Talk:Standseilbahn Linth-Limmern

Proposed merge of Linth–Limmern Power Stations with Standseilbahn Linth-Limmern

Merge as an Alternative to Deletion. Fails notability for stand alone article, but some material will be useful in target.  // Timothy :: talk  23:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• What makes you doubt of its notability? Enhancing999 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• I added it to Funicular #Exceptional examples and expanded the refs. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see obvious notability problems with a funicular railway. Mackensen (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Point seems to be resolved. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Standseilbahn Linth-Limmern was built as the funicular with the highest transport capacity (215 t), to move four transformers 882  m uphill? Source: Seitz, Peter (2017), "Auf Bohren, Biegen und Brechen durch den Berg", Tec21 (in German) (19): 38: "Mit ihrer maximalen Nutzlast von 215 t - dies entspricht fünfeinhalb voll geladenen Sattelzügen - reiht sie sich in die vielen Rekorde des Projekts Linthal 2015 ein: Sie ist die grösste Standseilbahn der Welt für Materialtransport.".
  • Reviewed:

Created by Enhancing999 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Standseilbahn Linth-Limmern; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• New enough and long enough. Nominator confirmed QPQ exempt. AGF on the German-language hook fact in an offline source. Suggesting an ALT0a that might be more idiomatic: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • ALT0a: ... that the Standseilbahn Linth-Limmern funicular railway, built to carry four transformers 882 metres (2893 feet) uphill, has the world's highest transport payload capacity (215 t)?
• Thanks for the review and the improved "ALT0a". Let's use that one. An alternative could be one about the tunnel boring, but the article doesn't cover that yet. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Enhancing999 and Sammi Brie: The problem with ALT0a is that this funicular had the world's highest transport capacity as of 2017 when the article was published. The source doesn't tell us if this is still true as of 2023. Would you be able to tweak the hook a bit to make it more precise (or add a more recent source to verify that this is still true)? (The other thought is that it may not be necessary to say "215 t" in the hook if readers can click on the link and find that fact in the article itself.) Cielquiparle (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• I see your point. The somewhat twisted wording of the initial one avoided that. Let's go with that then, minus the 215 t: ALT0b. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• ALT0b: ... that Standseilbahn Linth-Limmern was built as the funicular with the highest transport capacity, to move four transformers 882 m uphill?

• "With the highest transport capacity" is sort of meaningless though without context. "Highest transport capacity" of what? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'd avoid spelling out "world", so maybe including 215t is preferable. Can we use the initial hook? Enhancing999 (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Enhancing999: ALT0 doesn't sound right in English. I wonder if you are using "highest transport capacity" to mean "maximum transport capacity" – in which case it's better to simply say "maximum transport capacity of 215 t" instead. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I try to state that it's highest value of "maximum transport capacity" in terms of weight. (one could imagine transport capacity being measured in terms of persons or persons/hour or t/hour etc.) Enhancing999 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

"Maximum payload capacity of 215 t" then? Cielquiparle (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I prefer "highest" over "maximum". "Highest maximum capacity" seems redundant and "Maximum maximum capacity" hard to understand. We could switch "transport" to "payload". Enhancing999 (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

But if you say "highest" you have to compare it to something, like "highest payload capacity in the world", whereas "a maximum payload capacity of 215 t" means relative to itself. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You mentioned that before, but I think adding "(215 t)" is sufficient. How would we formulate it if we would just want to state that 215 t is the highest (transport or payload) capacity? That a funicular has a "maximum payload capacity" of some value that allows to move four transformers can be said about any funicular. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• • ALT0c: ... that Standseilbahn Linth-Limmern was built to move four transformers 882 m uphill as the funicular railway with the highest transport payload capacity (215 t)?
    • I'm fine with this (removed an extraneous comma). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)