User talk:SJ Morg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Astoria Riverfront Trolley

What do you think about a GAN? Jsayre64 (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

(Well, it looks like someone's <cough-cough> already excited!) Jsayre64 (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure right now. I take the question as a compliment of my original work on this, and I appreciate your recent tweaking to try to make it even better. However, for the next week and a half, I'll need to try hard to avoid Wikipedia editing, because of other commitments during that period (although I'm sure I'll be unable to resist doing some, but only when I have a brief free moment or am too tired to work on anything requiring much concentration, and am not having to respond to anyone else). I realize the nomination might sit for weeks before anyone starts a review, but there's no way to know, and if someone took it up before mid-January, I might not be able to assist at all, if needed. Separately, my last experience with a GAN was frustrating and kind of turned me off GAN involvement. Even before that, I've always been much more interested in improving subpar articles, to go from Stub to Start, or Start to C, or in creating new articles that are C- or B-class from day 1, than in taking any article from B to GA. That said, I'd still be monitoring it if it were a GAN and willing to jump in to help if needed. .... just probably not between now and mid-January. SJ Morg (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, regarding one of your recent edit summaries: "Assn." isn't a "punctuation error"; it's the common abbreviation for Association. SJ Morg (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the abbreviation change, I knew "Assn." wasn't an error itself, but the citation template was displaying it as "Assn.."; I've seen this happen a lot, but it's easy to fix. And as for GAN, that's fine, I understand. Just let me know on the article's talk page or my talk page as soon as it's a good time to start the nomination, and then I expect that AB and I will handle most problems the reviewer may find if you don't get there first. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for clarifying what you meant with the "Assn." thing. I'm surprised I never noticed the double-period template output in this instance; I've occasionally spotted that issue elsewhere when editing, and I changed it when I did, just like you did! SJ Morg (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Rheingold (train) / Settebello / DYK

Thanks for your message about this article. I also think the main body of the article could do with some significant revision. However, and as you've correctly guessed, I don't presently have access to the main printed reference material, particularly the Mertens book, which has been published in several different languages and editions, but not English. In the meantime, I've been creating "start" articles about other TEE trains, on the basis that the foreign language equivalent articles I've been translating have clearly been based upon Mertens' work ... Bahnfrend (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to nominate Gottardo as well, if you wish, but it's not as comprehensively inline referenced at the moment. Also, Gotthardo could do with a paragraph or so commenting on the four-system SBB-CFF-FFS RAe TEE II EMU, which, together with the nice photo in the infobox, would be a good basis for a hook. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I agree with you, and I was already planning to add a paragraph on that to the Gottardo article. I had been intending to do it in the 'next several days' (which intention can turn into weeks), but in light of your kind offer I'll do it this evening (within the next few hours). SJ Morg (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added an alternative image to the Gottardo nomination. The alternative may be more appealing to non-rail enthusiasts, because of the greenery. That said, I've always included an image in my DYK nominations, and so far at least, all the images have been published. (Incidentally, I don't claim credit for the posters in some of the TEE articles; each one was already in at least one of the foreign language wikipedia articles.) I note your comments about the reliability of the foreign language articles. Since starting work on this little TEE project, I've found a couple of apparently more reliable online sources here (in English) and here (in German), although as they are both self published, I can't cite them in an article. I'll also make the effort in the near future to acquire some of the printed sources. As a final observation, there are some great images here and here if you want to indulge in a little nostalgia (I never rode on a TEE, but I saw the Rheingold in Bonn in 1984 - hard to believe it was 29 years ago now). It's a pity the photographer hasn't uploaded the images to commons as well. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. Considering the amount of detail on the information pages, I agree they're probably more reliable than other enthusiast-generated pages (including WP pages written by railfans in Europe, in some cases). However, they are only about TEEs, not giving pre-TEE or post-TEE history for named trains (at least not much) and, as you noted, we cannot cite them for WP because they are just personal enthusiast pages. However, they'll probably still be helpful in sorting out discrepancies or major gaps in other sources, and in my case they may save me some time in researching via the Cook's Timetable, by leading me to the right year(s) for some change, if I didn't previously know when it occurred. And having them in English helps. SJ Morg (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Settebello (train)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Blauer Enzian

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Cisalpin (train)

Thanks for your message. I know a bit about copyright. I'm also keen to avoid breaching it. Some (to my eyes somewhat amateur) guidance can be found here, but should be read in conjunction with what the US Supreme Court said in this case. The important point made in the Supreme Court case is that length is not the only issue, and probably wasn't the most important issue in that case. A similar point is made here, in a useful commentary (by specialist intellectual property lawyers based in Florida) about another case. Applying the traditional (and statutory) four factor test referred to in the cases, the quote I've added to the article is an obviously good faith quote, in an encyclopedia article published by a non profit charitable organisation, of a little under two paragraphs of a non fictional work published 32 years ago; it's specific to, and informative about, the author's observations of the subject matter of the article; it's taken from a book nearly 200 pages long; and is unlikely to have any significant negative effect on the value of the copyright because the book is long out of print (and a video or DVD of the TV series has never been available, much to the chagrin of enthusiasts of the series, myself included). Some further comments about the length - the first (part) paragraph really needs to be quoted in full to do justice to the points the author is making in it, and the second (short) paragraph makes a point not made in the first (part) paragraph, namely that taking the train was much nicer than the alternative of flying. Again, all points are informative about, and specific to, the subject matter of the article. So my firm view is that it's a fair use quote. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Catalan Talgo

Chamal ^T•C 17:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Gottardo

The DYK project (nominate) 08:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

File:Loading up (5280885372).jpg	The Chooo-chooo Barnstar of Trains
	For your excellent work on trains!! Keep it up! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! SJ Morg (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A P.S. to my own post (on my own page!): My latest newly created article was, as you know, about a train that passed through a mountainous part of Switzerland. With that topic fresh in my mind, your user name instantly made me think of the Bond film On Her Majesty's Secret Service (an underrated film, in my opinion, although I'm not referring to its lead actor). I visited the area near the Piz Gloria as a teen-ager, but did not get to see it, as my parents felt the cable-car trip up to the famed restaurant was too expensive. Well, I'm not going to criticize them for that frugality, after they were nice enough to take me to Europe! SJ Morg (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Named trains of Europe

Thank you for the Barnstar, and thank you for reviewing my articles about named trains in Europe. As I have acces to the written sources and can read them as well, I started to complete the TEE trains in English. Mertens' work is the standard work on TEE, written in French and later translated in Italian and German. This book also contains info about the trains before 1957 and in the EuroCity era as far as they had a TEE history. But as you have noticed there are many more sources than Mertens. You asked for some clarification about the EC-index. I've added this index to the table of EuroCity services when I was comparing the list in the Japanese wiki, which had 64 entries, with the EuroCitys listed in order to complete all 64 initial services. The EuroCity list I had, was obviously incomplete as the written sources (Hajt and an annual report in Dutch) mentioned the number of 64 trains but didn't say which (and there isn't an official EuroCity site), and my list had 54 names. The index numbers are based upon the 1987 trainnumbering scheme ordered by trainnumbers. Trainnumber one doesn't exist for ordinary people (as Air Force one), so the first EC train in 1987 was EC 2,3 etc. Because the German numbering scheme is related to bordercrossings, sorting by index will result in a grouping by routes/geography automatically. Numbers can exist more than once (this is Europe) as long as the number isn't used double within the same country. In Europe International Day services have one or two digits, all other trains have three or four, so the night services end up at the end of the list. Exception is the London - Amsterdam "night"service, advertised as one of the night trains but numbered as day service. I hope it is clarified now, but I'am afraid that this explanation is too long/detailed to integrate in the EuroCity article. I'll first finish the TEE articles and pick-up EuroCity issues later on. Greetings Jaap. --JB63 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

What's going on is that you actually caught me being mildly sloppy - oops. I've been going through National Register of Historic Places listings in Clatsop County, Oregon, validating the coords given one-by-one. On that list, the coords previously shown for Astoria City Hall (old) were off by over half a mile. After making the correction to the list, I simply assumed without checking that the coords in the old city hall's own article were similarly incorrect, and "fixed" them. Clearly my assumption was wrong and I should have proceeded more deliberately. Mea culpa.

In short, the reason I thought I had for editing those coordinates wasn't a reason after all. The change from dms to dec didn't actually accomplish anything - you were right to find that puzzling. I have now reinstated the dms coordinates. — Ipoellet (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Whitehorse trolley

This makes it the oldest tram ever! ;-) Tuvalkin (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right! I'm glad you noticed that and fixed it. I am really surprised that no one else fixed it in all this time. As for myself, I have not made any edits to that article since that one, and I probably have not even looked at the article since then, or else I would have spotted that earlier error myself. Whitehorse is so out of the way that most streetcar/tram fans don't know about this line, or have forgotten that it exists. SJ Morg (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Nashville Transit Company

SJ:
I've noticed your interest in urban public transit.
With that in mind I cordially invite to take a peek at my description of the Southern Coach Lines and the Nashville Transit Company –
a section in a chapter, entitled "Growing Up at Greyhound", in my autobiography.
Cheers!
Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't click on links from strangers, and anyway I have relatively very little interest in intercity transportation and in rubber-tired transportation (except trolleybuses or Oregon-related). SJ Morg (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

US Bancorp Tower

i was being polite, and trying not to be pedantic, but you're absolutely wrong....just as one would not say 'the Carnegie Hall'. please let's not continue to war over it and take it to the talk page. --emerson7 04:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That's your argument? What about the Empire State Building, the Eiffel Tower, the Golden Gate Bridge, etc.? There are countless examples of structures whose names are routinely preceded by "the" when referred to within a complete sentence. After your last revert, I was already planning to start a discussion on the article's talk page to avoid violating WP:3RR, and I have now done so. SJ Morg (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested

In expressing opinion at Wikipedia:BOTREQ#TedderBot_replacement. If enough people comment there, maybe something will finally happen. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

... for contributing so many great images to this month's Wikipedia Takes Portland campaign (and for including great image descriptions and appropriate categories). I've enjoyed viewing so many great photographs! Much appreciated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the compliment. Since 2010, there are a lot of photos I've taken with Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons in mind but have not, so far, gotten around to uploading. The Wikipedia Takes Portland campaign has provided some helpful motivation. My preference for creating file names that are at least briefly descriptive and distinguish photos from one another, and for including links and longer descriptions on the file pages, means that it takes me much longer to upload photos than some other major contributors, such as you. Sometimes, I wonder whether I should be less of a perfectionist about it, because there's definitely a significant trade-off, but for now, I think I'll keep doing the same – especially since the file names cannot be changed later (not really; they'd have to be erred for a rename request to be justified). As you may have noticed from the photo dates, some of these – such as the stained-glass windows of the First Congregational Church – have been waiting for me to prepare for uploading (sort, research, choose, clean up [of digital noise, etc], caption) for a year or two. I took some nice interior shots of the U.S. National Bank Building in downtown Portland in December 2011, at which time there were no interior pictures of that building on Commons, but I've still never uploaded any of those. It became much less urgent after you uploaded many good photos of it during WLM 2012 – and then several more for WLM 2013 – another illustration of the fact that both your method, of uploading many, many photos but with few or no details (in file descriptions or cats) and my method have advantages, and I don't feel that either method is necessarily best. It's a pity the United States National Bank Building article is so (very) short, making it impractical to use those nice photos on Wikipedia, but I don't think I'll be expanding it anytime soon; too much else to do, in areas that interest me more. Thanks again, including for the great photos that you have uploaded this month. SJ Morg (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I, too, have hundreds (probably thousands) of photos that I have yet to upload to Commons. I always have my camera on me, and I am always snapping photographs around town. My method is far from perfect, but I enjoy taking and uploading the photographs in a way that works for me. Sometimes something is better than nothing, and sometimes I should strive for quality over quantity... I very much appreciate that your file names and descriptions are detailed (Visitor7 does a great job at this as well). Your process is just not one I have time to replicate. This year's Wiki Takes Portland campaign has been successful and I have enjoyed viewing user' contributions. Thanks again for your work! I am looking forward to the upcoming editathons. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. - Your pictures of the US National Bank Building are stunning! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! SJ Morg (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Povey Brothers

Nice! Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. Did you also see these recent uploads I made? A problem is that I have not been able to determine whether all of the stained-glass windows in the First Congregational Church are by Povey or only some, and that's why I didn't mention Povey in the descriptions on their file pages, and why I haven't yet added one of those photos to the Povey Brothers Studio article. SJ Morg (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This First Cong? They're Povey. Yay! Nice photos. All I have is a crappy photo I took of a restored residential Povey in a shop window in Albany. Valfontis (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, that reference says the Povey windows were "commissioned in 1906", but this church was completed in 1895. Undoubtedly, it had some stained-glass windows when newly completed. Were those non-Povey windows? I have no idea, and the NRHP nomination form doesn't shed any light; it doesn't even mention Povey windows! SJ Morg (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	For your many quality contributions to this year's Wikipedia Takes Portland campaign. We should all be proud of the new photographs uploaded, along with the NRHP articles that were created and updated in the process. Thank you! Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good that you also gave barnstars to Visitor7 and Ipoellet. I'm amazed at the sheer number of new NRHP-related photos uploaded this month by Visitor7 alone. I see that Ipoellet's uploads were mostly of properties outside the greater Portland area, which is why they are not noted on the Wikipedia Takes Portland page, but that makes them even more helpful, since they are much more impractical for Portland-area residents such us to photograph. And of course I appreciate your photo uploads, too, along with your setting up (and publicizing) the Wikipedia Takes Portland page, without which I would have made far fewer photo uploads this month. SJ Morg (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This was a very successful campaign, indeed! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Portland

Hi, SJ. Thanks for the note on my talk page. Yes, the Wikipedia Takes Portland category has to be added manually. I am not sure if Ipoellet and Visitor7 know this or not, but I spent a lot of time adding the categories manually. It was my choice to do this. I have tried to explain to photographers that they can easily add categories when they are mass uploading images at Commons (including date categories like "2013 in Portland, Oregon" and "September 2013 in Oregon", etc.), but there is nothing I can really do beyond offering the suggestion. I try to keep a close eye on Visitor7's uploads, mostly because I am very much a fan of his work and appreciate his contributions. I noticed Ipoellet's many photographs, both within and outside of Portland, and tried to add both of their Portland area photos to the Wikipedia Takes Portland category. If you happen to come across their most recent photos, or ones I might have missed, please feel free to add them to the category. Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the people who signed up to participate, I have no idea. I didn't think anything of it--I just assume sometimes people come by and indicate interest but then fail to act. I am just always glad when local people sign their name to something to that I/someone can send them an invitation to WikiProject Oregon and other local campaigns/events/meetups. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and categorized V7's latest images (WTP 2013 + September 2013 in Oregon). This puts the campaign at more than 400 images! If you have a chance to look at Ipoellet's images, that would be a huge help. Otherwise, I will try to get to it later. Thank you much. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I went back through Ipoellet's uploads and added the WTP 2013 cat where applicable, but there were only seven cases, fewer than I had expected. But as I said on your talk page, he uploaded several good non-Portland-area photos during September. Speaking of that, I discovered at the last minute that some of my 2012 Astoria photos, ones I had tentatively concluded months ago were apparently not NRHP-relevant, in fact show contributing resources in the Shively-McClure Historic District. So, I uploaded some of those in the final hours (Hawaiian Standard Time!) of the WLM 2013 campaign. Of course, I couldn't put those in the Wikipedia Takes Portland 2013 category, but the total for that stands at an impressive 414! I'm guessing that well over half of those were by Visitor7, since my own WTP uploads totalled "only" 91. SJ Morg (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

For images outside the PDX metro area that were uploaded, I tried to add the WLM 2013 template, but not the WTP 2013 category. That way they still counted to the national campaign but not the local campaign. I am sure our efforts did not reach every single image, but the vast majority. Glad you were able to upload a few more at the last minute! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: John Jacob Astor Hotel

Thanks for the heads up! Great job with expanding the article. Unfortunately, I do not have any additional photos to upload. I will definitely need to go on another photo tour next time I am in Astoria. BTW, you can always add additional info to refs using the following format: (ref tag){Cite web|BLAH} Note: Here is where I add a note.(/ref) In English, you can add a note between the citation template and the closing reference tag. That way, you can still use citation templates for consistency. Thanks again for your work on the article! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And yes, access to the Oregonian archves via MCL is a wonderful resource! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Jacob Astor Hotel

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work, if you expand/create any more can you add it to List of hotels in the United States? Cheers!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't foresee any major expansions or creations of hotel articles in the near future, but I'll keep the list in mind. SJ Morg (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

An Award for you!

	Oregon Architectural Award of Excellence
	For your hard work into improving Oregonian architectural articles, especially Hotel Astoria. Keep up the good work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! SJ Morg (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Weather Machine

Since this page is no longer being used (other than to redirect), should the sculpture article be moved to this article title? Or, should Weather Machine be made into a disambiguation page, explaining it could be weather modifications, the band or the sculpture? I do not mind if the sculpture article is moved or not, but I think normally the parenthetical disambiguator is not preferred if there are not multiple articles with the same main title. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd say it should be moved, and I almost left you a message suggesting that, after I updated that old redirect page this morning! A separate disambiguation page is not warranted (the capital M means it's not sufficiently related to the article "Weather modification" and really shouldn't have been created at all, prior to the sculpture article; I left the "Weather machine" redirect unchanged). And if someone later creates an article on the band, putting a hatnote on top of both articles would suffice. So, I endorse moving it, but neither you nor I can do that, because it requires an administrator, since the redirect page has more than one edit in its history (even before I changed it; otherwise, I might have just moved the article myself). If you agree, I suggest you leave a request for such a move with an administrator you know. Personally, I don't believe a discussion is needed in this case. SJ Morg (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		An overdue but well-deserved medal for your first 25 DYK creations, mostly on the subject of public transport in Oregon and around the world. Thanks for helping build a great encyclopedia! Yoninah (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! SJ Morg (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Winter Storm

Thanks for adding a few photos from the winter storm. I liked seeing Union Station covered in white snow. Not sure what next month's photo campaigns will be yet. Let me know if you have any ideas! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Tilikum

I can't help but think the new spelling was also to avoid the snickers of teenagers.... Thanks for being on top of things. Looks like you're taking care of a lot of cleanup so I'll back off to avoid stepping on edits. More later. --Esprqii (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Heh. Now, you've got me wondering... I don't think I'll be doing any more link updates today (hopefully I got most of them already), so if you spot any others, go ahead and change them. SJ Morg (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm also pretty much done. I noticed you used the full name in your links. I ultimately decided it was too unwieldy as an article name, but I suppose time will tell. Now if you'll excuse me while I go take a walk on the US Congresswoman Darlene Hooley Pedestrian Bridge at Gibbs Street... --Esprqii (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe I only used the full name in one link (in South Waterfront), as I agree with your article-name choice. I also feel that, in most cases, the long name disrupts the text flow too much for use in sentences, and I'm already figuring that my preference will be for the short version in such cases, at least. The long name looked OK in that South Waterfront sentence, but you're welcome to shorten it. SJ Morg (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

There is also the fussy issue that TriMet actually seems to want to call it "Tilikum Crossing, Bridge of the People" (using affected italics) which I considered trying to replicate, but...yikes. Let's see how it plays out in the next few months.--Esprqii (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were already a member!

Welcome to WikiProject Oregon! If you'd like, you can add the WP Oregon userbox to your user page using this code: {{User WikiProject Oregon}}. Check out the ongoing and archived discussions at WT:ORE and be sure to add the page to your Watchlist. If you are new to Wikipedia, it's a good idea to browse through the core principles of Wikipedia as well. The project home page at WP:ORE has many useful links to get you started. The recent changes and recent discussions links will display recent edits on articles within the project's scope. Welcome! Valfontis (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the section heading: I'm sure you're just one of several who (logically) assumed that. I've been a de facto member for a long time. SJ Morg (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

New Logus Block

What was the mis-execution? I've compared the past couple of versions of the page and don't see where it went wrong. But I'm still new to that particular function of AWB and may have easily missed something. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 12:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(Upon looking into it a bit further.) That's...odd. I don't know what caused it. Looking further at the others I did, it seems that all of the infoboxes got screwed up like that, for some reason. Only it's not showing in the article space. I'll have to go back over it all tonight with AWB and see what went wrong. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Oregonian Building DYK submission

Template:Did you know nominations/The Oregonian Building. QPQ needs to be done! --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Now done. Thanks for your patience. SJ Morg (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Oregonian Building

Materialscientist (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Trolleybuses in St. Gallen

Hi. As you have made several edits to this article, you may be able to answer the question at Talk:Trolleybuses in St. Gallen#What does this mean?. chris_j_wood (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As that page was still on my watchlist, I had already started writing a reply there when you made this post. I think my edits to the article were all about the fleet, so I hadn't paid much attention to the other text, but see my reply on that article's talk page. SJ Morg (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

St. Gallen–Trogen railway line

Thanks for your changes, which I have copy edited, but not (I hope) changed the intent. To explain my intent, I think I need to point out that there are two issues in play here, of which you only addressed one in your change comment:

• The English name v. German name issue, of which (way too) much has been written on many pages. On the whole I'm pretty neutral on this (for which read undecided), and my decision to use an English version here is more based on consistency with other articles than a strong belief either way. From this persepective, I've no problem with your change to increase the emphasis on the German name.

• The fact that since 2006 the subject of this article isn't really a railway (which to me implies institutional existence as well as physical), but rather a railway line of the Appenzeller Bahnen. So it is arguable that the German name really ought to be Bahnstrecke Trogen or Bahnstrecke St. Gallen–Trogen. But this most certainly isn't a well known name. Actually that supports your replacement of {{lang-de|Trogenerbahn}} with '''Trogenerbahn''' because one is not a translation of the other.

-- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Way to search many wikis at once?

Hi SJ Morg: Do you know of a tool that let's one search many wiki's at once? E.g. all the English wikipedias, including commons? Be useful, at least, whenever a move/rename gets suggested. Thanks either way — Lentower (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't. SJ Morg (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you — Lentower (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

St Gallen

I'm glad you like the photo. The same evening, I also took quite a few other photos, some of which I have now also uploaded. I also intend, in due course, to upload some more St.Gallen images, of trolleybuses, the Trogenerbahn and/or the station. Unfortunately there was only other place where I was able to photograph a trolleybus during my recent trip to Europe, namely London, and I've now uploaded the London photo as well. Bahnfrend (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Trolleybuses in Greater Boston#Renaming?

Could you kindly take a look at Talk:Trolleybuses in Greater Boston#Renaming? if you have some time? An editor there is trying to argue that 1920s-era usage on a few systems should trump the standard "Trolleybuses in XYZ" scheme that you've been a part of implementing, and I'm not sure how to show them why the (very well thought out) scheme is the way it is. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Streetcars in North America

Hi SJ! I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts at the Streetcars in North America Talk page when you get the chance. I think that's an article that could use some improvement, and I'd like to hear other editors' ideas and opinions on the subject. Thanks in advance! --IJBall (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Pacific International

Wikipedia editors appreciate the several edits you have made to the Pacific International article. Although some would debate whether your revert of this edit is necessary, we accept it. Your use of the phrase "and it's mildly insulting to suggest otherwise" in the revert comment is uncalled for. Wikipedia editors are a team, and making personal comments about someone's edit is contrary to Wikipedia principles. Editors are encouraged to make edits, see WP:BOLD, and comments that personally disparage someone's edits are contrary to that. I do not take such comments personally, but others might, and we suggest you refrain from making them in the future. You might also want to take a look at WP:OWN, something that all of us editors should do from time to time. Again, thanks for your contributions. Truthanado (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I had no objection to any of the changes you made in your edit (and none of the content affected had been added or edited by me, so WP:OWN does not apply in this instance), and the only reason I reverted most of it was on principle — my belief that your edit summary unfairly implied that the article's creator had done something contrary to the Manual of Style. Your leaving an edit summary saying you were doing "cleanup" was uncalled for, in my opinion, given that the guidelines to which you referred did not support such a statement. You were making a "comment" of your own, in that edit summary, about the previous editor's (not me) work. However, I concede that the last phrase of my edit summary was unnecessary and I should have omitted it. SJ Morg (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Chiming Fountain

Thanks for catching my mistake! I believe the ref issue has been corrected (this is what happens when I change the way I normally abbreviate familiar references!). I've requested a copy edit from the Guild, then I will nominate the article for GA status. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This may interest you

Public Oregon Intercity Transit, I did just enough to establish notability. Feel free to embellish and improve. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I might do something on this eventually, but if I don't, this will be the reason: I don't have much interest in intercity transportation, or in bus transit outside the Portland metropolitan area. A general lack of time for Wikipedia editing these days is another factor (my edit count is way down this year), so even articles that really interest me aren't getting any edit time from me. Sigh. SJ Morg (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries. See you on the WES? Valfontis (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Um ... I don't get your 'WES' reference. SJ Morg (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Westside Express Service. I guess you don't ride it. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the acronym, but I don't ride it. (My only ride on it took place five years ago.) SJ Morg (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Restaurants

Thank you, truly, for participating in the discussion re: restaurants. Too often I ask a question or request participation in a call to action and it goes completely unanswered. I'll take a dissenting opinion over no response any day. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Dallas Oak Cliff Streetcar

SJ, is there a reference for this system being under construction? I looked for one this morning, but couldn't find anything that was recent indicating that it was currently under construction, and if so how far along they were in the construction process and a projected opening date. --IJBall (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked for something like that right after your edit and could not immediately find anything. However, construction did begin, almost two years ago (and there was a citation for that in the DART article), and two cars have been on order since 2013 (and I've added citations for that). I could not find anything online saying that construction had been suspended, the claim you made in the edit summary, and the burden falls on you to back up that statement. I appreciate your work on this article, but you removed the Dallas project from the table without reinstating a mention of it in the text, leaving it completely out of the article even though it is much further along than the planned new systems that are still mentioned briefly below the table. By the way, I also don't feel that a temporary suspension in the construction of a new system would warrant removing it from this table, but that can be argued. While writing this reply, I checked my best print source for news on light rail and streetcar systems, Tramways & Urban Transit magazine (which has much better news coverage of U.S. light rail and streetcar systems than any U.S. magazine), and I find that the October 2014 issue had an update on Dallas, which I'll use for a brief update to the section about this project in the DART article. In short, it said most construction was completed, the cars were due to arrive soon, and opening was predicted for March 2015 (likely overly optimistic). SJ Morg (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. The reason I removed it is because it was the only "under construction" system that I looked at that seemed to lack a dedicated website with regular "construction updates" (and it had almost no coverage at the DART website), which caused me to think that it was "vaporware". Even when I did a Google search for news articles, I found nothing recent. But I know you have access to deeper sources on streetcar topics than I do, so if you've found more recent sources, that's good enough for me... --IJBall (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There are also photos online showing tracklaying or completed track. But I agree that it is very strange that the project appears to have no dedicated website and that there is so little info. on it at the DART website. SJ Morg (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

John Addison Porter (Secretary to the President)

Hi, SJ. In answer to your question in one of the edit summaries on John Addison Porter (Secretary to the President), the details you question are not in the Yale obituary. I'll append the complete text of the obit below. You're right that there's no statement that he did much of anything in Oregon, only that he founded a company with the word "Oregon" in the title. - Nunh-huh 14:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

1878 [that's his year of graduation from Yale]

JOHN ADDISON PORTER, son of Professor John Addison Porter (Yale 1842) and Josephine Earl (Sheffield) Porter, daughter of the founder of the Sheffield Scientific School, was born on April 17, 1856, at New Haven, Conn. He was fitted for college at the Hopkins Grammar School. The year after graduation he studied law with his uncle, William J. Boardman, in Cleveland, O., but not with the intention of practicing that profession. On his return to Connecticut he was a reporter on the New Haven Daily Palladium, and for a brief time on the Hartford Courant. After an extended tour in the West in 1880, he pursued a course of post-graduate study in American history in Yale University. For a year in 1882-83 he was literary editor of the New York Observer, and contributed also to the Critic, New Englander and Century Magazine. He then continued literary work in Washington, D. C., and while a resident there served as Secretary to his uncle, William Walter Phelps (Yale 1860), at that time a member of the National House of Representatives, and was afterward clerk of the special Senate Committee on Indian affairs. He also organized and conducted the Oregon Publishing Company in 1886. In 1887 a severe illness compelled him to spend the winter in the South, and on his return in renewed health he purchased an estate in Pomfret, Conn., which was afterward his permanent home. In the autumn of 1888 he bought an interest in the Hartford Evening Post, and the following year became its main proprietor and editor-in-chief, and retained his control until he sold the paper in 1899.

He was elected to the Connecticut Legislature as a Representative from Pomfret in 1891, was a delegate to the Republican National Convention at Minneapolis in 1892, and was a prominent candidate for Governor in the Republican conventions of Connecticut in 1894, 1896 and 1898. Having been appointed by Mr. McKinley Secretary to the President of the United States in February, 1897, on March 4 he assumed that office and applied himself closely to its duties, which proved very exacting, especially during the Spanish war. His health was seriously impaired in the spring of 1899, but he continued to act as Secretary for a year longer. As it had become certain that he could not continue his duties, the President reluctantly accepted his resignation on May 1, 1900. Although he suffered much he bravely fought his malady, a malignant intestinal disease, until his death, which came suddenly at his home in Pomfret, on December 15, 1900. He was 44 years of age. The funeral service and burial were in New Haven.

He married, on December 28, 1882, Amy Ellen, daughter of George F. Betts (Williams 1844), and sister of Samuel Rossiter Betts (Yale 1875), and had two daughters and a son. One daughter died in early childhood Mrs. Porter, in memory of her husband, has founded in Yale University the John Addison Porter Prize in American History

Besides contributions to periodical literature, Mr. Porter edited in 1885 "Sketches of Yale Life," prepared for the Johns Hopkins Historical Studies of 1885 a monograph on "The City of Washington, its Origin and Development," and wrote a pamphlet on "The Corporation of Yale College."

He was deeply interested in all that concerned the University and unselfishly devoted to whatever he thought was for the highest good of Yale.

Thanks for the information! When I have more time, I may try to find out what the Oregon Publishing Company was, since I live in Oregon and have some interest in Oregon history. That's assuming it was in Oregon, which it might not have been. The Multnomah County Library has a free (to cardholders) digital, searchable archive of The Oregonian newspaper going from the present day all the way back to 1861, and a recent search of it for "Oregon Publishing Company" (with the quotation marks to keep it as a phrase) generated zero results – not a single mention, not even in an advertisement. Strange. Anyway, I realize this probably has no interest to you, Nunh-huh, but I thank you for posting the text from that Yale book here. In light of your information, I intend to delete the remainder (after the phrase for which you've now added a citation) of that paragraph in the John Addison Porter (Secretary to the President) article if no one addresses the "citation needed" tag I added within a month or so.

By the way, the reason that I originally changed Oregon to Oregonian in the Porter article is that the Oregonian Publishing Company – which published The Oregonian at the time – also published the Telegram for much of that paper's history until 1914. However, it later occurred to me that that fact didn't necessarily mean it was the company that Porter was involved with (especially after I was unable find any connection between Porter and the Telegram, so far), so I had already been thinking maybe I should change Oregonian back to Oregon there, before you beat me to it and were also able to cite a source. SJ Morg (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy you're straightening this mess out. I'll continue to look in on the article to see if I can help with references or additional material. - Nunh-huh 21:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Autopatroller

Hi SJ Morg, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Valfontis (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! SJ Morg (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created

Just in case you wanted to complete or update your list of articles created. Perhaps you are already familiar with this tool. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with it, but I'm not using the Wikipedia definition of "article" for this list. I'm using a more conventional definition of "article". A single sentence of text is not an article, so for example I consider North Bank Depot Buildings to be an article created by me, but the automated wiki software does not identify me as its creator. I also created the article on Rose City Transit, but misleadingly am not identified as its creator because it existed previously as a redirect (to TriMet, where RCT was barely mentioned). The list is also not intended to be complete, but rather to be some of my better work (in terms of new articles), and I've consciously omitted the shorter articles I've created. It's mostly articles that are C-class or better (or at least between Start and C class, or better), but I have not adopted any exact set of requirements for inclusion. SJ Morg (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

citation clutter

[1] For an explanation of why citation clutter is so bad, see: this

Looks like I'm going to have to put an FAQ on my user page! Regards, NSH002 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Both methods have advantages and disadvantages, and I weighed them myself a few years ago and came down on the side of placing full citations within the body of an article (which, by the way, only "clutters" the edit window, not the article in read mode). One disadvantage of "your" method is that, whenever someone is editing by section only (which is very beneficial for people later reviewing edit histories of multisection articles with many contributors, and thus is generally something to be encouraged), they would be unable to edit any citations, because the details of all of the citations would always appear only in another section, the "References" section. I don't see a sufficiently compelling reason to change my practice, which also seems to be by far the most common practice used by other editors. SJ Morg (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) FWIW, I agree with you – I find dumping all of the citations into the {{Reflist}} template at the end of an article in its References section awkward, especially when you are trying to edit a section of an article, but the "guts" of a reference you want to look at (or edit) are only found elsewhere, in the article's References section. If an editor can read code even moderately well, it isn't too hard to pick out the references from the article text when editing, esp. if the included references have their parameters edited "vertically" (e.g. how many of the references are arranged when one looks at the 'Edit' tab of Bay Area Rapid Transit). So I prefer my reference coding 'inline' as well. Anyway, that's my $0.02... --IJBall (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. SJ Morg (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

emoticon in citation

Thanks for your edit summary here on a citation I had inserted. I was using the Visual Editor, which generates the citation name automatically for multiple use, and since I'm a dinosaur ignorant of most emoticons, I wouldn't have recognized it even had I bothered to check the edit window. Sorry for the faux pas. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Expose Yourself to Art"

Thanks for your recent edit to the article. But, it is unclear to me what "Mike's History Tours guided by memory, research, and a life in Northwest Portland" (see bottom of most recent diff) is about, if you are able to clarify. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I now see that it is the title of another article used as a reference. I removed the text, which is hopefully correct. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I have no idea how that got added in this edit by me, as I definitely did not consciously add that line, and I have no recollection of even ever seeing it until you mentioned it (and therefore it was not something that was, e.g., on my clipboard and might have gotten accidentally added there). This is truly bizarre to me – and a little worrisome, as it appears to be a case of me being credited for making an edit that I don't believe I made. (I did make all the changes in that edit except that last bit.) Hopefully, it was something that I accidentally, unknowingly dragged into the edit window, because if it really had nothing to do with me, that would worry me more! – SJ Morg (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd assume you accidentally copy/pasted. (?) That, or a ghost making phantom Wikipedia edits. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Steamboat Jean

Hey. Regarding this edit, how do you know it's in PDX and for that long? And can you tell me precisely where it is? — Ipoellet (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, forget it. I decided to take the radical step of actually looking at the article on the boat and its refs. That tells me what I need to know. Sorry to bother you. :-) — Ipoellet (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries. :-) — SJ Morg (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ex-Translink Mendoza trolleys

Hi SJ Morg! Nice photo of mendoza trolley #47, ex vancouver 2893! I was wondering how you knew it was 2893? Thanks!

Tomwong97 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwong97 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't take that photo (my own last visit to Mendoza was in 1996), but maybe you were thanking me for uploading it, which I did do. I was happy to find a photo of that subject on Flickr that was appropriately licensed to allow uploading to Wikimedia Commons, because Flyers have made up most of Mendoza's fleet for almost 6 years now and yet Commons had no photos of any for use with the Trolleybuses in Mendoza article on Wikipedia, until I found and uploaded that one. To answer your question, the information came from the British magazine, Trolleybus Magazine (ISSN 0266-7452), which has given full lists correlating the Mendoza fleet numbers with the old, ex-Vancouver fleet numbers for all of the Flyers that entered service in Mendoza. For Mendoza numbers 31–60 (including No. 47), the Vancouver numbers were given in the magazine's September-October 2010 issue (issue 293). I subscribe to the magazine, but issue 293 happens to be available online as a free sample issue, one of only two such issues. The original (Vancouver) numbers for Mendoza 01-30 were given in the September-October 2009 issue. So far, I have not seen the info. posted anywhere online. SJ Morg (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

MAX Orange Line

I created Category:MAX Orange Line and created a few redirects for stations under construction. I hope these article names are consistent with others, but certainly you are more familiar than I am. I invite you to create additional redirects, or even articles, for these stations, or to move the pages I created to their proper names. Of course, only if you are interested. I'll try to take some pictures of these stations when I can. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I almost didn't reply to this, because I have nothing good to say. There is absolutely no good reason to create redirects for stations on this line (redirects to this article). All but maybe two stations on this line don't even deserve to have standalone articles, in my opinion, but I know that all of them will eventually have articles nevertheless (I don't consider it worth my time to argue with those who feel that the precedent has been set that every MAX station is notable, so I won't try). However, I have only very limited interest in discussions over the format of titles of individual-station articles; it seems rather trivial to me. And redirects from individual-station titles to this general-Orange-Line article serve no useful purpose. Can you tell me how they do? SJ Morg (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

PreMetro E2 (Buenos Aires)

Hello, SJ! I have a question about Buenos Aires' Premetro E2 line (and, as you've been editing it longer than I have, I'm wondering if maybe you know some background on this...) – at both List of tram and light rail transit systems and at its own article, it is defined as being a "tram" system. At the Premetro E2 article this reference is cited to "confirm" the "tram" categorization, yet I don't see the word "tranvía" used anywhere in that article. Separately, this reference at the List of tram and light rail transit systems explicitly refers to the system as "light rail". From the pictures, it looks to me like it operates in an exclusive right-of-way, which is a hallmark of light rail... Bottom line: Should we recategorize the Premetro E2 line as light rail? And, if not, why not?... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It can be debated, but in my opinion it should reclassified as light rail (more details on why in a second). It was identified as light rail in its own article from 2008 until December 2010, when it was changed to "tram" by an Argentine editor who maybe doesn't understand well the distinction between tram/streetcar and light rail, which is mostly made by native English-speaking people. I should have changed it back, don't know why I didn't, but I never did. I've visited this line myself (in 1996), and it definitely fits the most common definition of light rail. Although it has two relatively short sections of street running in mixed traffic, the vast majority of the line has reserved track, mostly set in ballast, along roads. I don't recall for sure, but I think it has signal priority also (but then so do most new-generation streetcar/tram lines nowadays). Some people take the position that higher capacity is also a requirement for calling something light rail, and therefore that lines built for single-vehicle operation only don't qualify, but that's a minority viewpoint, and that's why organizations like the LRTA consider this line to be light rail. It's possible that the Argentine editor who changed "light rail" to tram here was also judging line E2 in comparison to the Tren de la Costa, in the same city, which is also light rail but is entirely on private right-of-way (using a long-existing 'heavy rail' line, modified in 1995 to add LRT stations), has somewhat higher speeds and uses articulated vehicles (but still running as single cars). But despite their differences, I say both lines are light rail, and that appears to be how they are referred to in the magazines I read. – SJ Morg (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you that it should be changed to "light rail". Would you prefer to do the honors?... If not, I can probably get to it on my end in the next day or two. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done – SJ Morg (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry; I shouldn't have marked "done" until I had changed it in both articles. I started to do the second one a couple of minutes ago, and before I could save it, you'd done it. :) – SJ Morg (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just a quick note to thank you for taking the photograph I just added to illustrate the article Living Room. When I first started the article, I assumed it would remain forever unillustrated, until I look at the Gresham Transit Center article and was pleasantly surprised. So glad you were able to photograph this now-dismantled installation. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 07:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not taken close-ups of artwork at more than a small fraction of the 85+ MAX stations (as art is not a major interest of mine, although I appreciate its value), so I am glad I took that photo while the sculpture was in place – even moreso now that it has an article on Wikipedia. As far as I can recall, I only photographed it one time, not before or since. SJ Morg (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Your revert of Milwaukee Road class EP-3 and others

Common does not equal correct. Per WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Unit names and symbols - "...a space appears between a numeric value and a unit name or symbol..." This is in line with BIPM recommendation for SI units.Alistair1978 (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alistair1978: Well, it was correct for decades, and is still more common when counting past published material, not just current usage, but I had not realized that the trend has apparently moved towards inclusion of a space before the V symbol. The Wikipedia Manual of style page you pointed to makes no mention of volts, and the omission of volts (or symbol V) from the "specific units" table (exceptions to the general practice) in that section is the only indication of the current MoS guideline for how to express values that use the symbol V. However, as you noted, I see that the BIPM (or International Bureau of Weights and Measures) is now recommending the practice you have been implementing, and that's a good argument. So, I now support your changes, although I don't agree with the idea that the longstanding historical practice of omitting the space is "incorrect". It's just no longer in sync with the WP MoS. SJ Morg (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Burnside: my bad

My bad, thanks and cheers. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:54 31 August, 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Cheers. – SJ Morg (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The "two dates" problem for references – a solution?...

Hi SJ. I know you were annoyed when they changed {{cite web}}, etc. to no longer allow using dates like |date=27 September 2007 (print version 25 September 2007) (e.g. Template:Cite web#COinS). Well, I just stumbled upon something – I think there may be a workaround: |publication-date=. It looks like you can at least partially solve the issue by using both |date=27 September 2007 and |publication-date=25 September 2007 together in the same reference citation. It's not a "perfect" solution (as it doesn't display like "|date=27 September 2007 (print version 25 September 2007)"...), but at least it's somewhat close. Just thought you should know, in case you didn't already... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was aware of that template option, although I've rarely used it, but I don't feel it helps deal with this problem. Either the web or print edition of a newspaper article can be thought of as the "publication date"; I'd say it makes the most sense to call the earliest date that (online date), but the later date (print edition) might be the only date under which the article is archived by a library or NewsBank. Unless the template's output makes a clear distinction between web version and print version (of the same article) in the template's output – which the option you mentioned is unable to do – I think I'll continue to be forced to record that distinction only in hidden notes for the time being. For now, I don't want to take time to start a discussion over this. I hoped someone else would do so, because there must be a hundred or more newspapers around the country that post articles on their websites 1 day before they publish the same article in print (causing the identical article to be referenced by two different dates), and therefore I feel that the {{cite news}} template really needs to be modified to accommodate that practice, but no one else has taken up the cause. At present, I'm way too busy and I might not even have time to participate in such a discussion. Nevertheless, I appreciate your suggestion. SJ Morg (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Note to self: I found what appears to be a solution to this problem: Adding the field |orig-year=first published online September 27, or simply |orig-year=online date September 27, which evidently allows text other than just a date – and (contrary to my assumption) does not actually have to be a year – without generating an error code. – SJ Morg (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

TriMet List of bus routes

Hi. I am not angry, but I would like to know why my list is being deleted. I don't understand why there can't be a list! RES2773 (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC) RES2773

Please read the 2013 discussion about this content – at which time the list was a separate "article" on Wikipedia, but the same arguments apply. I linked to that discussion in the edit summary I left when I deleted the list from the TriMet article, but in case you missed that link, here it is again: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TriMet bus routes. This material, which would consume a lot of space within the TriMet article (making the article harder to read), duplicates information found on TriMet's own website, and the route list is regularly updated on TriMet's website. Also, if it were included here, such a list would need to cite a reliable source for every detail in it, or else Wikipedia readers would have no idea whether each route and its details were accurate (or up-to-date) or not, but the only reliable source for such citations is TriMet's own website. Readers are better off just being directed to TriMet's website for this detail, and the External links section of the TriMet WP article already effectively does that. – SJ Morg (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I just read why it was deleted, but if you look up in the wikipedia search button "List of Bus routes" you will find dozens, and dozens, and dozens of articles, just with a list of bus routes. Some of them are much smaller and less noticeable than TriMet. Of course, there are even lists within articles. As for the sources, all of the information is right on the list. Having information elsewhere is not a valid reason for not having an article, or Wikipedia would not exist! RES2773 (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)RES2773

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John M. Breck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Errors

Thanks for catching that, as apparently a few slipped in while doing all of those edits! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Government of Portland, Oregon

I guess the removal of the current commissioner table can be justified (already listed above in the article), but there should be a section noting former commissioners. While the mayor column perhaps does not need to be included, the commissioners shouldn't be removed just because they may not be notable enough for their own article. Are all the mayors of Hillsboro notable enough for their own articles? No. So that's why they are listed in that article. Are one-term Portland commissioners from the 1940s notable enough for their own article? No. So that's why they should be listed there. While the former notable commissioner section does give a few past officeholders that most people reading the article would recognize, it doesn't give the dates they held office and who they served with, something that the table does in a clear format. MB298 (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Mayors are clearly more notable than city commissioners/councillors, even in a commission form of government such as Portland's. A table that lists every commissioner and wikilinks all of them (i.e., has red links for ones without articles) implies that all of them meet WP's notability requirements, which is dubious. From what I've seen elsewhere on WP, local-only politicians are usually not considered sufficiently notable for inclusion. Even if the table had no red links, I would fault it for taking a very disproportionate amount of space on the page and not making it clear when each term started and ended (some were in the middle of a year, due to resignations). If you disagree and feel you have a strong case, I suggest making this a separate, list-type article, but don't be surprised if someone (not likely to be me) tags it for possible deletion, and recognize that you'll need inline citations for every date, not just one blanket citation that supposedly covers all of the many, many dates in such a table. SJ Morg (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

For taking time to update NPS URLs on so many articles. Much appreciated! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance editing like that is generally thankless, so it's nice to receive a little appreciation. Thanks! I didn't know that NPS had changed its URLs until I saw that @Ipoellet: had updated the URLs on a page that was on my watchlist, and I'll give a shout out to him here, to thank him for also making that update to several pages. – SJ Morg (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yer welkim. — Ipoellet (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

MAX Orange Line Stations

Can you take a photo of Clinton St. SE 12th Ave & South Waterfront/SW Moody Ave MAX Station Orange Line and Upload it on Wikimedia Commons? Fanultradance (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. It's a relatively very low priority for me. Personally, I don't believe that most MAX stations should even have articles on Wikipedia, just the 12-15 most important stations (mainly the ones that are also transit centers, plus Washington Park station). SJ Morg (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: United States National Bank Building

Thanks for expanding this article. I love this building. Any plans to nominate the article for Good status? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks also for the post-expansion reassessment a couple of weeks ago. No, I have no plans to nominate it for GA, and in general I am much more interested in adding well-referenced content to articles to take them from Start to C-class or from C to B than in doing the fine-tuning to get from B to GA, but I don't seem to have nearly as much time for such expansions these days as I once did. In any case, that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to help with a GA review, time permitting. However, I already nominated it for DYK, and it has already been approved/promoted. So, it's due to be on the Main Page within the next couple of days. (I also nominated Bank of California Building for DYK, and it is waiting to be reviewed.) The impressive United States National Bank Building will turn 100 years old next year, and I hope the bank will do something (publicly) to call attention to that milestone when it comes. They probably won't, but it would be fitting. In case you're wondering, I don't know anyone there. If I did, I'd try to arrange access to the board room so that I could photograph the Povey Brothers stained-glass windows that are mentioned (but not described or illustrated) in the NRHP nomination. SJ Morg (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. I might nominate the article for Good status at some point, because I think it meets criteria, and will let you know if I take the plunge. Thanks again for your work on this article, and so many others. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I pinged you to see if you are able to add the source requested Talk:United States National Bank Building/GA1. With this addition, I think the article will be promoted to Good status. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for United States National Bank Building

On 15 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article United States National Bank Building, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the U.S. National Bank Building (pictured) in Portland, Oregon, features stained-glass windows by Povey Brothers Studio in its board room and illustrations in bronze relief on its doors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States National Bank Building. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, United States National Bank Building), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Bank of California Building (Portland)

On 19 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bank of California Building (Portland), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Bank of California Building in downtown Portland, Oregon, has been described as being in the style of an Italian Renaissance palazzo? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bank of California Building (Portland). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bank of California Building (Portland)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Sawyer's

On 15 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sawyer's, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sawyer's, known for making the View-Master, was at one time the second-largest U.S. manufacturer of slide projectors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sawyer's. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sawyer's), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

United States National Bank Building

Hello SJ Morg:

Wikipedian, Another Believer requested a copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors of your article United States National Bank Building earlier this month. This has now been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for Good status: Talk:United States National Bank Building. I wonder if the Bank of California Building may also meet GA criteria? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my hat note edit (that's genuine appreciation, not sarcasm). :) Is this edit appropriate, though? My goal was/is just to avoid a redirect. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No. Forcing the link to go via a redirect is preferred in cases like this, as explained at WP:INTDABLINK. – SJ Morg (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comecon MU Trackless

Thanks, I'd completely forgotten about that. It is still a regulatory and equipment availability problem in the West, I'd say. Do you think the article should mention it? Anmccaff (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It depends on what kind of mention you mean, and whether you have sources to cite in the article to which you refer. For a long time, I have been intending to add a brief mention of M.U. trolleybus operation in the former Soviet bloc—probably just a single paragraph, since it was used by so relatively few systems, all located in the former USSR—for which I have a few books and magazine articles I could cite, but have never gotten around to it. But if you are talking about mentioning it as a disadvantage in "comparison to trams" (generally a valid argument), with reference mainly to the U.S., then I'd say whether it warrants mention depends on whether you have sources to cite, since I am a strong supporter of the idea that almost everything on WP should be cited to reliable sources. I've avoided even looking at the Trolleybus article in recent days, because it appears that a huge amount of text has been added that cites no sources at all, let alone ones that meet WP:RS. However, I acknowledge that the sections that have been extensively reorganized and expanded recently did not cite very many sources before the changes, either—one reason that the article has long been in need of quality improvement (but I don't have time). SJ Morg (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Madison Street Bridge (Portland, Oregon)

This article is coming along splendidly, mostly thanks to you! I am curious, do you have a sense of its completeness? I have a couple books about bridges, but they've also been added as sources, so I am not sure how else I can contribute. When you feel like you're done working on the article, I'd be happy to nominate it for Good status and take it through the review process. I think this is a great new addition to Wikipedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think it's a long ways from "complete", or GA status (it might now be almost C class). For example, the text section about the 1891–99 bridge is still very short. My recent research into old Oregonian articles archived by the Multnomah County Library (and accessible via NewsBank to library cardholders) was focussed on the "second", or rebuilt, bridge – to correct the big "1902" error – but eventually I may do some research focussed on the original bridge, from the same source. It's not a high priority for me, but I was happy to have expanded the article to where it is now. A big part of my motivation, especially my motivation not to procrastinate on it, was Jsayre64's nominating it for DYK. Between the three of us, I think we have a nice new addition to WikiProject:Oregon's articles. By the way, I have tried to find additional photos that could be uploaded, and have had no success at all. – SJ Morg (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. It is good to have a sense of which sources you've consulted and what content gaps remain. I was going to ask about photos... hopefully the article can be fully illustrated one day. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Madison Street Bridge (Portland, Oregon) has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, SJ Morg. Madison Street Bridge (Portland, Oregon), an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Old Church / Calvary Presbyterian Church

I had previously requested a change of title to The Old Church Concert Hall. The building has had this use since it was deconsecrated in the late 1960s. It is currently used as a concert and event space and has been for some time. Changing the title of the page to "The Old Church Concert Hall" is a more accurate reflection of its current use. It will also help concert goers and the broader public find The Old Church Concert Hall more easily. Currently the Google information panel shows up with the title "Calvary Presbyterian Church" which is not correct for this address.

I will go ahead and resubmit a change request (this time not marked as uncontroversial). Apologies for incorrectly marking the first one.

Let me know if you have any concerns.

Thanks, Mark PdxUrbanHistory (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I realize you are new to editing Wikipedia, but it appears there are some things you do not understand about how Wikipedia works and is intended to work; please read the Five pillars information that Another Believer left on your talk page in February. Wikipedia is not a directory and is not intended to make it easier for web users to locate businesses or (in this case non-profit) concert venues, etc. (although it frequently does provide such a benefit). It is an encyclopedia, which means history is of equal importance to current usage, and also one of the core content policies is that articles be neutral, not promotional. In the case of this building, its historic name is – and always will be – the Calvary Presbyterian Church, and that is how it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and the fact that it is listed on the NRHP is really the only reason it qualifies for its own Wikipedia article. It does not matter that the Google search results panel shows the historic name more prominently; the current name (The Old Church) is prominently mentioned immediately below the heading, in Google's excerpt from the Wikipedia article. Also, anyone searching for the Old Church (Portland) in Wikipedia will have no trouble finding it, because a redirect to the article from The Old Church (Portland, Oregon) has existed for a year and a half (I created it), and anyone putting that name or anything similar into the search window on Wikipedia will be directed to the article about the building, despite the article's title being the historic name.

Currently, the article is mostly about the building's period of use as a church and its transition out of use as a church. No one has added any history from the 1970s (except the NRHP listing), 1980s or 1990s. The third paragraph (added by you in February) does not cite any independent sources, and as a result it may be deleted under Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and citing sources. If you'd like to expand the article, please do, but keep in mind that it needs to be information previously published in reliable, independent sources (i.e., books, newspapers, magazines; not most websites), and be paraphrased to avoid copyright infringement. That takes work, which is probably why this article remains very short, and no one except me has done any significant expansion to it. (Most of the text currently in the article and which cites independent sources was added by me, for example in this edit from 2013.) FYI, anyone with a Multnomah County Library card can search Oregonian articles (the source I used) from the present all the way back to the 1860s for free, from home. Anyway, regarding the title, the building's present name is prominently mentioned in the first sentence, and considering the factors I have mentioned, the case for renaming the article is weak – until and unless a lot of well-referenced, independent material about its post-1972 usage is added. Meanwhile, the article's current name is perfectly appropriate under Wikipedia's article naming guidelines. This is why, for example, the building in downtown Portland that is currently occupied by the Hotel Lucia is named New Imperial Hotel on Wikipedia; Hotel Lucia is only that building's present-day name, not its only name (and there are many similar examples on Wikipedia). SJ Morg (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and advice. I have added references and information to the entry. Current news sources (from 1968 - the present) no longer refer to the building as the Cavalry Presbyterian Church and even the National Register of Historic Places lists its common name as The Old Church. You can find that here: http://npgallery.nps.gov/nrhp/AssetDetail?assetID=71df9ecf-df04-4287-a19e-b504eb947687 PdxUrbanHistory (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For the brilliant work done on suggestions given at Template:Did you know nominations/Madison Street Bridge (Portland, Oregon). It's good to get to know you. Thank you. Lourdes 11:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It's always good to meet other editors who really care about quality. SJ Morg (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Madison Street Bridge (Portland, Oregon)

On 17 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Madison Street Bridge (Portland, Oregon), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a committee of eight Portland, Oregon, residents purchased the Madison Street Bridge in 1891 for over $3.8 million in 2015 dollars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Madison Street Bridge (Portland, Oregon). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Madison Street Bridge (Portland, Oregon)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Wishing you a very happy holiday season and a fulfilling 2017. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And the same to you, too! SJ Morg (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)