User talk:SJ Morg/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Thanks

I appreciate your updating the DYK stats for Center for the Study of Women in Society. It's very puzzling why there was such a big spike 3 days after it appeared on the Main Page. My best theory is gremlins. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

List of rail transit systems in the United States

The number of lines are provided in respective articles. In other list articles such as metro/subway, tram/light rail, and suburban/commuter number of lines are also mentioned. So, why in all of them those can't be mentioned? 36.81.9.64 (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Those articles include references and (usually) inline citations for every one of those details, which I consider to be essential. Wikipedia already has far too much transit-fan content that cites no sources at all, and we should not accept more of that. Look at the long list of references at the bottom of List of United States light rail systems by ridership (almost 80 references). That makes that list much more useful as a source of info. for people outside of Wikipedia to use, because even if a statistic becomes out-of-date, there are dated references which enable people to easily see that that one statistic may be out-of-date, a useful warning. The list of rail transit systems in the United States is a very low-maintenance article currently, because it is mainly just an index to the Wikipedia articles on that subject area (deliberately omitting any system size details, which are much more likely to be questioned and, therefore, to require references); readers can find supporting references on those other Wikipedia pages, so the references are not really needed on the List of rail transit systems page. However, if we begin adding statistics to that article, then (1) every one will need to cite a source (with full details such as name of publisher, date, title, etc.) and (2) the article will need to be updated more often in the future. SJ Morg (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I added lines to RTD which has 2 different services (commuter and light rail) like other systems in the article that have different services. I'm fine if my second edit were reverted, but why were my first were reverted too? If my first edit was wrong, I am not wrong deleting other mentioned lines, right? 36.81.9.64 (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You only added numbers "1", "2", etc., whereas this article is mainly a list of wikilinks to existing Wikipedia articles. I have now added the Denver content to the list, since Wikipedia does have separate articles for each of Denver's rail lines. SJ Morg (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	For uploading and adding older, pre-digital transit pictures to various Seattle transit articles! They are a gold mine for subtle details, like destination signs and small changes to station amenities. SounderBruce 00:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It's hard to find the time to do the pre-digital ones, but your recent work on the DSTT (and related DYK nominations) definitely motivated me to give a higher priority to some of the scanning and uploading I had long been intending to do. Convention Place station should follow soon. SJ Morg (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

List of trolleybus systems

Greetings,mr.Morg,i 1st time added data to Wikipedia today,i have advanced knowledges about Slovak & Czech public transportation systems,so I tried to add data about Czech systems,U deleted everything. It is not true,deleted will be only invalid-not true data? In so short time U cannot confirm,are that data true or lye. I am a public transport expert,but not an IT expert,so I have not editor skills to create new articles & link them together,that is the reason,i added data into Notes column. Belive me,that trolleybus on that picture in Hradec Králové is 15Tr-M,not 15Tr,15Tr has front window splitted in the middle to 2 half windows,U just downloaded the picture,i am living in Czech republic & I traveling by these trolleybuses,U may travel only by the 15TrSF version,I think,U never touched 15Tr-M/15Tr versions,which r thousands of Km away from U,i traveled over many of Central European trolleybus grids,so y U think,i am lying? About Ostrov: On Your list r many non-passanger trolleybus systems:freight,experimental,military,museum...for other countries,so y only in Czech republic part it cannot be? About other: If U like mass transit & electric vehicles & U r advanced on Wikipedia,y U only blindly deleting everything including true,which differs from Your personal opinion or U prefere to be it unknown,if U can professionally create & interlink articles? I am sorry,it harmed U,Škoda is larger brand than Flyer,but it is true,USA have better movies,IT,personal electric vehicles(Tesla)... and Czech republic has better streetcars and trolleybuses and it is a worldwide number 1 brand in exporting mass transit vehicles,Škoda made the most of trolleybuses today operating over the world,ČKD Tatra & Škoda together made also the majority of world's streetcars,i am sorry,but that is true. I have no reason to lye for better credits of Czech republic,mass transit industry is the only good activity of this republic & I am actually not from there,i just living here & traveling by these vehicles,but I am born in Slovakia,i helped with petition,which saved trolleybuses in Banská Bystrica,but I failed in Košice,where I am born & I was unable to save my home trolleybuses,so I am not from that mass transit supercreator country,i have no reason for manipulating data. What I wrote,is true,i am sure,Google can confirm it,but maybe not in English. R U sure,the mothers of thousands of trolleybuses operating worldwide-plants in Plzeň & Ostrov r irrelevant for general list & history of trolleybuses? Please,instead of blind deleting fix my spelling errors,as English is 3rd language,I learned,Your 1st & I learned it from US movies,webs & PC games,not from mother like U,reorder data,i entered,for example to separated categories,interlink it,etc.,i am not good in it,i just can provide precious data about my beloved trolleybuses,streetcars,etc.,but I cannot process it for good look of Wikipedia,so please,instead of deleting sort that data to right look-it is Your talent. R U able to appreciate data from an another electric mass transit fan living in country,U publishing about it? Or U think,U r better expert also to Czech mass transit systems,than a citizen of Czech republic,who uses the wires,U just write about it? I belive U,U write true about US mass transit,can U belive me about Czech mass transit? Do not belive me? So visit me,i will show these systems personally to U,i may also ask for an excursion to the Plzeň's plant for U & it's personnel will personally confirm everything,i wrote & U deleted,U r invited,do a trolleybus & streetcar vacation here to confirm,i am not a lyer,nor data-terrorist,nor hacker. With regards Sabina,Plzeň-North district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.80.243.124 (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

See response left at User talk:109.80.243.124. – SJ Morg (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Addition:

As I wrote about Czech trolleybus plants(U deleted),i would be glad for example c in the trolleybus systems' list a note,where-in which city was / ?is? Flyer trolleybus plant.

I would be glad for such note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.80.243.124 (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not fully understand your question. The manufacturing plant of Flyer (named New Flyer since 1986) was - and still is - located in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (but the company now also has plants in two cities in the U.S. state of Minnesota). However, this is not relevant to a list of trolleybus systems, in my opinion, because in English a "trolleybus system" is a public, passenger-carrying line or network using trolleybuses, with regular service (thus, operating trolleybus lines at museums are not included). The city of Winnipeg had a trolleybus system (1938–1970; see List of trolleybus systems in Canada), and if Wikipedia had an article about that system (it would be called "Trolleybuses in Winnipeg" on Wikipedia), then it would be appropriate to mention briefly the Flyer plant there (but without giving details about the company, because it has its own Wikipedia article). However, there is no Wikipedia article about the closed Winnipeg trolleybus system, which is also the case for most closed/defunct trolleybus systems. SJ Morg (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Seattle trolleybus history

First off, thank you so much for your recent edits to Trolleybuses in Seattle. I had taken the page from a "start" article and fleshed it out, but your sources are great and have added so much depth to the article.

About my recent edits... as another long time Wikipedian, I agree that a self-published site "Tom's North American Trolley Bus Pictures", is far from ideal as a source. I was only using it because it had the information on which Twin Coach units were equipped with GE electric systems and which had Westinghouse (which I find to be and interesting tidbit). I didn't have any reason to doubt the validity of the information, but if you do, please feel free to delete it.

On a related note, I feel like the article is getting really close to "good" status. I'm planning on nominating it soon, but if you have any further suggestions for content that should be added, let me know!

Cheers!

--RickyCourtney (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Good work on Cockstock Incident

Thank you for the well-written article on the \\ Incident. It's important to tell the story of Oregon's sad racist history, and you present the incident with clear and unabashed detail. I appreciate your work! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene: Thanks, but I did not write that article. I just added it to WikiProject Oregon's DYK list, for which I am one of the regular maintainers. By the way, I am a native Oregonian, and I agree that it's important to tell the story of Oregon's racist past, however unpleasant for us natives to think about. (However, I don't plan to tackle it myself; way too big a challenge.) So I am glad to see that someone wrote an apparently relatively thorough article on this one subtopic of that broader topic. But I didn't write it. SJ Morg (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for First Presbyterian Church (Portland, Oregon)

On 7 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article First Presbyterian Church (Portland, Oregon), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the bell of the First Presbyterian Church (pictured) in Portland, Oregon, was cast from Civil War cannons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/First Presbyterian Church (Portland, Oregon). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, First Presbyterian Church (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.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

El Paso Streetcar

I saw that you reverted my edit, but I was curious about the reason why. The system in El Paso is more of a hybrid. Yes it will use Heritage Trolley cars, but that's where the "heritage" part ends. The system is intended to be no different to any other newly constructed streetcar system, and will operate as a public service. I see a true "heritage streetcar" as being one that operates a limited service, and is mainly there for tourism etc. If the El Paso system did not opt to use PCC streetcars, then it would clearly be a modern streetcar system in all other respects. - Morphenniel (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The consensus among editors to the Streetcars in North America page was to separate new systems using modern streetcars from new systems using vintage or vintage-style streetcars, even when the latter are providing true transit service, and that's why the latter even have their own table in the heritage streetcar systems section, headed "Systems offering regular public transit". The systems in, e.g., Dallas (McKinney Avenue) and Little Rock also provide real transit service, running year-around, daily and all day long, but they are listed in this article's heritage streetcars section, as is the Loop Trolley (in St. Louis), which is not yet in the table because it is not yet open. It would be inconsistent to treat El Paso differently. Maybe under-construction systems like El Paso and the Loop Trolley should be added to the "Systems offering regular public transit" table but with a clear, visual notation indicating that they are only under construction, not yet in operation (and citing references). – SJ Morg (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Wave streetcar

The info you added at Wave (streetcar) is new(er) than what was there, but still outdated and predates the late 2017 cancellation I believe. B137 (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

What cancellation? If you have newer info., please add it to the article. SJ Morg (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Costs explode October 23 Wave streetcar's high construction bids rejected All bids rejected. B137 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The construction contract is separate from the vehicle contract, and the news in the first article (Oct. 23 Sun-Sentinel) is only about the design-and-construction contract. Also, the fact that the bids for that work came in higher than expected and were rejected does not mean the project is cancelled. Indeed, the second article (Nov. 7 Sun-Sentinel) says that changes are being made and new bids will be requested. It also makes it clear that work on the streetcars has been put on hold, but the order is not cancelled (at least not yet). We'll need to watch for future developments, but based on those two Sun-Sentinel articles, everything I added to the article is still accurate. SJ Morg (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Caen?...

Hi, SJ! Is there anyway that you can verify the claim made by the edit summary in this edit? I just did a quick search, and didn't find anything, but you seem to have access to much better sources than me... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I added references for the Caen and Nancy developments to the article Rubber-tyred trams. As you can see there, the Caen line was due to close on 30 December (it was reported [at end of October] as due to cease operating "from 31 December"), and although I don't have a source saying that it actually did, I suppose it did. There was no way to add a ref for this in List of tram and light rail transit systems, since the listing is now gone. However, since it is a closure for conversion from one type of "tramway" to another, it can be argued that this is really only a suspension, and the listing could be reinstated (but with different/transitional info. in the "Type" column) on that basis. For Nancy, I initially began to add a reference to the "List of tram ..." article for the plans to convert the line into a conventional tramway, but decided not to, because the additional reference really would have supported only the text of the footnote, not any of the Nancy details in the table, and this list-type article does not have a column for notes (thankfully; it would get even more out of control if it did). — SJ Morg (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Asa Miller

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

titles

Thanks, I guess, for linking to that page. I honestly looked for it, but couldn't find a rule. I was just trying to be a bit more consistent, since the other method is pretty common among NRHP-linked pages: S.G. Smith House, A.J. Smith House, F.A. Smith House, T.W. Smith House, A.L. Smith House, and probably many more. It's hard to know there's a rule if it doesn't really doesn't show up consistently. kennethaw88 • talk 05:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kennethaw88: Yes, there's a lot of inconsistency about that formatting, but the WP convention seems clear to me from that page (that I cited, MOS:SPACEINITS), which states "An initial is followed by a full point (period) and a space (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien), unless ...". And the two exceptions that follow only apply where an article has been written and where the citations support omission of the space between initials, which was not the case with your edits. In my own limited experience dealing with this particular point on WP, the consensus that a space should be included seems to have been reached several years ago. So, unless you can find a contradictory policy page, please stop making these changes and identifying your edits as "fixing". SJ Morg (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I did. I read it, and I stopped. I didn't change a single one after the first in your spree of reverts. kennethaw88 • talk 05:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It was the "I guess" in your post that made me wonder a bit about your future intentions. Sorry if it came off as belaboring the point. SJ Morg (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Inquiry from The Washington Post

Hi there,

My name is Sonia, and I write for The Washington Post. I'm interested in pursuing a story about Wikipedia users who update/edit pages detailing specific histories of the Academy Awards (e.g. "List of black Academy Award winners and nominees," "90th Academy Awards"). I believe you might have edited a similar page recently, perhaps during the ceremony. People who are simply curious often end up on these informative pages, and I believe our readers might find it interesting to hear the story behind the quick edits — are there some Wikipedia users who wait for the awards to be announced and then update the pages immediately? How do you keep track of all the history? And so on.

If you'd be interested in chatting with me, please let me know as soon as possible. I can be reached at sonia.rao@washpost.com.

Thanks! Sonia

Soniarao23 (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Response sent by email. SJ Morg (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Henry Failing Red Links

I apologise for changing your change. I was working on the page and thought I had eliminated the red links but then saw they were there again a few minutes later. I thought it was I who had not saved my change. I did not realise that you had meanwhile reinstated them. I would never have been so rude as to change them again without contacting you. I thought it had been an error of mine.

Personally I do not leave in red links when editing unless they are to a prominent entity that does not have a link but probably should have. I do not think anyone is likely to do an entry on The Northern Pacific Terminal Company (part of the railroad) and perhaps not on Holcomb, although I may be wrong and indeed you may be planning to? I always think it looks sloppy if there are red links to obscure entries where there are no actual links and no one has bothered to do a link - or is likely to do a link - so not clear why you think them advisable? My treading is that Wikipedia does not either but it is a grey area. I thought the red links were there in error. I did correct a red link so it went to the right place in the entry. But I would never have corrected a deliberate edit of anyone's without discussing with them first. I did not have the page on my watch list so got no notification. Have put it on now. Please accept my apologies for inadvertently editing your re-edit.

I see you were temporarily (I think that is the Webster spelling?) caught out today on an Australian English edit on a page that was on my watch list :-). I have been in the past also. A lot of helpful editors - and I certainly welcome them when it comes to grammar or spelling etc - do not realise that their is US Webster English, British Oxford English, Australian and Canadian etc, which are all slightly different but the type of English the entry was created in is now at the top of the edit page. Good on you, as they would say Down Under - for catching this on your own. I usually do not. Thanks for keeping your eye open.William Macadam (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. Regarding your re-deletion of the red links after my first reinstatement, that is exactly what I figured had happened (judging from your edit summary), so I did not infer any rudeness – but your explanation here was considerate. I don't have a strong opinion about whether those two red links should be kept (and notice I did not reinstate all of the redlinks you removed), but your edit summary when you first removed them ("Took out links (in red where there is no wikilink)") suggested to me that you might not be aware that many editors consider red links to be useful, as explained at the guideline page to which I referred when I reinstated them. You say that you leave red links in place when the subject is "prominent", but I would think that prominent subjects most likely already have a Wikipedia article; a subject only has to be "notable" to warrant an article on Wikipedia. I will concede that I have no idea whether Northern Pacific Terminal Company and W. H. Holcomb meet the notability threshold, as I don't know anything about them and have not done any research, so if you feel certain that they are unlikely ever to have a Wikipedia article and do not warrant one, you are free to remove the red links again, and I won't revert. Also, if you plan to expand any article that has (like Henry Failing) already reached B class to "Good article" class and then plan to try to go on to Featured status, any red links would probably have to come out at that last stage. Red links are considered to be fine in GA-class articles (as long there are not a huge number), but generally to be avoided in FAs.

Yes, I made a rather careless error in that language-related spelling change, but luckily I noticed it almost right away. Unfortunately, it's preserved in the article's history! But even editors who try to be careful, use the "preview" button, and try to use the language variant and date format that is most applicable to the article's subject still occasionally make mistakes, as you said. – SJ Morg (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Those two red links have been in for quite a while and no one had done entries. However you have further spurred me to find a way to do a connection to Portland Union Station entry which The Northern Pacific Terminal Company built and I have done so, so it is no longer orphaned. So well done you. I will leave it up to you whether to leave in Holcomb as a red link. If anyone does one I would think it would be done whether red linked or not? I had somewhere in the back of my mind that a boat or stern wheeler was named after him but I could find no reference to it or him at a cursory search of Portland histories - have not gone wider. These exchanges have resulted, I hope, in an improvement, thanks to you (and me wondering if I was going gaga as red links I thought I had removed did not seem to have been so I went to the page history and my gremlin was not - it was you :-) ). We do now seem to have improved the page together. Many thanks William Macadam (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, having a red link that is already linked from multiple articles can help to generate motivation for creating an article, and I have now added a Holcomb red link to a two other articles. As I mentioned in one recent edit summary, some WikiProjects even keep track of such red links (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Redlinks list) as a way to publicize them and encourage someone to research and write an article. In the case of W. H. Holcomb, who I found (starting with an educated guess) was William H. Holcomb, I have confirmed he is certainly notable and have added some text about him to those two other articles from which I have linked him (see Pages that link to "William H. Holcomb" and click on the links. And I haven't even taken time to add a mention of Holcomb to any of the WP articles about the entities for which he was a manager). If any of those red links were deleted, someone filling in the name "William H. Holcomb" manually and then clicking on "What links here" would see fewer results, and I don't see any benefit to that. – SJ Morg (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Great photo of the Corbett Building

That is a great photo of yours of the Corbett Building on the Hamilton Corbett page. Best I have seen. And also thanks for the various edits of various pages I have also been working on. Much appreciated.

I think Holcomb and his wife Emma are buried in Riverview Cremetery. Re. the boat I mentioned above that I had a vague recollection was named after him I think I was probably muddling it with the Lot Whitcomb - well they both end in comb!!! It could also be that the New York Times article that I quoted could I suppose have made a typo with his initials? Good luck with tracing him. I hope you do. William Macadam (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

DSTT reference for Convention Place

Just wondering if you have a reference that explicitly says that Convention Place station was left mostly untouched during the 2005–07 renovation. Or one that describes the crossing gate installed at the intersection of the DSTT's Convention Place branch and the Pine Street stub tunnel. These are last pieces I need for my rewrite of the Convention Place article (and thus the last piece of my DSTT series). SounderBruce 07:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. I didn't even know a crossing gate now exists there until I read your comment just now. I've only made one visit to Seattle since University Link opened, and I didn't visit Westlake station or pass through that section of the DSTT during it. SJ Morg (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking (and at this hour). Here's a photo of the crossing gate in action, taken from a southbound bus just after a southbound train had passed (the northbound train pictured does not trigger the gate). SounderBruce 08:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Muni signage capitalization

I wanted to check in with you here before reverting you. I don't think MOS:TMRULES is really relevant to the faux station signage used for infobox titles; that MOS section deals with how names should be used in prose (where we do properly say West Portal, Van Ness etc). Muni signage signage underground from West Portal to Embarcadero does actually use the unusual all-lowercase style. Side note: T Third Street, MMX, and some M Ocean View stations use all-caps, as will future surface stations, while future subway stations will retain the lowercase. While I'm the first to admit the lowercase looks a bit odd (and painfully 1970s), I think we should use it for the aesthetics-only infobox headers when it is used on actual station signage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

How would anyone who hasn't used the system know that the signs use all-lower-case letters? To them, it would look like an error, or at least a rather unprofessional, too informal style for an encyclopedia. I didn't even realize those headers were supposed to resemble actual station signage until you mentioned it — and only then did I realize that the fact that the same editor who changed those for the Muni Metro, and has been changing them all for Portland's MAX station articles also, presumably chose red (which I don't like, as I find it to be too "loud", too distracting, on a web page) for the MAX ones not just because he liked it, but because the freestanding platform signs at MAX stations use red (but a much darker shade than the one @Cards84664: has been using), on the 1986-to-2004-opened stations. Articles should be clear to any reader, not just to those who are already interested in the subject before they see the article. Personally, I feel there are already way too many transit-related articles on WP that were created by, and are mainly updated by, editors who appear to believe that as long as transit fans will understand the content, that's sufficient. I disagree, and when I see, for example, an acronym such as "LRV" (widely understood by transit people) that hasn't been spelled out, I'll spell it out for the broader readership. I don't feel strongly enough about the case of the Muni Metro infobox headers to want to spend time arguing with anyone about it, so if you and others feel that using all-lower-case in these headings is appropriate, I won't fight it. But, sorry, you have not swayed me to your position. SJ Morg (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that Cards84664 has changed to a more accurate shade of red in the MAX infobox headers (in response to my comment above), which is good. But he still isn't providing any edit summaries with his edits, despite your (Pi.1415926535) urging him to do so, on his talk page. SJ Morg (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cards84664: As SJ noted, you have continued to omit edit summaries, and deleted my message from your talk page without reply. I would appreciate if you could join the conversation.

SJ, I do understand what you're saying. The nine (soon twelve) underground Muni stations are a weird anomaly - they're the only all-lowercase station signage I've ever seen. I think matching the style that Muni uses should take precedence over proper grammar in this situation because it is not in prose, but perhaps a wider discussion is worthwhile? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for List of Masonic buildings in the United States

An article that you have been involved in editing—List of Masonic buildings in the United States —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Doncram (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Your latest edits of my work on Henry W. Corbett and Elliott R. Corbett

Long comment and reply

SJ Morg, you have removed credits under photos in Henry W. Corbett Wikipedia entry and also in Elliott R. Corbett entry. All these in the case of Henry W. Corbett have been there for over four years, except two new ones which were added this year. They were credits that I agreed with the Oregon Historical Society as a condition of releasing those photographs from their collection for use in the public domain with credit to them. Others are as a condition for for professional photographers to have taken a photo commissioned by me and then kindly placed in the public domain (in Wikipedia Commons) as mutually agreed as a waiver for payment etc. Both articles had been reviewed by Wikipedia senior editors, accepted, and graded without any interference since the photos were put up. Indeed, you had regularly also made some punctuation or other minor correction without finding a problem in them. I did not want to undertake the Elliott R. Corbett entry but was contacted by historians in Oregon asking that I do so. Especially as Wikipedia had an entry on his house and such things as the First National Bank Building, his grandfather and brothers. This was because I had access to the Elliott R. Corbett Archives that I had been sorting and archiving with the intention of having them go to the Oregon Historical Society in Portland Oregon. It was felt that since his papers were here that I was the only person that could accurately do an entry. So I undertook this very large undertaking which hopefully other Oregon historians and researchers will be able to add to in due course. The Wikipedia Manual of Style that you quote as reason for this large edit and elimination of the credits states This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. It seems to me that common sense has not been applied here and you have to realise that your activities, when excessive, can be seen to be meddlesome, a nuisance and make contributing to Wikipedia a very unpleasant experience, although I am sure that is not your intent. Surely you can have the courtesy to inquire on an editor’s talk page if the party would have any objection to amending their work in a major way? Wikipedia is a broad church of volunteers and it is important to take into consideration a broad range of views and consideration for the contributors’ exhaustive work in making the page possible. The edit suggesting change in format that you quote as suggested re Wikipedia picture credits was only made, I believe, in May 2018 and should obviously not apply to any entries made previously in any case. To give you a few examples, imagine my surprise to get an automatic email notification from Wikipedia that an entry on John Macadam, a Scottish-Australian individual had been corrected by you. I had been asked by Australian and British historians and academics if I could do some further research on the individual and expand the original entry. I knew next to nothing about the subject but did so and it took many months of research in mostly Australian papers and their learned societies’ journals. My research, as most that I have researched for Wikipedia was peer reviewed by the historians and academics. Obviously, you like to read and correct my work even though this seemed far from your usual constant interest in changing entries that have to do with Oregon, which I understand is where you live. What was your correction? It was correcting the spelling from that of Australian usage to American spelling. Why would you do this? Except that you have constantly been doing so over the years. I suspect that you believe Webster is the only correct spelling? The article says on the edit page . Someone – or something – notified you and you changed it back but these fiddles often seem petty and unnecessary and can be annoying when incorrect. There are different ways of spelling English, although Oxford English Dictionary is usually an acceptable standard internationally when not indicated otherwise but may not always be desirable. Even in the mother of the tongue in Britain, Oxford English or Times English are both used, in the US Webster reigns, in Canada the Gage Canadian Dictionary / Canadian Oxford Dictionary rule and so on. There is no Commonwealth English as your correction seems to infer. There iare different common spelling usage in all English speaking countries and of course actually different word ie lorry in Britain and truck in the US which should both be avoided if possible for a common generic word such as vehicle. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spelling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#National_varieties_of_English etc. I took out red headings of names in, the Henry Failing article, as I thought they were only left in in error when someone thought there was a page on the person, otherwise if they are left in all over the place it seems slovenly editing to me as anyone wanting one in should take the trouble to research a write a properly sourced page. I was unaware that this was a purposeful edit by you. I was able to put a link to the Portland Terminal Company (builder/owner of Portland Union Station), which could have been done with a bit of research by you rather than just reinserting the red heading, I would have thought without me having to do it? However, the New York Times article of 19 June 1888, I had researched for Henry W. Corbett and reproduced by another in that article had a W.H. Holcomb (one of your red fellows) elected to the board of the Oregon Steam Navigation Company. However, you have changed this to William H. Holcomb (still adhering to red without an entry for him). Unless you have researched and confirmed that, it is he, it can be misleading to change a newspaper report. It would be perhaps proper to footnote him as “Possibly William H. Holcomb” or if you have further evidence “Probably” and add something about him. Surely historical newspaper reports should not be rewritten unless you know the new name to be a fact as it may mislead future historians or editors (and always wise to bear in mind that the NYT report could have had the initials wrong in their report, even if there was better proof reading in those days)? I hope you will take this in the constructive spirit that it is meant but the problem that you create by constantly fiddling and correcting spelling, minor stylistic grammar, adding red name entries etc., comments on whether a photograph of a north and south elevation of house is necessary such as in the Hamilton F. Corbett entry showing his house – obviously in the view of the author, in this case me, it was felt it was desirable as it was a very a-typical house in the Northwest US by an important international architect and the first time an image of it had been put up in Wikipedia. Something important for many readers and historians, especially architectural ones. You have changed my text a number of times without indicating that you had in the articles Revision History. The only way I knew it was you was that I got a notification from Wikipedia but there is no record in the Revision History. Somewhat unsettling. I have in the past always let your amendments go. I have researched Oregon’s and Portland’s rich history for fifty years with the help of its prominent historians past and present. I have been trying to get down much of what I have into the public domain while I am still able. For instance, the Henry W. Corbett entry was the result of painstaking research that took twenty years to get just as far as it is with numerous visits to Portland, the Oregon Historical Society archives etc from abroad and references to hundreds of books and documents. It is by far the most comprehensive history on this significant early Portland pioneer in one place anywhere and it is on Wikipedia. There is much in the Oregon Wikipedia entries, of which you seem particularly interested in editing most entries, that needs attention and additions. For instance, to name but one, the Portland, Oregon entry’s history of Portland’s first one hundred years is very inadequate indeed and is misleading as is. Portland, the then largest city in the Northwest was referred by most early historians as a highly civilised city and likened to Boston on the Pacific. You can see just how much so by looking at the entries of the Oregon and Portland pioneers such as H.W. Corbett, W.S. Ladd, Cicero H. Lewis, Henry Failing, etc. etc. or reading any of the histories covering the early years of Portland and Oregon many sourced there. It had thriving businesses, cultural institutions and important architecture. Its 1905 Lewis and Clark Exposition, its World Fair put Portland on the international map in but half a century after its incorporation. None of this a worldwide reader looking up Portland, Oregon would be aware of from the Wikipedia entry, which only refers to the waterfront and its, in effect, red light district. This surely could have been something constructive that caught your eye and should have concerned you to see it was remedied and take precedence over fiddling with other people’s sound bodies of work. I was going to take a stab at remedying this by adding to that entry, among others, if I had the time to do so. However as an eighty-year-old historian and lifelong historical and investigative researcher, I will not do so now because you make the Herculean effort to add and research fully referenced work, so distressing and annoying. I, like any author, warmly welcome any input that can improve an article. Sometimes indeed you have, for which I am most grateful, but too often it is meddling for meddling’s sake, it seems to me. I am sure that you mean well but these constant interferences in search of a reason to do so are unpleasant when it is others who have done a colossal amount of research, work and writing an entry. I have never come across anything but courtesy and helpfulness with my work from Wikipedia editors outside of Oregon, which has to be one of the most courteous of places, but it can be unpleasant experience for an Oregon subject knowing that you will likely have something you will want to change sometimes when it actually negates my word and undertaking. I am afraid I feel duty bound to re-insert the some of the photo/image credits as I had agreed with the parties supplying them to mutually acceptable terms. Picture credit terms which make not the slightest bit of difficulty to any reader. Some additional credits were put in to standardise the entries throughout. These I can look at taking out if they bother you but it would seem better to follow a standard throughout the entry. The edit change you quote as suggested re Wikipedia picture credits was only made, I believe, in May 2018 and should obviously not apply to any entries made previously in any case. However, I do not want you to edit my entries any further, if you do not mind, without discussing it with me first. Of course, if you want to take this to third party arbitration that is your right but I sincerely hope that I am not put through that added bit of aggravation. I also hope that this does not sound like I am not appreciative of some of your trouble in looking the articles over. It is just that there has to be ban end to it and you have seen most of these photos in the article credited like this for at least four years and no objection by any of the Wikipedia senior editors or appraisers has been made and there has to be a stop to these constant changes for change sake, I am sure you will agree on reflection. Best regards, William Macadam (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Please read Wikipedia:Ownership of content and refrain from making inaccurate assumptions and false claims about my editing. Full response left at your talk page. – SJ Morg (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC) SJ Morg, Thank you for your detailed response to mine above. It was good of you to explain your point of view and take the trouble to do so at such length. I do appreciate that like so many contributing to Wikipedia, you have made a substantial contribution to it and I thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I in turn apologise for the delay in acknowledging your message. I am only now able to get to my computer to do so and to send this as I have had dear friends from abroad staying here, who I have been taking around historic places, and they only left earlier today. Many thanks for your reply. Best regards, William Macadam (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Rajneesh Article

Hello, I see that you've edited the article on Rajneesh. I would like to ask you to give your thought on the page move discussion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajneesh#Requested_move_11_June_2018 Accesscrawl (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Interstate 84 in Oregon

Maybe you've noticed, but I've started a round of improvements to the Interstate 84 in Oregon entry to go along with my Interstates in Washington. Unfortunately, work on the history section is going to be difficult, as I don't have easy access to the Oregonian archives (currently only through a microfilm archive 40 miles from home). Would you mind lending a hand, or perhaps emailing a few articles? SounderBruce 05:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but probably not. I recently returned from a fairly major trip, and I anticipate that I'll be spending a lot of time over the next few weeks preparing material (mainly photos) for at least four transit magazines, which (among other demands on my time) will leave me with even less time than usual for Wikipedia editing between now and early August. And I already have a long list of intended WP editing that's waiting for me to find time, some of which has been waiting for months already.

However, since you have NewsBank access, are you sure you don't have access to The Oregonian archives? The NewsBank interface that I use (via the Multnomah County Library, logged-in on my home computer) gives the strong impression that the coverage available to me is mainly only Portland-area publications and a handful of other Oregon or national publications, but I figured out years ago that I can actually access NewsBank's archives for newspapers from every part of the country. It was only after figuring that out (which is, still today, not at all evident from the starting interface or index) that I was able to carry out research of old Seattle Times (back to 1985) and P-I (back to 1986) articles. I also found it very useful when searching nationwide for info. for the article I wrote on Grey Rabbit and my expansion of the Green Tortoise article. You need to get to the NewsBank page that shows a map of the entire United States – and then select Oregon. For me, I have to go either to "America's News Magazines" or to "National Papers", and then in the sidebar, click on "State and Territory", which produces the map. If it initially shows only a few states, click on "clear all". I did that just now, and got the map of the entire U.S. and its territories, with sources available for 50 states, D.C. and Puerto Rico. There are 31 sources for the state of Washington alone, none of which was visible in the main index (when I first logged in) or first sub-index. By the way, I have never had to pay one cent for NewsBank access (the only cost being a one-time charge of $10 to obtain a library card, paid several years ago), which is why, in my recent edits to Mount Baker Tunnel, I used "registration=yes" rather than "subscription=yes" in citation templates where I was including a link to a NewsBank-archived article.

However, having said that, I know that there are two separate archives of Oregonian articles, one from the present back to 1987 and another from 1987 back to the 1860s, and the latter appears not to be covered when going through that NewsBank map of all states and territories. So, I imagine you probably don't have access to pre-1987 Oregonian articles. If you were to give me a list of your top-five (or so) priorities for details you hoped to find out from pre-1987 articles, I might be willing to check (and email you a few articles), but there's a good chance I wouldn't get around to it until August. And I am guessing you were hoping to finish your editing of the Interstate 84 in Oregon entry long before then. In any case, do let me know whether you are able to at least access the 1987-to-present Oregonian archives on NewsBank. – SJ Morg (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, but unfortunately it doesen't seem to work with my Seattle Public Library account (which can only access The Times and a few national magazines; the Multnomah card seems to also cover The Times, which may be why the loophole works). I'll let you know if I need a specific article, but otherwise it seems I'll have to figure out how to get a Portland card (perhaps through a reciprocal card from Fort Vancouver). SounderBruce 23:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

None of the menus and submenus in your NewsBank interface (via Seattle Public Library) showed a tab/button labeled "State and Territory"? – SJ Morg (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It does, but the national map only allows me to select Washington, the other Washington (two minor magazines), and Pennsylvania (for the Philadelphia Monthly). For the time being, I have access to an e-card from the Fort Vancouver Library with the post-1987 Oregonian, but I'm looking around to see if I can get a real reciprocal card. SounderBruce 06:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

As it turns out, your little trick does work with this Vancouver card, though it is still missing articles from all of the non-Portland newspapers before 2000. SounderBruce 06:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It's possible that pre-2000 coverage of those other newspapers isn't available on NewsBank regardless of the cardholder's location. I'm not logged-in right now, so I cannot check. Anyway, I'm glad you found that it's possible for you to access 1987-to-present Oregonian articles on your card (if I am interpreting your last post correctly). SJ Morg (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The Fort Vancouver e-card comes with access to the Oregonian and Columbian anyway, but your trick works using that interface (which is pretty much identical to the Seattle card's). For some reason, the Seattle card is unable to use that bypass. SounderBruce 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

While not part of the I-84 project (which I've decided to keep on the backburner for a while), there are a few Oregonian articles from the 1970s that I need for Washington State Route 500. If you don't mind clipping them, the dates are listed here. SounderBruce 03:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think I want to take time, at least not anytime soon. I am very busy currently in "real life", including preparing news and photos for two magazines and a book (being written by a friend), and that sort of work takes precedence over Wikipedia. Recently, I haven't had time for practically any of the Wikipedia editing I'd like to be doing (I have a very long to-do list). If this subject interested me, I might make time, but I have no interest in highways (and have only edited articles on ones in Oregon, occasionally, and then only ones in areas where I have lived or worked). SJ Morg (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Riverside Wikilink in William S. Ladd and Ladd Carriage House

SJMorg, it seems that I may not have properly explained in my earlier post where the house of Mrs. Helen Ladd Corbett was. I have now clarified it further in the text and footnotes. I do not think that the present Riverwood link is correct for this area, is it? It says it was formerly known as Riverside. It may be that it refers to another area or the Wikilink itself may be wrong? The area was earlier known as Rivera, then Riverwood and now as part of Dunthorpe residential area sloping down to the Willamette. I may have caused confusion because it was then known as Riverwood or sometimes Abernathy Heights. Can you take a look at the link? Mrs Ladd's former property adjoined what is Elk Rock Garden today on SW Riverview Drive (when the road passes through Lake Oswego it is I believe known as State Street, then beyond, headed south it is called by its original name Pacific Highway). I was quoting the 1939 Oregonian report, when the road was still known as Pacific Highway, and also the MacColl book text as to the name Riverwood in use in her time. I have now tried to clarify my text and footnote further as to the location in both past and present usage after referring to an Oregon Historical Society and Dunthorpe houses expert who lives in one of the houses built on Helen Ladd Corbett's former property. West Portland was a typing error. I had thought it was Southwest Portland but of course your correction to south of Portland is equally correct. I appreciate you catching that. William Macadam (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking politely. Take a look at which link? I'd like to, but as far as I can see the footnotes for the text mentioning Riverwood (in the William S. Ladd and Ladd Carriage House articles) do not include any links to sources available online. Or, do you mean the "link" to the Riverwood article on Wikipedia?

The name "Pacific Highway" today most commonly refers to U.S. Highway 99W, which is located much farther west and never intersects Military Road (or Military Lane, which are separate streets), but the "Pacific Highway" pertaining to this discussion is Oregon Highway 43, which confusingly is nowadays known by any of several other names, depending on the jurisdiction through which it is passing. (Please look at the Wikipedia article for Highway 43.) At its intersection with Military Road, Highway 43 (Riverside Drive there) is in the area that is currently known as Riverwood. (If you follow Military Road to its east end, you'll even see that it intersects a street named Riverwood Drive.) Dunthorpe, another unincorporated area (not part of any city) is separate from Riverwood and is located immediately to the south of Riverwood. I don't have official maps of either area, as maps of unincorporated communities in Oregon are difficult or impossible to find; essentially the only official, legal boundaries they have are ones set by the U.S. Census Bureau, and more often than not, even the people who live in those areas don't know exactly where those (Census Bureau) boundaries are. From my limited knowledge of the area, I would say that Military Road is in the southernmost portion of Riverwood and, thereby, just north of Dunthorpe.

As mentioned, Oregon Highway 43 changes name several times, depending on which jurisdiction it is passing through, but even today it is still known as Pacific Highway on a short section just south of the city of Lake Oswego, and it is easy to imagine that it was probably also known as Pacific Highway in the Riverwood area a century ago, before being renamed Riverside Drive on that section.

I have a copy of the MacColl "Growth" book, and page 310 (noted in your inline citation) mentions only the 1926 house sale, saying nothing about where Helen Ladd Corbett moved to, so that citation probably should be moved to after "1926" in the sentence, from its current placement at the end of the sentence. Or, is her move to Riverwood mentioned on a different page in that book?

The bottom line is that, if the sources you are citing for this detail mention Riverwood, you should include a wikilink to Riverwood; if they mention Dunthorpe, you should include a link to that Wikipedia article; and if they mention both, then you should mention and wikilink both. I am unable to do so, as the footnotes and references you have placed in the articles so far do not link to any online sources, and page 310 of the MacColl 1915—1950 book makes no mention of Riverwood or Dunthorpe. I hope this was helpful. SJ Morg (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Everyday words understood by most readers in context

I don't particularly mind if you think that 'conductor', 'composer', 'arranger' and 'clarinetist' are not "Everyday words understood by most readers in context" (one of the MOS:OVERLINK instances of things not to link). But I routinely remove such links, so I apologise if I come across the Norman Leyden article again a few months from now and remove them again, having forgotten that I did so before and that you readded them. EddieHugh (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

MAX Blue Line

Are you sure about that source? I came across it too, and wondered if the kid just took that information from Wikipedia. Surprising how unreliable TriMet is with providing this quintessential information. Still yet to find the full length of the Yellow Line without conducting original research/math. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

When I first found that web post, I thought that the bit at the bottom was written by TriMet, but now that I look again, I see what you mean (but that doesn't mean it's inaccurate, and someone doing a timed run would want to be more precise than TriMet needs to be). However, that citation was in addition to the citation of a British magazine (which meets WP:RS), and I provided it for the convenience of those who don't have access to the cited magazine (which, btw, the Multnomah County Library carries). TriMet's own documents and webpages all appear to use rounded figures for the Blue Line ("18 miles" for Westside MAX, "33" for the full Blue), and it's hard to find mention of the more-precise figures (17.6 + 15.1 = 32.7) online. The most detailed coverage of Westside MAX was in 1993–99, in print publications, and almost none of that is online. If I find more, I'll add. For the Yellow Line, I found an archived TriMet source for the "5.8 miles" figure and have now added it to the article. SJ Morg (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks! --Truflip99 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Your mention of separate History articles for each project - Would you like to go ahead and make that change? --Truflip99 (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

No. As you may have surmised from my auto-generated "contributions" list, I currently have almost no time for Wikipedia editing (and I have a long list of other WP editing I'd like to be doing, some of which involves updating "current" information in articles that is now out of date but probably – based on my experience with those articles – won't be updated by anyone else, so will still be out of date a year from now if I don't find time for it). It takes a lot more time to create and organize sections (I only referred to sections, not articles) than to add or revise a sentence or two here and there. SJ Morg (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Well, I've moved it to its own section. Hopefully that's what you meant. --Truflip99 (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Milwaukee streetcar

Hello SJ Morg, I saw the revision you made on the Streetcars in North America article about the length of recently opened Milwaukee streetcar system and you're definitely right saying that the "2.5 miles" figure does include the U/C lakefront spur. However, digging a bit down the matter I found plenty of sources stating "2.1 miles" instead, and none supporting the "2.0 miles" claim: perhaps the source you provided - which unfortunately I wasn't able to read myself, not being online - means "two miles" as an approximation? Best regards, 18:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Yak79 2.0 (talk)

It says "3.2 km", which converts to 2.0 miles, whereas 2.1 miles would be 3.4 km. So, there's definitely a disagreement between sources. I came across one saying "2.1" a couple of days ago, but only one, so I saw no reason to change the text. (I also measured the line myself in Google Earth and got an approximate length of 2.0 miles, ± about 0.3, I'd guess.) However, you say you have "plenty of sources" for 2.1 miles, and in that case I will support your changing it to 2.1 if you add at least two of those sources to the article (and preferably three, especially since there are still a lot of sources 'out there' that erroneously use the "2.5" figure). SJ Morg (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Two out of the three other sources already provided in for Milwaukee's figures in the Streetcars in North America table already support "2.1 miles" as the current system length, hence I think it'd be enough to use them; we can also replace with them (and the already cited system's official webpage) the other one, which conversely stated the erroneous "2.5" figure, in order to avoid confusion. For what concern instead the wiki page about this system (The Hop (streetcar)), I think these three would make a suitable choice among the dozen I found (limiting the search not earlier than the 2015, when this project received the final go-ahead): [1] general press, already cited in the article + [2] in the section "FAQ – About Streetcars", official website + [3] specialised press which states also a length (0.4 mi) for the lakefront spur that actually matches with the "2.5" total. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Light rail in North America

Hello, SJ Morg. You have new messages at Talk:Light rail in North America.
Message added 00:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

00:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Yak79 2.0 (talk)

Broadway Tower

I didn't provide a source for the height change of Broadway Tower because I don't know how to properly do it on wikipedia. Here is the link to the architectural readout of this battle station (sorry for the Star Wars reference) file:///home/chronos/u-2bd2aaae82c19fa10c31843542fcf3928f11d7bf/Downloads/October%2022%202015%20EA%2015-203240%20DA%20-%20Drawings.PDF (scroll to page 16 for the building height) I also encourage you to review the list that I submitted on the talk page for the List of tallest buildings in Portland. There are 4 buildings that are not currently on the list and some are out of order. I'd prefer not to edit or fix the list myself. Masterscraper (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Wish

Hello. Help improve for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Arina56 (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have not contributed to that article (or any related articles) and I have no interest in the subject area. SJ Morg (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congrats on being a Wikipedia contributor for 10 years! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's hard to believe it's been that long already. SJ Morg (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"Hijacking" this section to also thank you for your Wiki-work. You just edited one of my edits so I took a peek at what else you've done... now an hour later after reading the many wonderful articles you've created & worked on it really shows that you've been at this for a decade+, a fine job and many informative, well referenced, submissions. Keep at it for another 10 please. 😀 → 72.234.220.38 (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a nice compliment! SJ Morg (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Issue with a ref

Hey there. I can't find the actual article for "Local colors roll out: Tri-Met designates the Blue, Red and Yellow lines" used in both the MAX Blue Line and MAX Red Line articles. I was going to use it for the MAX Yellow Line, but I can't verify it. Searched all over the Oregonian archives for it. Do you happen to know where to find it, or if it actually exists? --Truflip99 (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It definitely exists, but I don't know whether it exists in the digital archives or not. I have it in print form, actually clipped out of that day's newspaper (and that's how I know it began on p. E1 and continued on p. E10). Presumably, anyone going to the Multnomah County Library would still be able to get it, and that's good enough to satify WP's verifiability requirements. I'm surprised that you were unable to find it in the (digital) archives, but I have not looked for it there myself. SJ Morg (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Cool, just checking! I got a Mult. Co. library card just to gain access to the digital archives as Wash. Co. doesn't have it for some reason. Didn't realize it was incomplete. Hopefully it's a rare case. --Truflip99 (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

New photos

Thank you for uploading new photos! I know you had mentioned it was difficult for you to find time to do that, so I was very happy to see them. They're fantastic! --Truflip99 (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the compliment. I have a little bit of time available this week that has allowed me to finally get around to some planned uploads that have been on my to-do list for ages. And, as I mentioned earlier (on your talk page), your major expansion of certain articles was motivation for me not to keep procrastinating, in the case of the MAX-related ones at least. SJ Morg (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on Wikipedia. EggRoll97 (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! – SJ Morg (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I-205 MAX/Green Line images

Hey man! Was wondering if you had any I-205 MAX/Green Line images, particularly during its construction? Now that I've restarted expansion of that article, I've been thinking about images to include, but there doesn't seem to be an abundance of usable images as there have been with previous articles. Just an inquiry, and absolutely no rush if you do have any. Just thought I'd ask in case you didn't, in which case, I'll probably have to pay a visit to the east side while the weather is good. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you recently started (or ramped up) your expansion of that article, which – based on your comment earlier about taking the MAX lines in the order of their opening, for your expansions to GA – I had been expecting. I do plan to upload at least a couple of relevant photos, but probably not for another week or more, as I am currently nearing completion of a long new article (non-Oregon) that I have been working on for two weeks (and which is also involving a lot of Commons uploads to go into it), and then I'll be busy adding appropriate references to it in other articles, nominating it at DYK, doing the QPQ review for that, etc. (And, I also have non-WP demands on my free time.) FYI, the main Green Line image that I was planning to upload was of the tunnel under I-205, but per your request today I will also try to find time to choose and upload a construction photo (or two); I did take some. You said you might have to pay a visit to the line yourself, to take some photos. Except for the aforementioned tunnel and Main Street station (which has long needed a better photo), I don't see a lot of big gaps in photo coverage of the line in its current form (i.e. completed and operating). That's mainly because the Green Line's unique section (I-205) is relatively boring; it has less variety than any of the six MAX lines (counting the Blue Line as two lines that are through-routed), by far. But to some extent that is in the eye of the beholder. For example, there are probably very few shots of the public are along the Green Line, but I don't normally take such photos, and am always a little uncertain about the copyright situation with regard to uploading them to Commons. SJ Morg (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! Looking forward to it! --Truflip99 (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Truflip99: I finally found time to upload a couple of photos, one of construction and one of the north portal of the line's I-205 tunnel. I was close to doing it a few days ago, but then the situation with the NS Line's DYK nomination prompted me to change priorities, to upload a couple of Northwest Portland NS Line photos first. By the way, I have crossed out my comment above about Main Street station, having now discovered that I had already dealt with that omission eight years ago (and completely forgotten, meanwhile)! I might upload a photo of really long viaduct around Johnson Creek Blvd. later, but have not decided. – SJ Morg (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the photos! Just in time for the completion of the history section. --Truflip99 (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Downtown tunnel

Looks like they're talking about this again. Rather exciting and thought you'd appreciate it: https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2019/06/metro-studies-max-tunnel-underneath-downtown-portland-and-willamette-river.html --Truflip99 (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for MAX Blue Line

On 11 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article MAX Blue Line, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Portland's MAX Blue Line (train pictured) was built as a result of freeway revolts in the 1970s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MAX Blue Line. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, MAX Blue Line), 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.

valereee (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Streetcar colors

Not sure why you insist that the line colors of the Portland Streetcar aren't "official unless they're on a map" even though they're on the web page. It's not like PS chose those colors at random and said "These aren't official colors," and then proceeded to have TriMet use the same colors on their map. If by official, you mean the trains and signage aren't using them or that no one is calling the NS line the "Lime Green Line", then IMO, it shouldn't matter. Just because no one calls Seoul Subway Line 2 the "Green Line" doesn't make the green any less official. From a UX/UI perspective, line colors have two functions: (1) branding i.e. differentiating PS from MAX and (2) aiding riders in navigability. In this case, it aids in navigating the Portland transit-related articles on wikipedia. There's no point in using the rint templates on maps, exclusively. Since readers would instantaneously become familiar with this visual aid upon seeing the colors (because they stand out), it's counter-intuitive to take it away from them in other parts of the page. Truflip99 (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

By "official", I meant for use in non-graphical forms. Certainly they are the official colors for maps, but they are not part of the line names. (It does not surprise me at all that TriMet uses the PSI colors on its maps, given that TriMet has extensive experience with transit customer info. and works closely with PSI in many ways, so would want to be supportive of PSI's preferences, but I doubt that any other publisher of a map of the PS system would bother to match the route colors used by PSI.) As I see it, "familiarizing" Wikipedia readers with these colors – encouraging them to associate each PS route with a specific color – is a bad thing, not a good thing, because the City/PSI could change the colors at any time in the future. And because they only use the colors on maps and as background colors for headings in schedules, they would not consider it a major change, requiring announcement on their site or media notification. The distinct line names make it easy to differentiate between the MAX lines and Portland Streetcar lines, and I still see no significant benefit to adding color graphics (rint template or other) in features that are mainly text, such as navboxes, whereas I do discern a drawback to the practice. I do see a small benefit to using the rint template (to show different colors for the shorthand notations for the different PS lines) in tables where there are multiple references to each line. In any case, I don't care enough about this to want to argue about it further. If you want to reinstate the graphics (rint template) in the navbox, I won't revert it – but I might open a discussion on the talk page asking for opinions from other users (although I rather doubt that anyone will bother to express an opinion, and I suspect that users who, like me, feel that graphics are overused on Wikipedia – used just because they are available and "look nice" to someone, not because they are actually helpful – would not see any such discussion, making the feedback unbalanced). SJ Morg (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for NS Line

On 18 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article NS Line, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Portland's NS Line opened in 2001 as the first newly built streetcar line in the United States in 50 years to use modern vehicles? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/NS Line. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, NS Line), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for San Francisco Historic Trolley Festival

On 19 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article San Francisco Historic Trolley Festival, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the San Francisco Historic Trolley Festival featured streetcars from cities in Australia, Japan, Mexico, Russia, England, Germany, and Italy (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/San Francisco Historic Trolley Festival. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, San Francisco Historic Trolley Festival), 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) 00:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know

I saw one of your bus tunnel photos (of a dual-mode at Pioneer Square) in the new HistoryLink book "Transit: The Story of Public Transportation in the Puget Sound Region". Also, nice work on illustrating the TriMet book! SounderBruce 05:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I was not aware. I have enough interest in Seattle transit that I'll probably buy a copy of the book. I hope any photos they used from Commons were properly credited. SJ Morg (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"Gantang disambiguation" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gantang disambiguation. Since you had some involvement with the Gantang disambiguation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Lisa Desjardins

Hello, I saw that you added the birthdate of Lisa Desjardins on her page. I was wondering what source you used there, as when I wrote the article I couldn't find anything more specific beyond either 1971 or 1972. Someone mentioned in an edit summary that she was wished happy birthday on television, but I did not hear it on the PBS NewsHour and the transcript also does not show it. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, it's probably hidden somewhere in the 11-hour impeachment coverage. However, I found a congratulatory tweet and added it as a source. Btw thanks for adding the picture to the page. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Loop Service length

Hey SJ Morg! Been a while since I bugged you so I thought now would be a good time. The 4.4 mi figures for the Loop Service is actually the CL Line length, right? So, it's actually longer than that now with the addition of the South Waterfront segment? --Truflip99 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. The newly constructed portion of the CL Line, which opened in 2012, was 3.3 miles long, and it followed 1.1 miles of the previously existing NS Line, between NW 10th & Lovejoy and SW 10th & Clay. SJ Morg (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems a reliable source for the Loop Service length doesn't exist you think? --Truflip99 (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I found an approximation: 4.4 mi CL Line + 0.9 mi to South Waterfront + 0.3 mi Tilikum, give or take. That's the closest I've seen so far. Would you agree? --Truflip99 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily. But, sorry, no time for Wikipedia right now. Remind me later if you haven't heard from me (here) within 4 or 5 days. SJ Morg (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Never mind! Found a source it's 0.8 mi (single-track), so 0.4 mi. Pretty damn close. Feel free to modify when you're less busy, but these sources are pretty solid. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

For an official length, check the GTFS data; an easily browsable version is at http://gtfs.transitq.com/TriMet/trip/9805312 and http://gtfs.transitq.com/TriMet/trip/9805509 Jason McHuff (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jmchuff: Wow thanks! Is it reliable for use on wikipedia however? --Truflip99 (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Truflip99: I find different figures than the ones you gave above. But first, I have to say that, unfortunately, I cannot find any sources in my files that give figures for the 2015 extensions of the CL Line. None of the several magazine articles in my files from that time includes that detail, probably because the concurrent opening of the MAX Orange Line was a much bigger story (that was usually being covered in the same articles), and that level of detail is rarely found in the mainstream media, such as The Oregonian. I measured the relevant sections in Google Earth, which has a convenient tool for making measurements that can be very accurate if used with care. I get 1.8 miles for the entire section from 10th & Market (the actual start of the new section, not 10th & Clay) to OMSI, and separate measurements break it down as 1.2 miles from 10th & Market to Moody & Meade, and 0.6 miles from Moody & Meade stop to the OMSI streetcar stop. I believe the figure of 4.4 miles for the CL Line's 2012–15 length is accurate, at least within 0.1 to 0.2 miles, so adding 1.8 miles would make the total for the Loop Service 6.2 miles. Unfortunately, this does not come from a citable source.

However, the sources you cited also have problems. First, you currently have "6.1 miles" in the Loop Service article as the overall length, which is very close to what I believe to be correct, but I believe both of the figures you used (0.9 + 0.8) to reach it are incorrect. The source you used for claiming "0.9 miles" from 10th & Clay to (the imprecise location referred to only as) "South Waterfront" is a 2016 report but the relevant sentence is referring to 2007 information, at which time the section of Moody Avenue itself that now includes Moody & Meade stop had not yet been built. It may be that, as of 2007, planners were tentatively measuring only to RiverPlace stop, or maybe to a once-planned location for the new Moody stop that was located farther north, nearer the Marquam Bridge, rather than at (also not-yet-existing in 2007) Meade Street. I don't know, but "0.9 miles" is too short for 10th & Market to Moody & Meade stop.

Then, the document you cited for the "0.8-mile" length for the September 2015 extension across the Tilikum is from September 2009, which was before even the CL Line was built, and long before the 2015 extensions you are describing here, so it's not really a suitable source for a 2015 development; it might get past a GA reviewer, but certainly not FA. Also, that document does not clearly state that it is referring to the distance from Moody & Meade to OMSI, which is the section for which you have used it. (As an aside, I should note that you yourself wrote in your earlier post here that this "0.8-mile" figure was a single-track figure, making it equate to 0.4 mile of route, but my read of the document is that its "0.8 mile" is route length, but it could be an unintentional mix of 0.6 mile for the section being shared with MAX [which I measure as 0.4] and 0.2 mile of new track for the streetcar, which would equate to 0.1 mile of route.) It is not clear exactly what section is referring to, but I measure Moody & Meade stop to OMSI as 0.6 mile. If I find a citable source later, I'll let you know, but your source is from 2009, and at that time even the exact alignment of the Tilikum Crossing (on which construction did not begin until 2011) might not have been known to the planners who prepared that document. I hope you can find 2015-or-later sources for these figures. The info. is probably in some City of Portland document that you have not yet found. SJ Morg (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Check out this hilariously accurate source I found: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/Transportation/article/678507 --Truflip99 (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Closure date for Ipswich Trolleybus system

Hi, I found your comment on Talk:Trolleybuses in Ipswich, and had nearly finished posting a reply, when I noticed that your comment was posted in 2011. Ah well, at least someone suggested a solution eventually. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

List of trolley bus systems in Canada

Please do not bypass the "trolley bus" redirects in Canadian articles, per WP:NOTBROKEN. The correct, and only, Canadian spelling is two words, as discussed on the article's talk page. The article move to "Trolleybus" was incorrect and has been undone. Meters (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just because someone cited one source on the talk page does make your statement that "trolley bus" is the "correct and only" spelling true, even outside Quebec, where trolleybus is spelled as one word almost universally. Anyway, I made that change after the recent move and before the move was reverted, so was making the spellings consistent on the page (not knowing that someone would be reverting the move), not just bypassing redirects, as I am aware that the latter is not sufficient justification on its own. SJ Morg (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand why you made your change, but you didn't make the page consistent. The entire page uses the two word spelling, not just the two links you changed. And if you don't think the Canadian Oxford Dictionary is a good enough guide to Canadian spelling feel free to look for something else. The Nelson Gage Canadian Dictionary also lists only the two word spelling. I made the change five years ago and no-one has had a problem with it since on any of the Canadian articles where the term is used. Meters (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I concede your first point is valid; I didn't think of the other spellings on the (revised by you in 2015) page when I changed those two see-also items. As to the other points: As I mentioned elsewhere, the two-word spelling is definitely not the only spelling used in Canada, since French-Canadians use the one-word version pretty much universally, and trolleybuses operated in Montreal. Anyway, I have certainly encountered use of the one-word spelling even in English writing in Canada – along with Vancouver's (and at times Edmonton's) common use of "trolley" to mean trolleybus/trolley bus, but I don't dispute that the two-word spelling is much more common. But that's not the only consideration in decisions like this (and that's why the article shouldn't have been moved without discussion, after 7 years at the previous title). Another is that this is part of a group of Wikipedia articles (currently 12) under the topic "List of trolleybus systems", of which every single one except the Canadian one use the spelling trolleybus. Also, WP articles on Canadian subjects are not solely for Canadian readers – especially those at the 'national level', as this one is – and outside North America, the one-word version of the English-language term is nearly universal (e.g. the UK, Australia, South Africa). However, as long as your position is that the two-word spelling is the only correct spelling, and evidently have never encountered the one-word version in Canadian writing, it seems unlikely I am ever going to change your thinking, and it's not worth my time to continue discussing it. SJ Morg (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't try to put words in my mouth. I never said that I had "never encountered the one-word version in Canadian writing." People use variant spellings or even misspell things all the time, but when impeccable Canadian usage references do not even mention the alternative spelling, that speaks volumes. Even the classic "our" examples of Canadian spelling (e.g., "colour", "neighbour, "labour") are listed with the "or" spellings included as other Canadian variants, but not "trolley bus".

Awfully long-winded way of saying that you don't want to discuss this further, but since you don't, I wont. Meters (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I said "evidently", so I was inferring, not putting words in your mouth. SJ Morg (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Holcomb Creek Trestle

I created this article today, would you by any chance have a photo you took at some point? No worries if you don't. Kingofthedead (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not. Your article says it's "the longest wooden railroad trestle still in use in the United States", and I am surprised that such could exist in the area where I live (Portland metropolitan area) without my being aware of that significant distinction, but I'm not very interested in 'mainline' railroads, as opposed to urban rail transit. I hope your information is correct, but none of the sources you have cited so far (except the senator's office) meets WP:RS very well, and your article may well be tagged for deletion – but not by me – if you don't add some better sources (books, magazines, newspapers, websites of professional media such as TV stations). I'm not planning to do anything, just alerting you that this may be an issue. SJ Morg (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

How odd

I saw your mea culpa edit, but it looked strangely familiar...I think you just copied a mistake I made over here. Looks like I was the original villain! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but all you did was move a citation that contained an error I had made 4 1/2 years ago, without initially spotting the error. In my edit yesterday, all I did was change the date of a cited article from February 10 to February 19, after I noticed you made that change in this edit. I was the person who had first added that 1977 article as a citation in the Charles Jordan article, and when I saw your correction, I thought to myself, "I wonder if I used that same citation in any other articles?", so I did a search and found that I had used it elsewhere, in this edit to the Ivancie article. Then, I located my saved PDF of the 1977 article and discovered that your date correction was right; the correct date was Feb. 19, not Feb. 10. I think it was fair of me to assume my 2015 error was a "typo" because the 9 and 0 keys are adjacent on a keyboard! But I am glad you spotted the error. SJ Morg (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ha- OK, you're right (and the ref naming convention isn't quite what I usually use, so I should have spotted that.) I've been tracking down some similar stories in the last month or so, and this specific date confused me because it didn't quite align with another story. I had mistakenly stated that Goldschmidt appointed Jordan, when in reality it's all of Council that votes on an appointment -- Goldschmidt had merely politicked to ensure his candidate would be successful. All this is some pretty fascinating history to me, in light of the race-and-cops issues, and the jockeying going on today around the police commissioner position, active campaigns, and even the first Black (woman) commissioner. I appreciate your efforts in this area...not too many of us working on the details of articles like these. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I am glad you are giving attention to these articles. Although I want articles on elected officials in Oregon to be reasonably accurate and well-sourced, there are, to be honest, many other subject areas that hold more interest for me personally. And nowadays, frustratingly, I have very little time for any Wikipedia editing (especially when it involves research). SJ Morg (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

BRT Marrakesh

Can you please explain why you reverted my edit on BRT Marrakesh? I do not see where adding a link to the manufacturer's website for this vehicle is a violation of Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamnet (talk • contribs) 01:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

My response was delayed by my having had no time at all for Wikipedia editing lately; until now, it has been seven days since my last edit (as I hope you deduced from my auto-generated "User contributions" list). Under the guideline I already cited in my edit summary, i.e. WP:ELNO ("Links normally to be avoided"), point number 5 and to a lesser extent 13 ("Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject") apply. No. 5 says the external links section should not contain "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services", and the link you added was to a page of a manufacturer's site, for its product. If this WP article were about that specific model of trolleybus, then a link to that page would be justified, but in this instance I don't believe such a narrow subject even meets WP:Notability to support the creation of a standalone article. I suggest you add a few details about the vehicles to the Fleet section of the BRT Marrakesh article and then use the web page as an inline citation for them, instead of just adding it as an EL (external link). The latter still appears to me to be contrary to policy. 09:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"MAX Orange Line"

Hello SJ Morg! Long time no chat. Was wondering if you have any sources that indicate when TriMet named the Portland–Milwaukie extension "Orange Line"? The earliest I've seen is from the Oregonian in 2010. I hope you're doing well! --truflip99 (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, but I have very little time to look right now. The history of that designation is more complicated than for the other lines. From a quick check of my print files, I can tell you that it was being shown colored in orange on maps already as long ago as 2007, but not being referred to as the "Orange Line", and outside observers such as me thereby inferred that orange was TriMet's planned color for it. Even after TriMet began referring to it as the Orange Line in some media, circa 2010 or 2011, the agency continued to refer to it mostly as the "Portland–Milwaukie Light Rail" project, because they didn't want the public to become too used to the Orange Line designation, in case TriMet decided later to treat the new line an extension of the Yellow Line. For years, the Milwaukie line had been planned to be through-routed with the Yellow Line, but that was not cast in stone, so TriMet did not use any color for it in text, only on maps. At some point circa the early 2010s, TriMet planners tentatively decided not to through-route it with Yellow and to end it at Union Station, so that its service would not be disrupted by Steel Bridge lift delays, and also to give more frequent service on the Mall (with both Yellow and Orange serving it in both directions) – and it was probably around that time that TriMet began publicly referring to it as the Orange Line. But the new plan to keep Orange and Yellow separate did not last long (much less than a year, I think), so there was again talk within TriMet of publicly calling it (just an extension of) the Yellow Line. But by that point, the public and media had become used to calling it the Orange Line (and transit fans had been calling it that for years, since it was shown in orange on maps). I was told that TriMet decided to stick with the Orange name partly for that reason but also because the next MAX line, the Southwest Corridor, might possibly be through-routed with the Yellow, or Green (too early to decide, even now), and therefore for TriMet to keep its options open – with regard to the choice of through-routing partner for the Southwest Corrdor/Tualatin line – it was thought best to keep separate colors for the Interstate and Milwaukie lines. But I probably cannot give you citable sources for any of that. I have not done any NewsBank/Mult. County Library searches on this subject, so you probably already have a greater number of relevant Oregonian articles in your files than I do for this subject. SJ Morg (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Pioneer Sq pics?

Hey there! Lately, I've been considering maybe going for a FA attempt for the Pioneer Square stations article but the lack of decent pictures discourages me. Considering how central the stations are for the MAX, I think it'd stand a chance. Was wondering if you have any pics of the platforms that you could upload at some point? I'd take it myself but my photos aren't that great, and I've actually been avoiding the city since the pandemic began. Anyway, figured I'd ask. Hope you're doing well! Happy Holidays! --truflip99 (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. Although I initially figured I could help you – and I am usually willing to help you when you are making one of your very welcome upgrades of an article to GA or FA-class – it's now unclear whether I will be able to, in this instance. It's not just that I currently have almost no time for Wikipedia or Commons editing; it's also lack of photos. I switched from slide film to digital photos in 2007. After your inquiry, I checked and found – to my great surprise – that I appear not to have taken any digital photos of either of those two stations, not any in the 13 years I've been shooting digitally, at least not any that really showed the stations. (I assume that is because there was nothing new about them; when I heard that TriMet was planning to close the two stations next to Pioneer Place, I realized I had not photographed them since the 1990s! - because until 2015 the MAX and streetcar systems were expanding so relatively often that I tended to photograph new sections only when newly opened and then not think about photographing them again, because it was never very long until something new [incl. new types of vehicles] came along to photograph.)

I then checked my slides, which took more time because I don't index them by subjects as narrow as individual stations and cannot do keyword searches (& I still have not finished that), and was even more surprised that I also could not find any photos of the two "Pioneer Square" stations in the 1990s or 2000s, except for a few Vintage Trolley ones. So, it's possible the only photos I could upload to Commons would be ones (I'd pick 2-3, probably) from the period 1986–1988 – which I definitely do have, but have not yet reviewed my slides for suitable Commons candidates yet. I could not provide any photos from recent years, at least not before March or April 2021, because I don't want to take time to go down there (no other reason to, at present) and take photos at this time of year, when it's more likely to be wet, cold, or with the sun so low in the sky (if sunny) that downtown stations are in the shade or (even worse) half-sun, half-shade. This is the worst possible time of year for transit photography, so I rarely take any transit photos in November to March except if there's a snow event or something that's news.

If you decide to proceed with this in the near future, I'll try to add one or two 1980s photos to Commons before too long. Also, if you are going for FA, I think the article needs a brief mention of (1) that the stations were served by Vintage Trolley from Nov. 1991 to 2009 (and seven days a week from 1994 to 1999) – just maybe 3–4 sentences, which I can add if you don't have the sourced info. yourself – and (2) that the platforms were completely rebuilt in spring 1996 to raise them by two inches to accommodate the bridgeplates of the then-new low-floor LRVs that entered service in 1997, and resurfaced at that time in bricks inscribed with donors' names (see Jan. 5, 1996 Oregonian article, "Solid as a brick"; I also have one supporting TriMet ref from the Internet Archive). If you agree with adding (very brief) VT info., I'll upload a photo of a Vintage Trolley at the station; I already found a few and scanned them. SJ Morg (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

All of that sounds great. Thanks for the heads up I will make those additions soon. Please feel free to upload the VT pics when you have time. --truflip99 (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

OK. I'll keep it in mind. – SJ Morg (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)