User talk:Morio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Morio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

One thing however... are you a user or a bot? :o) — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Transportation in Curitibia

I still don't understand why they should stick to boring old busses when they want better puplic transport, research in Amsterdam found that if a first class commuter arrives at the station, they will head straight for the taxi rank if only busses serve their final destination, but head for the tram stop if trams serve their final destination. So why wern't modes like trolleybusses and trams considered? Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)

I think it's a good aiming because the concept of the point of Curitiba is a little strange. Ok. Because Curitiba set up the bus as an alternative of the subway. Therefore, the priority of the transportation-system of Curitiba is that transporting "a lot of people" at a time with "high-speed". The tram or trolleybusses are insufficient for this demand because the planners(and Curitiba city) didn't need a bus as means to go slowly around the city. The bus was considered that it was possible to be more flexible(they're possible to behave like the subway or the oldnormal bus according to the place). This is a fact what about a lot of people concerned urban-planning of Curitiba are talking.
Although it is superfluous to say so;
Actually, Jaime Lerner is talking in the recently interview that they examined the establishment of the subway at the beginning of planning the introduction of the public-transportation-system to Curitiba. However, it was impossible because Curitiba did not have enough capital to construct subway at that time. Therefore, this idea was thrown away at once. Then, for which having been thought was the traffic system used boring old busses. They also have understood the system that uses the bus is old. But the problem of the cost is helpless. They racked their brains(it was only way) and got hints from Toransmirenio of Bogotá in Colombia etc. This is a reason for they have begun to use the busses: Low Cost.
Now, the transportation-system of Curitiba achieves a amount of transportation at the same level as Washington D.C. by the capital of 1/10 of D.C.
The heads in the city at that time of constructed this transportation-system take pride in this respect in their books. As an example, "Acupuntura Urbana"(ISBN 85-01-06851-9) of Jaime Lerner have a basic outline. But I don't know whether there is an English version of this book, sorry.--Morio 05:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me expalin why "busses are boring." Bus routes do not have fixed infrastucture (rails or overhead wires), this was once thougt of as an "advantage" as "the route could be varied." In fact, good public transport requires route to remain fixed for generations, if they keep changing, they are perceived as unreliable. So here is where fixed infrastucture is actually an advantage, if a trolleybus goes off route (if it can happen it will), it will dewire and the driver will realise. Tram drivers do not have to steer to remain on route, the rails take them where they need to go, so a tram can hardly go off-route. Rails clearly mark the route, and passengers will instantly know that trams will stop in the right place. I do not understand why trams, let alone trolleybusses, are insufficiant for a deamnd well met by busses (trams, and to some extent, trolleybusses, (on average) have a *higher* capacity than boring busses). It seems that South America was once the world's largest tramway operator (Bunos Aires, in Argetina had (a far as I know) the largest tramway network ever), but not a single one survies (did trams ever run in Curitiba, if so, they have a good reason to bring them back). Many heritage tramways have nevetheless opened with enthusiasm, any many may be used as basises for new (transit) systems.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)

I have 3 opinion about it.
  • We know there are a lot of cities that have succeeded by setting up the tram. However, there is space where the disadvantage is caused by the installation of the tram. For instance, in Tokyo, Japan, the tram is passed through a special orbit and the car cannot pass there. With this, the site is wasted and it is very inconvenient. Though the car and the tram were made to run on the same road in Tokyo in the past, the tram gradually became obstructive as the amount of the car increased. Therefore, it became a method like present in Tokyo.
    This problem happens mostly when becoming the sphere of the city of about one million people in the population. Curitiba is not an exception, the completely same thing happened to Curitiba in the past. Though Curitiba used the tram in center of city until 1950's, it disturbed as the amount of the car increased, and they were removed.
    In a word,
  1. The tram has not suited the scale of urban traffic of Curitiba is one of the reasons why the tram cannot be used in Curitiba.
  2. The red busses(express busses) that Curitiba is using now carries 270 people at a time and operated every a few minutes. And, they run on a special road with 80Km/h or more. It is impossible to achieve this amount of transportation of the scale at the train level with the tram(or trolleybus). You might be misunderstanding the bus of Curitiba with a usual bus. It is very large(see photo ->) and fast actually. The point that the system of Critiba is an alternative of the subway(not a tram or a general bus) is important.
  3. Above, I think it is a reason why Curitiba doesn't use the tram.
See also: Commons:Morio:Curitiba
  • I write about the point that the bus route is comprehensible for the user. Because the main-line uses a special road, this is obvious. This special roads are convenient unlike the special orbit of tram because the police vehicle etc can use its. And its don't obstruct the traffic of a general vehicle unlike the normal tram. And, if youd don't understand the road in Curitiba, it is possible to asks the way because there are always station employees who collects the charge in those bus stops. Because the transfer station of other branch lines is prepared in each place, I think that hesitating is few. Therefore, it is not inferior to the tram in this respect.
  • In a word, the bus of Curitiba is fundamentally different from the boring old busses in other places. Though becomes a repetition, it is an alternative of the subway to the end.
I want to write at the end: I think that this is a considerably special example though the bus system has succeeded in Curitiba. There is little example of the untouched adoption of such a system going well in other cities. As described in opening, the tram has succeeded in a lot of cities.--Morio 15:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"For instance, in Tokyo, Japan, the tram is passed through a special orbit and the car cannot pass there. With this, the site is wasted and it is very inconvenient. Though the car and the tram were made to run on the same road in Tokyo in the past, the tram gradually became obstructive as the amount of the car increased. Therefore, it became a method like present in Tokyo. This problem happens mostly when becoming the sphere of the city of about one million people in the population. Curitiba is not an exception, the completely same thing happened to Curitiba in the past. Though Curitiba used the tram in center of city until 1950's, it disturbed as the amount of the car increased, and they were removed." Some say that this is a very wrong accusation, here in Melbourne our trams still share right of way with road vehicles and it doesn't seem to be that much problem. We have many wide streets were tram stops are provided with what are called safety zones, which protect passengers waiting in the middle of the road. Furthermore, we do also have narrower streets where road traffic does have to stop when trams do but it doesn't seem to cuase too many problems. Furthermore this type of tramway is still used in Toronto, Canada, where conversingy, busses (not trams) are blamed for causing traffic problems. This could be atributed to their frequent need to change lanes, especially given their need to pull over when stopping to pick up and set down passengers. So busses *can* cause more congestion than trams. Still I did actually know that the Curitiba system was an alterative to metro and that it used special roadways. You still haven't explained why these busways couldn't be operated using trolleybusses.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)

The reason why the trolleybus was not able to be used in Curitiba is simple.
  • Speed and transportation power (same reason as tram)
  • Maintenance etc. cost (Curitiba is a city that saves even the cost of the utility pole)
  • There was a plan to attract factory of Volvo to Curitiba. (Volvo develops and manufactures the express bus of Curitiba)
The urban planning of Curitiba is characterized in a urban planning closely relating to other urban plannings. The transportation system also has closely relating to urban development, the public peace etc. And, it is necessary to examine the difference of the role of the tram(and usualness bus or trolleybus) and the subway(and the express bus of Curitiba). It was a subway, and not a tram that Curitiba was(or is) necessary(actually, the plan to construct the subway itself is sometimes getting into the news in Curitiba now). Of course, this is not such a story to speak "One is more excellent than other as transportation". Each vehicle has the characteristic and there is a favor(or necessary) by the city.--Morio 17:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"Speed and transportation power (same reason as tram)" I don't really understand this one, are you stating that electric traction is "slower" than the internal combunstion engine. This is not the infomation I have come across, electric traction is more effective at acceleration (electric motors produce higher torque at low rpm). Furthermore, the world speed record for a diesel train pales in coparison to that of a electric train.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)|test|contrbutions

Of course I know such a story because Japan have Shinkansen, various trains and the newest subways. But it might be a fact of train, not tram. Do not confuse the train with the tram. The role is different at all though this two looks like. I have not heard the case the tram is made to run at high speed in the city. The tram doesn't become the alternative of the subway though the tram is wonderful transportation. At least, Curitiba thought so.--Morio 16:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This is illogical, how could electric traction be faster tan diesel power in case of trains, but not trams and trolleybusses. I do not see any techincal reason why a tram cound not run at high speed in the city.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)|test|contrbutions

Certainly, it might be technically possible. I return the starting point the talk. Top priority matter for Curitiba was a cost. There was no capital in Curitiba for the installation and the maintaining subway or tram. Anyway, it was a problem and the maximum reason why the bus was selected. --Morio 10:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"It is very large and fast actually." I did check the photo actually, the bus is unusually long for a road vehicle, but it is not as long as a three car subway train (which means comparitively reduced seating capacity), let alone a four or seven car train. I know of plenty of trams (in European cities) which are of simlar length and rest on four bogies, including some high floor double articulated ones. They might be narrower than the busses, which also means reduced seating capacity, but their standing capacity is much greather as a direct result of the use of steel wheels on steel rails (the ride is smoother and more stable). Furthermore, the engine onboard a bus is up higher than the traction motors and bogies are on a tram.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)

I wrote several times. The problem was a cost. Please compare costs necessary to set up those wonderful trams(though Curitiba really wanted was a subway) and Curitiba's express buses... Your opinion doesn't reflect realistic circumstances, only by a technical comparison. I think that there are a lot of English books written about the history of Curitiba. If you are interested about Curitiba, first of all, you should read one of them.--Morio 19:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Your opinion doesn't reflect realistic circumstances, only by a technical comparison." You are partly correct. However those wonderful trams, although more expensive to set up, are much cheaper to run. One reason which applies in many parts of the world, especially where there surplus hydroelectric power is availible, is that modern trams almost universaly run on electricity. Another releates to metal wheels on metal rails. Steel wheels are cheaper to produce than rubber tyres and also last longer, and when worn out, they can be melted down and easliy reused to make new ones, which further lowers production costs. Rubber tyres, by contrast, cost lots of money to produce and dispose of. The cost of running a bus is added to every time a bus goes off route or one is held up (trams always have priority and are kept on route by the tracks they run over). How many times has a bus driver told you "sorry, that's not on my route?"Myrtone(the strict Australian wikipedian)

I don't understand what you want to do by talking here. You can rewrite the article of Curitiba, if you have dissatisfaction somewhere of the article. And, if you think Curitiba city should adopt the tram, you can propose your demanding to Curitiba's city office, IPPUC or UBRS etc. --Morio 00:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Photo

Hello, Morio. I see you have deleted the external link i included in the Curitiba article, marking it as "spam". Sorry, but I don´t agree with you. I am a contributor of Wikipedia since april 2005, i share content on Wikipedia Commons (in CC-BY-SA) and all my photos in my website are licensed under Creative Commons licenses (CC-BY-NC-ND). I think my page (I don´t know if you have visited it) contributes with helpful content to all non-brazilian public who are interested in Curitiba. Ah, by the way, I don´t have commercial purposes. That´s why I´m putting the link back. Cheers,--Mathieu Struck(edit: I don´t know why, but the external link is taking to Microsoft webpage. copy and paste this address on your browser: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mathieustruck/)

I copied your message. Please see Talk:Curitiba. --Morio 02:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] São João del-Rey

Hi. Concerning your move of the article, you do realize that linking to a discussion in Portuguese from the English-language Wikipedia will only serve what few Portuguese-speaking users that happen to find it. There's also the detail that IBGE.gov writes it "São João del Rey", and the IBGE website is used as the main source for the spelling of Brazilian cities and towns on this Wikipedia. I would suggest that you add a summarized explanation of that discussion to the concerned article's talk page (in English, of course), and perhaps we could even come up with a section for the article itself approaching the situation, since it would appear that the sources are contradicting themselves. Regards, Redux 13:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to move the name without permission. I did'nt know the names of Brazilian cities are named based on IBGE, and removed the name of the article to before, "São João del Rei". And, my English language skill is not enough to participat in such discussion. Therefore, even if I want to participate in the discussion, I will not be able to do. --Morio 03:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:FairuseF1

Hi, Morio. Would you mind to give us at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Template:FairuseF1 some insight on what did you had in mind when creating the {{FairuseF1}} template? Thanks in advance, --Abu Badali 23:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Because to make comprehensible the state of the copyrights. Recently, I feel there are a lot of contributions of the images (related to Formula One) with doubtful states of the copyrights. I made it to keep easier to find the images, what violate copyright, by everyone. It is a main purpose of the category. And, I believe it has a role to help other "Fair use" categories that have a lot of images and dysfunction a little, like Category:Fair use images, Category:Promotional photos and others.
However, I do not understand the rule of the Fairuse categories well. Therefore, sorry to trouble you, but it is necessary to change (or delete) the category if there is a problem. --Morio 00:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Usually, the fair use categories group images that would have a common fair use rationale (for beeing used in some article) and not by image subject. E.g., {{Magazinecover}}s are ok on articles about the magazine. All {{Movie-screenshot}}s are ok when talking about the movie, etc. I don't see a common fair use rationale for the set of unfree F1-related images. Also, the template text is somewhat boken. (What does the bullet line reffers to?) I hope you understand, but I'm nominating it for deletion. Let me know of any issues. Best regards, --Abu Badali 00:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. You can do it. I'm sorry to trouble you. --Morio 01:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. If you have the time, leave a message at WP:TfD#Template:FairuseF1 explaining you're the creator and agrees with deletion. This will speed up the process. Thank you. --Abu Badali 03:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenson Button

114 starts? I can only count 113. Where did you find the other 1? You said in your notes that there were 113 starts and 114 entries. Do you mean he entered a race and didn't start (Hence the DNS)? If so, can we count the entry as a Formula 1 race? --T. Moitie [talk] 16:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote "114 entries & 113 starts". For instance, if the entry is not counted and only the start is counted, Giovanna Amati isn't considered to be a Formula One driver. At least, we can consider that he is enters the race who participates in the qualify (pre-qualify). Thank you. --Morio 16:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
And Jenson Button entered 114 races, including the United States GP in 2005 that he did not started. --Morio 16:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
But should we be counting races that he didn't start. He didn't have any part in the race, where-as he did in the race that he was disqualified from, which hasn't been counted. I don't think that we should count either and he should be put back on 113 races. --T. Moitie [talk] 23:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand the opinion and think that thinking so is very natural. But we should be counting races that he didn't start, too. If we don't do so, contradiction will be caused, on drivers like Amati. And the definition of the "Start" is also vague, for instance, there are sources assumed to be a retirement about the Michelin user in the United States GP in 2005.[1] If according to this Formula One Official Website, the fact is "Button started 114 times" without problem. Though I believe this is an error (everyone see they didn't start), there are a lot of similar examples in the records of Formula One. if we don't write the number of starts but of entries, can decrease the risk that it's influenced by such a error (or discussions by difference of interpretation, etc.).
In my opinion on the infobox, it's the best to write both the numbers of the participations and the starts. However, this is a difficult problem. I think, first, more people should talk about the treatment of the "Entry" and the "Start". --Morio 01:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Please remember to include a brief summary outlining any edit that you make, even if it's a minor change. It helps everyone to monitor edits without always having to view the differences, especially for articles that are currently being developed. Adrian M. H. 21:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Macanese racecar drivers

Re [2] - Are you referring to people from Macau, or the Macanese people (Macau people with Portuguese ancestry)? :-) — Instantnood 06:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your commnet. I created the category as of the drivers from Macau (Macanese race car drivers) because some racing car drivers enter to races (mainly Macau Grand Prix and Guia Race) with the license of Macau.--Morio 10:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright. Let's put it this way. Macao had been a Portuguese territory for several centuries. Some Portuguese people settled there and intermarried with the local people (and people of other ethnicity background in Asia, too). These people and their descendants have evolved in Macao into an ethnic group called Macanese. Not all the people in Macao are Macanese by ethnicity, and some Macanese people have moved elsewhere. I bet the category you created was in fact referring to the people in Macao, instead of Macanese people, am I right? — Instantnood 20:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/r/User_talk%7EMorio_46cf.html"