User talk:Steve Morgan

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Steve Morgan!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator (find an active one) on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. If you're a Wikipedian, you might find Commons:For Wikipedians useful.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Simply mark it like this: {{rename|the_new_name|numeric_reason_for_renaming}} and wait for an administrator or filemover to rename it. Do you want to have your picture removed, for other reasons? Simply tag it as {{speedy|reason for deletion}}. For more information read the full deletion guidelines.
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Thank you!

Thank you for the information you added.. [1] Best regards --Ankara (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Streetcars

Category:Streetcars in Seattle (historic): Good distinction, and I'm glad you drew a clean line defining what is "historic". - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad you agree, and it was nice of you to take a moment to say so. Steve Morgan (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

You moved File:Bombardier_streetcar_in_Portland,_Oregon.jpg from Category:Bombardier streetcars to Category:Bombardier trams.

Are you aware of a reason why Category:Bombardier streetcars was deleted?

Are you aware of a discussion of whether Category:Bombardier streetcars should be deleted?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Category:Bombardier streetcars does not exist, and the deletion log shows that it never did exist; it was not deleted. "Trams" is simply the British English word for Streetcars (and British English is the version of English learned as a second language by people all over Europe and also spoken in Australia, etc.), so the two are synonyms. Whoever created the category in the first place (the only existing category on the subject, Category:Bombardier trams) probably either is from some place other than the U.S. or Canada or was just trying to name the category in a way that used terminology parallel to most of the other such categories (for other makes of streetcar/tram). Personally, I don't know of anyone who considers Portland's Bombardier cars to be "streetcars"; they are light rail cars, which are distinctly different from streetcars—and Portland has both light rail and modern streetcars, as does Seattle now. However, I've noticed the British in recent years (since circa 2000) have been using the term "tram" both for streetcar systems and for light rail systems, so from that standpoint someone in Europe might well consider Portland's MAX light rail cars to be "trams". Anyway, there are far more cities in Europe than in the USA using Bombardier trams or LRVs (only two in the USA), so it does make sense to use "tram" in the category name. And we definitely don't want BOTH a Category:Bombardier streetcars and a Category:Bombardier trams, because they essentially mean the same thing. There's a way to create a redirect to help avoid someone mistakenly putting a new image file into the non-existent Category:Bombardier streetcars, as you accidentally did, and I'll do that right after this message. (Note: When I first posted this reply, Category:Bombardier streetcars was a red link, because it did not exist, but now that I've created a redirect from that name to the "trams" one, both will be blue.) Steve Morgan (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting reply.

While I am not now a regular participant in discussions on trams/streetcars/LRT, I used to be. What I remember is some fans felt sure that all three terms should be treated as synonyms, and I remember that others felt that all three should be treated as distinct. But I don't remember anyone else suggesting trams/streetcars were synonyms, while LRT was distinct. As I recall, the most useful(?) explanation of the distinctive element of the LRT was that it used a separate right of way. Personally, this explanation doesn't satisfy me, because it means the same rolling stock qualifies for being called LRT or not LRT, depending of usage. Toronto, for instance, runs Bombardier streetcars both on the streets and on separate rights of way. And when it builds its next generation of rapid transit lines, its new generation of Bombardier streetcars will also be used on the street and on separate rights or way.

I believe the same holds true for Boston and Philadelphia.

In spite of a non-English name, and having many European clients, Bombardier is a North American firm. I think this is an argument for referring to its rolling stock using the North American term.

Of course if this was all settled in a centralized debate, that is a different matter. If you are aware of a central discussion could you tell me where to find it? Geo Swan (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Catalan Talgo

Thanks for addition of the File:TEE Catalan Talgo at Geneve-Cornavin, 1979.jpg into czech article. It is real beauty! --PetrS. (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

United Streetcar photo

Steve, I work with one of the subcontractors (ELIN EBG Traction) on the United Streetcar project. Would you be willing to release your brilliant photograph "United Streetcar 10T3 prototype for Portland.jpg" for usage in our product brochures? Thanks Alexander Maistro71

Please contact me by e-mail about this. I have turned on e-mail access. Steve Morgan (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bitar Mansion

Thanks for adding the "published" template to the image's talk page! --Another Believer (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I read WW fairly regularly, so I'm sorry to see them being sloppy or careless about giving credit. They did the same recently with a photo I took (many years ago) of Mark Hatfield, but added credit after I emailed them about it. However, I have to concede that I've always felt the Commons license template is too vague on this subject. It says attribution must be given "in the manner specified by the author", but most authors don't specify any such manner; the default setting implies that the license template specifies it, but it does not – at least that's my interpretation. That's why I always manually fill in the "permission" field on my images, to include a brief message on that point, as shown for example with this image. You might want to consider doing that or something similar. Steve Morgan (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Old TriMet Stuff Wanted

I wonder if you have any old TriMet stuff from the 1970s and 1980s pertinent to route maps and system maps?

Of interest, I would love to have the following route maps, if available:

• 5-Hawthorne (103rd & Foster eastbound end point)
• 46-Maplewood (last version)

Contact me at vintageben81@comcast.net or benjamin.marioe1@gmail.com for more info.

WikiPro1981X (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for causing trouble

Sorry for uploading a non-cropped version of this photo. I was not so careful about that and I made a mistake. Regards AMERICOPHILE 06:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Thank you for leaving the message here. Steve Morgan (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Tehran Trolleybus

Hi Steve, I Have uploaded 22 images of Tehran Trolleybuses on Commons that are available here. I'm not a professional photographer but I did my best. If they are not so appropriate for encyclopedia please let me know to take some other images. Feel free to ask any other photo request about Iran. Most of them were taken in Imam Hossein sq and the others in Rah Ahan sq. I have taken some other images that don't have good quality or are very similar to uploaded ones. I have NOT uploaded them but if you think they can be useful, I can upload them too. Regards from Iran. AMERICOPHILE 16:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for helping, and for acting so fast! 22 is a little more than Commons really needed (for just two locations on the trolleybus system), but I greatly prefer "too many" images to "too few" or none, so I am happy to see these. In fact, I am pleased you took photos at 2 locations, instead of just one location. Some of your 22 images are very good, some are pretty good (or "OK"), and a few are not so good. In the last group I would put images 15 and (especially) 16, because the front of the trolleybus is "cut off" (but 15 is still worth having on Commons, because it has 2 different trolleybuses in one view) and 18 (too similar to 17, and foreground traffic makes it less good). Overall, you did very well in composing most of these images. The full-sunlight in numbers 5–9 and 19–22 also helps make them good. And, you included views of both the door-side and the left sides, and one of the rear of a trolleybus, and some wide views (showing more of the background - good), and one of the wires (cables).

I have added your images to the Trolleybus gallery on Commons and to these three articles on English Wikipedia: Trolleybus (under Asia/Iran), Tehran and Imam Hossein Square. Later, I (or someone else) will probably use 1-2 of them also in German Wikipedia or other-language Wikipedias. I will not ask you for photos of other Iran subjects, because my main interest is in trolleybuses and trams/streetcars (in all countries) – as you can see from the "user uploads" list linked from my own Commons page – and I have no special interest in other Tehran or Iran subjects (sorry!). However, I am very happy that you added many good photos of Tehran trolleybuses to Commons, because very, very few trolleybus enthusiasts from Europe or North America have ever seen Tehran's trolleybus system. When you have time, maybe you can add to the description pages a little information such as what part of the square a given photo is showing (for example "at the northeast corner of ..... square" or whatever is correct). Thanks again. Steve Morgan (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. About number 18 and foreground traffic, I just thought that the cars in Iran may be interesting to foreigners who have never visited Iran because Iranian cars are a little different from their western counterparts (Just have a look at our first national car that watching it still makes me feel quite nostalgic). Also I thought that Iranian clothes may be interesting too (the way women cover themselves) so some of pictures contain pedestrians (I think a trolleybus is a trolleybus everywhere but cultural aspects can make the differences clear). I will definitely add some more information to description pages and thanks for your great idea (taking photograph was a good excuse for me to get on a trolleybus for the first time and I really liked its unique sound). Regards from Iran AMERICOPHILE 20:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I had not looked at all 22 photos that closely (yet), but you make very good points in your comment above. Once again, thanks! Steve Morgan (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Steve Morgan (talk) 04:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

First Immanuel Lutheran Church

You would not consider First Immanuel Lutheran Church to be located downtown? That's surprising to me. What is considered downtown? --Another Believer (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, there are two "gray areas" when it comes to defining downtown Portland. Some people don't consider any of the area west of I-405 (the Stadium Freeway) to be part of downtown, but some do. Similarly, some people don't consider the area north of Burnside Street to be part of downtown, but some – I would argue most – do. The First Immanuel Lutheran Church is at N.W. 19th & Irving, which is outside both of those gray areas, and I'd say hardly anyone would consider that location to be in downtown (in my opinion). Even east of the freeway, I think very few people think of downtown as extending beyond about Hoyt or Irving – with the major landmarks of the main post office and Union Station subconsciously demarcating the northern limit of downtown, among those who consider Old Town/Chinatown to be part of downtown, which group includes me. N.W. 19th & Irving is in Northwest Portland, and could also be said to be in the "Central City", which encompasses downtown and all of the neighborhoods/districts immediately adjacent to downtown. Personally, I don't consider the Zion Lutheran Church (on S.W. 18th) to be in downtown, but I put that image file into the Churches in downtown Portland cat myself, last year, because it's at least in one of those gray areas. Steve Morgan (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Trolza trolleybuses in Tomsk.jpg

Hello!

Please do not remove valid categories without bringing any rational. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Those two trolleybuses have a lot of other colors besides orange on them. Orange is only their main color, whereas most buses/trolleybuses in the "by color" categories show vehicles that are almost entirely one color. So, I did have a rationale for removing the "orange buses" category, but I didn't indicate it in the edit summary, because this is a trivial subject. Nevertheless, I don't mind the category being re-added. Steve Morgan (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Orange is the dominant colour. Besides your "almost entirely one color" is your individual interpretation. You can hardly find a totally orange "painted" vehicle. Nevertheless, I think we found a consensus of this issue. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:TPL folibus.jpg & File:TPL tram.jpg

Thanks for the notification about these, but I'm neither author nor original uploader of these images. I merely transferred them to commons from wp:it, having first checked that they were appropriately licensed there (the author had placed them in the public domain) and that style of license was valid on commons (as I believe public domain is). What did I miss doing?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Just gone back to check on wp:it, but because I followed standard process and marked them with the nowcommons template, the wp:it page has now been deleted in order to use the commons version. I'm definitely lost now; I seem to have followed the process properly, so for your notification to be valid, doesn't that imply the process is broken?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

See my response on your talk page. Steve Morgan (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I now understand, but don't necessarily agree with your analysis. I think the crux is your statement "The Lugano tram system closed in 1959, which I would imagine is before ToBeDaniel was even born". Actually 1959 is only 53 years ago, and all it needs is for ToBeDaniel to be in his mid 60s for such a claim to be reasonable. I know plenty of Wikimedia family contributors who match that age profile, and I'm not that many years younger myself. So it seemed to me perfectly reasonable that he could have taken the photographs. Given that 99% of images on commons don't have formal proof that the claimed author is the real author, I think we should be a little careful demanding such proof based on assumptions, rather than real evidence of possible copyvio, such as the image appearing elsewhere. However having said that, I think now you have managed to contact ToBeDaniel, things should sort themselves out. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

That was only one clue that the two photos were probably not taken by the uploader. Additional clues included that he gave no information about the specific photos – no date (not even a year or a decade), no location info., etc. It's entirely possible the uploader did not understand what "author" means for uploads to Commons, and did not understand that if he did not shoot the photos himself he cannot legally claim (as he did) to be their author, but we may never know. He never responded to the notice at his talk page, and I see that an administrator has deleted the two files. Steve Morgan (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Naito

Thanks for catching the misspelling! --Another Believer (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice job!

Good photo -- and even better description. This answered all the questions the prose of the Wikipedia article left me with. -Pete F (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Makes me glad I took a few minutes to write a detailed description when I uploaded it. Steve Morgan (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

STCP 128 not in Portland

I see that in this change you removed the indication that STCP 128 was once sent to Portland, which was (tentatively?) given by Alain Gavillet in the source. Do you confirm this is so, not a mistake? Could you add a comment in that regard in the original Flickr page, too? -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I know you meant 123, not 128. Several ex-Porto cars were brought to Oregon in the late 1970s and 1980s (stored at the pre-1996 location of the Oregon Electric Railway Museum, near Glenwood, Oregon), but none of them went to Portland, as officials in Portland decided to buy newly built, replica-old streetcars from the Gomaco Trolley Company instead (for the Portland Vintage Trolley service). Some were sold to Memphis. Car 123 was never restored, and its exact location since 1999 is not known, but it is not in Portland. I will think about maybe posting a note on the Flickr page, but I am not active on Flickr. Steve Morgan (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your correction (yes, I meant 123, not 128!), and for your further info. Soon in pt:wp we’ll have an annex detailing info for each fleet item for CCFL, STCP (and ideally also the other smaller operations in Portugal: CSA, TUB, and SMTUC — MST, ML, and MP fleet info being trivial; no idea about Brazil). If you have citable info for that, please drop a line. Thanks in advance! -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving "Oporto" to "Porto" was not the kind the help I was hoping for. The latter is indeed the Portuguese name of the city, but Commons categories should be in English. As such, I expect them to be in English as in the language, but not necessarily burdened with the pseudo-PC po-mo crap that become fashionable among English-speaking airheads in recent decades. The name "Oporto", while based on a misinterpretation of "O Porto" (not unlike other cases such as Portuguese language’s own "Argélia" instead of *"Algéria"), is a time honored English word in actual use for centuries by the local English-speaking community of wine exporters and in Britain, while "Porto" in English just means that poor brown people need “us” to use their exotic local spellings. I suggest you now go on changing "Egypt" to "Misr" in Commons categories — I hear they are deeply offended. (A reply is not requested.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow. If you had such strong feelings on this subject, I wonder why you did not change the many Commons tram categories that already were using "Porto" to "Oporto". If all (or most) of the Porto/Oporto tram categories at Commons had used "Oporto", I would have left them alone, for consistency, even though almost every English-language book and magazine I have seen (in addition to the Portuguese ones) uses the spelling "Porto". For example, the British magazine Tramways & Urban Transit (and predecessor Modern Tramway) have been writing "Porto" for about 40 years. And "centuries" of use does not seem relevant, to me, for tram-related categories; trams have only existed for about 1 1/2 centuries. Anyway, I definitely do not feel as strongly about Porto versus Oporto as you do. Steve Morgan (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Parks in Portland, Oregon

You removed the 'urban parks in the U.S.' category from some of the Portland parks categories, but the 'urban parks' category does not include the 'Parks in Portland' parent category. Did you intend to add the 'urban parks' category to the parent 'Parks in Portland, Oregon' category? --Another Believer (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No, because the 'urban parks in the U.S.' category includes the category "Parks in the United States by city", and the 'Parks in Portland' category is included there, as are all similar categories for other individual U.S. cities. That's why the 'urban parks in the U.S.' category has relatively few entries and why, until I made this change, Portland entries accounted for about half of them, which was a clue to me that something was amiss. I had to fix Philadelphia the same way, but all of the other cats for "parks in .... [a specific U.S. city]" were correctly omitted from this cat as they were already placed in the "by city" subcat. The "by city" cat has also been mentioned as a "see also" at the top of the broader cat you mentioned. Steve Morgan (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)