on on the article page. But I thought it might be worth keeping some of the text here for easy reference or discussion as to if and how it might be incorporated somewhere in the futrue. Some of the subesections are getting too long perhaps and some of the things written to give background information don't have enough citations ie, they seem to be just someone speaking from his personal knowledge which is good as far as developing an overall picture of things for an ongoing event where it is not possible to get a satsifactory amount of backgroiund information all a¥t once, but something that might belong at first on the discussion page. Also,.If you see something important on TV you might also say when (date) and on what station (NHK or TBS etc.) you saw something.

• Chiba Prefecture, Japan, June 2006 -Similar to Minato Ward incident although with no fatalities also involving Schindler elevator. Incident first occurs on June 1, 2 days before the Minato incident. Investigation reveals no irregularities but same type of accident takes place days later on June 10th. [3]. These elevators are still maintained by Schindler.

Schindler's maintenance sticker was shown on Japanese television several times, along with a security guard that is permanently deployed inside the Chiba elevator. The stickers or plastic plates - a common Chinese/Japanese thing to do is to post a plastic plate of the maintenance firm about 10x5cm on the lobby of the elevator with the emergency number to call if someone is trapped]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elevator. 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/20081211101435/http://continuingeducation.construction.com:80/article.php?L=14&C=220 to http://continuingeducation.construction.com/article.php?L=14&C=220

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Schuyler Wheeler to Elevator. See former article's history for list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It has to be said

This article is one of the most droning piles of disorganized mishmash anywhere on Wikipedia. I love technical subjects like this, and I can hardly read more than a few paragraphs without thinking, "What the hell???" The sections on Elevator air conditioning and Methods of removing condensed water are just two random examples. EEng 07:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Elevator. 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/20101231094241/http://www.elevatorbooks.com/Products/ELEVTRAFFIC/elev-traffic-handbook-theory-and-practice.aspx to http://www.elevatorbooks.com/Products/ELEVTRAFFIC/elev-traffic-handbook-theory-and-practice.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706153000/http://www.imobinews.com.br/index.php/2010/07/09/elevadores-seguem-alta-de-imoveis-e-do-varejo/ to http://www.imobinews.com.br/index.php/2010/07/09/elevadores-seguem-alta-de-imoveis-e-do-varejo/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://continuingeducation.construction.com/article.php?L=14&C=220

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

World statistics

The figures given in the table contradict those given in the following paragraphs. I've tagged the problem and I'll attempt to gather up-to-date statistics and correct the problem when time allows. Gholson (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Are there...

...MINI-ELEVATORS to bring mails, gift, etc out of building? (for example to expedition of Amazon, etc) Thanks

Do you mean a dumbwaiter? - Dohzer (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There should be mention of the dumbwaiter with a wikilink early in the article; in principle they are identical ~D A Patriarche — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.234.42 (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

World Statistics

The figures given in the table contradict those given in the following paragraphs. In particular the table gives the number of elevators installed in China as 4,000,000 but the text gives 610,000. The former assertion has no citenote: the latter has one, but the link is apparently dead.

This topic was originally raised in Dec 2016 but archived in June 2018 here. However, there is still a {{Self-contradictory}} ambox extant in the text: I am reviving the subject here to give the ambox something to link to. Wellset (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

elevator structure diagram

Please add a detailed elevator structure diagram that can be used on Wikipedia in all languages.--58.236.219.64 (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

"Darkness to Light (alubm)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Darkness to Light (alubm) should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Darkness to Light (alubm) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Regards, SONIC678 02:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Australian usage

The article contained the claim that Australian usage is "elevator", quoting a US English learner's dictionary. This is not correct, as both the Macquarie dictionary (for which I can't find a good accessible URL) and the Oxford English Dictionary confirm. If you can find a better URL, please go ahead and use it. Groogle (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Elevators for urban transport

Add more examples of elevators used for urban transport!

Quebec City has urban elevators at the escarpment. Peter Horn User talk 16:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)