Talk:Dumbwaiter

Reorganization and addition of citation information

Some of the format still needs further work. I have done some clean up of the article, but more is possible. --NYScholar (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

1) You substantially changed the new article before I'd finished editing it. The changes were either technically incorrect, removed correct sources, or inserted a commercial source. They've been reverted.

2) Correct sources were removed. I quoted Google sources, because that's where I got information. By removing those links, it's much more difficult for other editors to review the material, since they are unlikely to have the hardcopy of the books that are extracted. Also, edits caused the article to violate copyright, since my source in several instances was, in fact, Google Books.

3) Technically incorrect information was added, commercially motivated information from a wnibi.com article which starts "At Stannah we call our product Microlift".

4) Some words that I put into the article came from the previous article, "Elevators". I was simply bringing the work of other editors across.

5) Practically every other phrase in the article comes from a published source. The six references in the article were, in my judgment, already too many for readability, however I felt the technical nature of the article it was split from justified them. There's no reason to question the information. There are no political or social ramifications to the content, and no sources which contradict the information.

6) Adding an extensive Harold Pinter quotation, with uncited, peacock language such as "performed all over the world" is contrary to Wiki style guidelines. Pinter may add insight to the subject of dumbwaiters, but the changes don't quote Pinter, they quote an advertising site reviewing Pinter reviews ( ! ). The same commercial article above makes an unfounded statement that "all the reviews critics seemed unanimous in their impression that dumbwaiter lifts were quaint"; this seems unlikely. The reliability of this source, quoted three times, is suspect, since the article mentions no specific critic or source.

Finally, it occurred to me that someone who was really interested in the subject could have opened the references I supplied, read the couple dozen pages they point to, and ascertained for himself that the Wiki article contents come from printed sources.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

[The above message (content moved here from my talkpage below) was posted on my talk page; it belongs here: a simple link could have been provided on my talk page if the editor (ARB) wanted to alert me, and I do appreciate being alerted, but am, nevertheless, moving it from my talk page. It concerns editing of this article, not me: see WP:AGF. (originally posted: 14:36, August 26, 2008) NYScholar).]

I edited this article in good faith, and my hard work was completed wiped out by this blanket reversion.

I believe that ARB has over-reacted to what, in my view, were sensible edits, with reverting what were edits in keeping with Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines. The organization of the previous version (that I came upon through a Wikipedia link that the above editr (ARB) added to Harold Pinter) and its coherence was extremely weak.

In ref. to point made in comments made above, as quoted from my talk page below: The critic's name was mentioned both in the quotation used and also in the source URL as cited; the site has useful information defining the subject "dumbwaiter (elevator)"; please see WP:OWN for related information re: editing Wikipedia. Thanks. [restoring my signature; was posted earlier. Other editor deleted it in editing my comment.] (originally posted: 14:36, August 26, 2008) NYScholar (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

[Other editor removed duplicate quotation, leaving a space and confusing material; for what the other editor posted on my talk page, see above. I'll find my original date/time stamp in a moment. --NYScholar (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)]

[....] Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)]

(For readability, I've removed the part of my material quoted above that was duplicated).

Ownership isn't the issue. I left the article so that experts could continue working on it, such as those working on the Elevator article from which this came. You've changed the focus so that this article emphasizes simple home and restaurant dumbwaiters -- i.e., the ones that need the least explanation.

You've answered practically none of my concerns, including that the Pinter popular culture quote comes from a commercial site, and names none of the quotes' "unanimous critics". That article names a single critic for a quote that has nothing to do with the Pinter quote added (Which, since it's unsourced peacock opinion doesn't even belong in a "Trivia" section.)

As for requests for citations, one has only to open the references to see many different mechanisms are called "dumbwaiters". High-tech to low-tech, casual home use to life-critical. Listing many, rather than simply saying there are many, would confuse the reader as to what point was being made.

In the section renamed "Overview", you asked for citations for every single sentence, explaining that my text "appear[ed] to be plagiarized". It wasn't. I wrote the sentences to be a foundation, an invitation, for experts to expand the article, with new sections, later.

You made no apologies for starting to make changes to a new article which you could tell was still being edited. (I, on the other hand, had no idea you had started to make changes.) I had about 80 minutes from the time the article was first created to the time you began editing it. You've now been making changes to the article for hours, over days. You can imagine that when you stopped yesterday, I'd imagined you'd finished.

I reverted your changes because, with the exception of a couple phrases, they added no important material, removed the online references I supplied and confused the article. (E.g., if the Elevator article does not need ASME spelled out, why would this?) The editor I was working with in the Elevator Discussion article called my initial article "very good", so it's interesting you feel it necessary to rework it.

By "following citation guidelines", and removing links to specific online pages you've managed it make it more difficult for other editors to consult the original material. But perhaps, over the course of days, you're planning to "gift" interested readers by replacing the original links, such as you have in "References", e.g., "Accessed August 26, 2008"?

It's peculiar to include a detailed quote of a Pinter play including phrases that are so clearly unrelated to the article topic as "The play celebrated its 50th anniversary". Wouldn't that be more appropriate in The Dumb Waiter article?

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you have all of these misconceptions (it appears to me) of what my editing changes tried to accomplish and (I believe) accomplish. I did not alter the "focus" of the article; I simply moved material that already existed in the version that you created to subsections. The lede (lead/opening paragraph) begins with the same sentence as before, and, actually, it applies to more kinds of dumbwaiters than to restaurant dumbwaiters. It is a simple lede; the rest of what you supplied is simply moved into the subsections. Your original formatting of citations was unclear and not proper format. Some of your original statements are still not clearly documented ("sourced") because I do not know where you took them from; to avoid appearance of plagiarism, one needs to cite sources for all statements taken from sources or dependent on sources (even if paraphrased); if not paraphrasing, quotation marks are needed. I've provided the source citation templates in a manner that enables one to use them more than once, with coding "ref name=..." for that purpose. I think that you and other editors can work within this structure. I've used both notes/footnotes and references sections so that one can see what sources you have used easily and can add to them as needed or helpful. I've used "full citations" format. There is no reason that "dumbwaiter (elevator)" had to follow the format for "elevator" if there are problems in source citations format from moving that material from the elevator article to create this one. Since you linked "dumbwaiter" to this article in Harold Pinter, the article on "dumbwaiter" needs to be clear to all readers of Wikipedia, not just to people interested in kinds of elevators. I've provided additional Wikified links as well, which enable readers of various interests to know what is being referred to throughout. I suggest that you might want to clear up any misinformation that confusions of what sources you were citing throughout might have resulted in. The confusions come from the unclear or missing source citations. It is up to creators of articles to provide source citations that are clear, reliable, and verifiable by all readers. The burden is on the editor, not the reader, to provide clear sources; readers are not expected to read entire articles to find material being taken from them. Taking material from sources without providing citations results in appearance of plagiarism and potential WP:Copyvios. --NYScholar (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to provide page references for the material taken from book previews appearing in Google Books, so that they are proper source citations. Providing links to Google Books is not sufficiently identifying what page you took the material from. I've converted the source citations to proper bibliographical format for books and articles. The Google preview is just there for verification purposes; you still need to check and add proper page references; using "pages=" and the numbers in a citation template or just adding the page references manually to the notes will indicate from which pages the material comes. It is possible to create a separate citation template for each page reference if needed. Right now, I don't have time to hunt down which pages which parts of the material you added comes from. If you can construct clearer citations, these problems will be resolved. --NYScholar (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing with you. You started editing the article I created even before I finished it. You are a new editor, and you are making a lot of mistakes. You seem to think that citing some Wiki guideline automatically makes you right -- the problem is, you quite obviously don't know (or are ignoring) some of the more common rules and guidelines.

It doesn't matter whether you have a "hunch" something is plagiarism. I don't have to cite every statement about a subject you apparently know nothing about! You acting on "feeling" about a subject you know nothing about is worse than useless. If your claims about "proper" citations were absolute, half the quotations in Wikipedia would be "wrong".

You would be well-advised to make minor edits until you become more experienced. Consider the spirit of WP:CONTEXT, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:SUMMARY. In some cases I can point to places where you have made unqualified, non-negotiable, editing errors. Also, replacing three dots with the ellipsis character (which you have, incidentally, used incorrectly) has the effect on some readers' computers of placing an unreadable character in the sentence.

Also, please conglomerate dozens of your minor changes, instead of leaving an edit history that spans pages and will be difficult for future editors to deal with.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done the best I can, given the problems that previously existed throughout the format of this article. It is very difficult work, and I would greatly appreciate more sensitivity to the amount of time it has taken to fix the problems. I use preview mode, but this is very detailed work, and previous "editing conflicts" have led to loss of earlier work. I save frequently to avoid those conflicts and the loss of previous changes. --NYScholar (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, I am hardly an "inexperienced" editor; I've worked here for several years; please see my user page. Please avoid making personal digs. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Came back to say also that I do appreciate all the hard work that the editor who created this article (ARB) did originally. I just worked on re-formatting of citations more consistently (prevailing citation format now is citation templates for notes, with accompanying References sec. [bibliog. format]) and reorganization of the material ARB provided initially to strengthen its documentation and coherence. I developed the cultural reference section further with verifiable reliable sources, and I addeded templates for missing citations throughout and a template re: that problem at beg. of article so that others might try to provide further documentation. --NYScholar (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Some months later NYScholar was permanently banned. Quote, "NYScholar has exhausted the community's patience", and "Unfortunately, NYScholar has been resisting all efforts by editors for over a year to change to a simpler and more WP conventional reference style". [1]. I stand by my original points 1-6, above. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Split from larger article?

Was there ever a proposal to split this material from article Elevator? I haven't checked yet; but I'll look later, to see if there were comments on such a proposal. See WP:Split and WP:Merge for related guidelines. I or another editor may try to construct a template that indicates for each article the split situtation, so that the history of creation of the article is clear immediately. --NYScholar (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Added both the template to main article Elevator and this article "Dumbwaiter (elevator)" to the disambiguation page for the original main article after checking Talk:Elevator. --NYScholar (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson Encyclopedia

This is another "Wiki", according to its Website, and it is not permissible as a source in a Wikipedia article. Here is the material removed (visible in preview mode); also removing entry to this item from the References and Resources section(s): (see in preview mode here):

NYScholar (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Who first referred to the device as a "dumb waiter"? I assume it is because it brings food and does not talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.54.116 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

History

The article says that the dumbwaiter was invented in the late 19th century but also asserts that Thomas Jefferson, who died in 1826, used them. Which is it?Bill (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I found "dumbwaiter" in English-language books going back to the early 1700s: Philemon to Hydaspes; Relating a Second Conversation with Hortensius (1937, page 89), A True and Exact Particular and Inventory of All and Singular the Estate and Effects Whatsoever, of Thomas Warren (1732, page 32), A catalogue of the particulars of the dwelling house (1740, page 24), The Gentleman's Magazine (1732, page 701), Select epigrams (Martial) (1755, page 25), etc.. Since rope is obvious, critical element, dumbwaiters could be quite ancient (e.g., Roman?) – and certainly show up in French books as mont-plats two centuries earliere, e.g., Les Oeuvres Morales et meslees de Plutarque (1572, page 113) – and here is a book in German that old, too: The XVIth Century: A Large Collection of Valuable Books (1520, page 49). Just takes some research - Aboudaqn (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then what is the basis for the statement in the article about George Cannon as the inventor? It sounds like that is a mistake, perhaps due to confusion of the invention of the dumbwaiter and the first patent on one.Bill (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

"Dumbwaiter" vs "Dumb waiter"

I've never encountered the term 'dumbwaiter' in British English, it's always two words (hence the Harold Pinter play.) I suspect this is a WP:ENGVAR issue, but the article should acknowledge it, which it doesn't at the moment. --Ef80 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There's a reason for the semantic distinction which may, depending on one's experience with wait staff, be obvious. – AndyFielding (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Pop culture

Under the pop culture there's no mention of the animated show "Archer" even though there are MANY dumbwaiter references, including a running gag of the protagonist having a dumbwaiter that goes side to side in his one floor penthouse 98.101.221.186 (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

So add one, whydoncha? 🤷‍♂️ – AndyFielding (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"Main shot"?

In Zathura: A Space Adventure (2005), there is a dumbwaiter in the main shot of the film.

"Main shot"? That's not a term I know, and I've been around movies most of my life. The opening shot? The poster image? Let's be specific, shall we? Millions of WP readers are depending on us. Okay, we've met our deadline and I've had too much ☕ , but still. – AndyFielding (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Three types of modern DWs

According to the UK's Tower Lifts, there are three types of modern dumbwaiters:

• Window type
• Floor type
• Goods lift

The page I've linked to describes them. Can we include any of that info without setting off plagiarism alarms? (Ha—lifts, alarms…) – AndyFielding (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)