Last modified on 24 November 2014, at 21:13

User talk:Steve Morgan

Return to the user page of "Steve Morgan".
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Steve Morgan!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

Thank you!Edit

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

StreetcarsEdit

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...Edit

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 TalgoEdit

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 photoEdit

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 MansionEdit

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 WantedEdit

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 troubleEdit

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 TrolleybusEdit

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 givenEdit

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

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 ChurchEdit

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.jpgEdit

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.jpgEdit

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)

NaitoEdit

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

Nice job!Edit

Elevator tower at east end of Gibbs St Pedestrian Bridge in Portland, Oregon.jpg

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 PortlandEdit

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 SMTUCMST, 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, OregonEdit

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)

Category:Trolleybuses_in_TorontoEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Trolleybuses_in_Toronto has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Geo Swan (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!Edit

Hi Steve, thanks for cleaning up the Sally Jewell photos! Did you see my note at WikiProject Oregon talk page or just find them on your own? Either way, it's much appreciated! (But if you missed that note, you might want to check it out -- lots of cool new Oregon-related photos have recently been uploaded here.) -Pete F (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I found out about the multi-photo uploads from your note at the WikiProject Oregon talk page, a page I read on a regular basis. Even before your note here, I had already cleaned up the categories (or added categories) for some others besides the Sally Jewell pics, mainly ones in my areas of strongest interest: transit, bridges and historic buildings. However, back in February, I spent several hours doing that for the ODOT photos after that mass upload, and I don't relish the thought of doing that again, so I'll probably leave it mostly to other editors this time. Steve Morgan (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for pitching in! Yes, of course I remember your work with the ODOT pics. That was my first direct/in-depth experience with a mass upload like this. -Pete F (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Former CCFL John Stephenson tram in CordobaEdit

Hello! I noticed that you added "Category:John Stephenson trams" to File:Cordoba-tranvia.JPG. However note that this photo is tagged with "Category:Lisbon tram 350", which in turn is under "Category:CCFL fleet series 343-362", which in turn is under "Category:John Stephenson trams in Lisbon", which in turn is under "Category:John Stephenson trams". Of course you know about COM:OVERCAT. -- Tuválkin 11:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do, and I fix such errors myself, when other editors make them. However, in this case, the Category:John Stephenson trams in Lisbon is not sufficient, because this photo was not taken in Lisbon. It was taken in Córdoba, Argentina. This is a photo of a Stephenson-built tram in Argentina .... but there is absolutely no need to create a separate category for that, considering how very few photos Commons currently has of Stephenson-built trams. (In my opinion, most categories that have only 1 or 2 photos in them are not helpful and usually should not be created. They make it much more difficult to compare the available photos of a general subject such as this, trams built by John Stephenson Co.) Steve Morgan (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Fort EdmontonEdit

Hello Steve! I’ve started an informal discussion about Category:Fort Edmonton at 117Avenue’s Talk page: I think the “See also category” (I didn’t know we had those, so thanks for contributing to my education here!) for Fort Edmonton Park is a sufficient link , and that the Fort shouldn’t also be a sub-category of the Park. I just thought I’d invite comments before removing it, in case there’s a rationale or policy I’m missing.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United StatesEdit

LUSITANA WLM 2011 d.svg

Dear Steve Morgan,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United States. The images you uploaded will help illustrate Wikipedia articles on historic sites in the United States. We are delighted to share the winning images and our top 10 finalists with you.

Click here to read our press release and view the winning submissions »

We invite you to continue uploading images to Wikimedia Commons and we hope you will return for Wiki Loves Monuments again in September 2014. For more information about Wikimedia Commons, please visit our welcome page. For more information about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, please click here. Once again, thank you for sharing your images and participating in our contest.

User:Mono

Organizing Team

Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United States


العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Eesti | English | Español | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | Nederlands | Polski | Română | Svenska | ไทย | Українська | +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.

Dear Steve Morgan,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time.

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Columbia QueenEdit

I see you removed categories from the Columbia Queen category. I also see that some Columbia Queen images were renamed Columbia Gorge. Do you know if a Columbia Queen exists, or if the category should just be deleted? --Another Believer (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

When I tagged those five images for renaming, I noted that there is a ship named Columbia Queen, but there are no photos of it on Commons (if there were, I'd have put them into this cat). I looked for CC-licensed ones on Flickr, but found none. I believe the category should be deleted. It can always be recreated later, for the true Columbia Queen, if photos of that ship get uploaded. Also, I've noticed that the standard format for these cats in Commons indicates that a better name for that cat would be "Columbia Queen (ship, xxxx)", where xxxx is the year. But that's moot as long as there are not yet any photos of the ship on Commons. If you have administrative privileges on Commons, I'd say go ahead and delete it. Steve Morgan (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I am not an admin, but I will see if I can nominate the category for deletion. --Another Believer (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominated for discussion, hopefully properly. Thanks again! --Another Believer (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)



العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Eesti | Français | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Svenska | ไทย | +/−

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!

Dear Steve Morgan,

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!

In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.

And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Re: City ArchivesEdit

I make it a point to go to the archives office often and keep personal notes on the photos and their copyright status so I can use the images online instead of making lesser quality copies. If I have made an individual error on one of the image copyright tags please rectify this. But before you accuse me of violating the law please en:WP:Assume good faith. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I also challenge what you say constitutes publication. If something was produced for a municipality survey, study or general information it would qualify as a publication. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. We use offline sources all the time across Wikimedia. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo creditEdit

In case you weren't aware! --Another Believer (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't seen that. They should have linked to the Commons page for the photo, but at least they linked to my user page, which is a lot better than if they had not linked to Commons at all. Steve Morgan (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Kudos, Steve! By the way, I think in most cases where a blogger is diligent enough to apply attribution, they will typically do it in the way requested. So if you want the link to go to a specific place for any photo that gets used a lot (as I hope and assume is the case with your White Stag sign!) you might want to tweak the settings like this. (Personally, I think a link to your user page is great -- but as the photographer, it's your call of course!) -Pete F (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but I meant that (ideally) they should have linked to both, with clicking on the photo taking the viewer to the photo's Commons page and clicking on the credit taking them to my user page. For the first four years after I began contributing images to Commons, I didn't even have a user page, but now that I do, I'm glad this blog linked to it. But only the pages for the specific images have attribution requirements and instructions for anyone who might reuse the photo; my user page doesn't. Steve Morgan (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, I understand. I see they have not complied with your license. That's a shame, but not entirely uncommon. Other Commons users have been successful at pointing this out to bloggers/news outlets etc. and requesting that they name and link to the license under which they have published the photo. -Pete F (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Huipulco-Tlalpan: Brill or St. Louis?Edit

Hello again! About this edit you made — are you sure this is a Philadelphia Brill car? I ask because they look very much like these St. Louis cars built in 1901 for the Lisbon network. Thanks for any input! -- Tuválkin 02:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a good question, but yes. Because car 0 (the tram in that photo) has been preserved, its history is relatively well-known. Also, Mexico City purchased trams from both St. Louis Car Co. and Brill, and some of the designs were very similar. You might like to read this web page (about Mexico City) written by Allen Morrison, a well-known expert on the history of tramways in Latin America: The Tramways of Mexico City, Part 2: Early Electrics. Steve Morgan (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your replay and explanation. I’ll read that page, and thanks for that, too. -- Tuválkin 12:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Crossbench to open-sidedEdit

Hello again! You renamed these and argued that the «new name »« is clearer to non-enthusiasts & non-English-speakers (& is also closer to the common US English term for such trams, while still clear in British English)», and this is the kind of compromise solution I favour myself, but was this discussed anywhere I didn’t notice? Or is it just you being bold? (Nothing wrong with that, either.) -- Tuválkin 09:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I was being bold, but I left a redirect at the old name. A Google search showed more than 50,000 "hits" for "open tram" and "open-sided tram" (combined), compared with only 950 for "crossbench tram", and when "streetcar" is substituted in the search, the difference is much greater. However, you are free to open a discussion if you feel it is needed. By the way, the common term in US English is simply "open car" (or open trolley, or open streetcar), but that is too vague for non-enthusiasts to understand clearly. And Wikipedia has no article on this type of tram/streetcar (at least in English). Steve Morgan (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you...Edit

For helping with the Fechheimer & White and Hallock–McMillan building images. I was confused because the Hallock–McMillan building sure doesn't look like the oldest commercial building in Portland... -Another Believer (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your confusion was understandable, and I can imagine myself making the same mistake. Steve Morgan (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Photo Use by Lake Theater & CafeEdit

I wanted to make sure you were aware that the Lake Theater & Cafe is using your Willamette Shore Trolley image without attribution.

http://laketheatercafe.com/demo/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/doctor-trolley.jpg

I thought that image seemed familiar! 75.145.69.57 18:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Steve Morgan (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)