User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2008/October

Lung cancer reversion
Hi. Regarding this edit, did you see the prevalent reference format throughout the whole article? Axl ¤  [Talk]  06:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of it. The cite template accepts different ways of providing parameters, but some (notably first=, last=, coauthor=) don't result in compliant citations. Using simply author= works fine. When I get the time I'll fix the cites in the article.LeadSongDog (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Which policy is this not compliant with? Axl  ¤  [Talk]  15:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS (and its subsidiaries) act as a guideline, not a policy, but in practice it is pretty much mandatory for FA status. See WP:MEDMOS.  The Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals are adopted by all major medical publishers.  Pubmed and other NIH-NLM generated citations follow the form.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The predominant reference style used in "Lung cancer" does not breach any part of WP:MEDMOS. The "Uniform Requirements" refers to "manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals". Wikipedia is not a biomedical journal and does not have these uniform requirements. From "Citation templates": "The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines.... Editors should not change articles from one style to another without consensus." "Lung cancer" contains 94 references with the "first & last" style, and 2 references with the "authors" style (one of which you reverted). You have not demonstrated any breach of WP:MOS or WP:MEDMOS. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not overly fussed about it in any case. The difference (as a reader sees it) just comes down to placement of a comma and a semicolon in one flavour versus just a comma in the other flavour. If you want to wikilawyer, fill your boots.  I'd rather fix articles.  LeadSongDog (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wikilawyer"? How ironic. Your reversion spoilt the article. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Returning one cite to the status quo "spoilt" the article? Time for a little perspective, perhaps?LeadSongDog (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian fraction
I undid your recent change to Egyptian fraction but would welcome further discussion on this issue. I started a new section of Talk:Egyptian fraction on the subject and await your reply there. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply: RE: So-called 'Old' names
These are **not** old names as incorrectly suggested by the rude commenter: these are names that are now officially in use, thus the accuser is in fact deliberately trying to misslead the Wikipedia editors by providing deliberately incorrect information, and also by being openly abusive, that is by using abusive language.Nu 22:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply--Lets check facts
The fact is that the verifiable references were provided, and thus the facts are as stated. Thank you. Nu 03:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Bci2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bci2 (talk • contribs)

Qantas Flight 72
Thanks for your suggestion and references. In the abscence of any WP article regarding that incident I've added a summary into this one (well, the version parked in my userspace anyway) -- Rob.au (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping at unicite
It's much appreciated believe me.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "We do da best we ahr, non?" LeadSongDog (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Tyler vandal
Blocked indefinitely. Who were you referring to by Tyl*? That name is unregistered. Thanks, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  16:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh my, my fault! Sorry, I'm just incredibly limited in terms of computer knowledge. I'll check it out though. Thanks again, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  02:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Has there been a history of airlines abandoning routes as the pass/fail criterion in AFD?"
No, there hasn't been a history of an airline abandoning a route even after a fatal crash. I don't think that I said that American would stop flying from Seattle to New York in any event, but you're welcome to twist it around any way that you want to. Have a good time. Mandsford (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair question. My argument for deletion was based on notability (i.e., that this was little more than emergency landing), not on the fact that tomorrow's Seattle to JFK flight will be called AA 268.  That part was a comment, dicta, hyperbole, musing, sarcasm, whatever you want to call it, on the fact that the really really big crashes are traumatic enough that the number is "retired", so to speak.  For instance, American Airlines Flight 11 is no longer used, although there is still a morning flight from Logan Airport to LAX that departs at the same time at the old time.  No, I don't believe that having a number retired is a criterion for notability, any more than that I believe that the loss of power on AA 268 was notable enough for its own article.  Airline incidents investigated by the NTSB and other agencies fall on a wide spectrum, with minor (but reported and investigated) incidents at one end, and fatal crashes that require months of investigation before a report comes out on the other end of the spectrum.  There's plenty of room to argue on the ones that fall in between.  Thus, when I say that AA 268 hasn't had its number retired, its like saying that Brett Favre hasn't had his number retired.  We're in disagreement as to whether this flight is worthy of its own article.  You have your reasons, I have mine.  I hope that answers your question.  Mandsford (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the proposed guidelines are pretty good, although I don't agree with the "famous person on board" suggestion. Like all good guidelines, they provide certainty in some situations, and room to argue in those "gray area" cases ("unusual" is one of those words that can be argued over).   From what I read, the notability standards would be a fatality, an incident that led to a change in rules or policies, a close call that was averted by quick action.  My gripe with air incident articles (not necessarily this one) is that it's often a case of someone copying an NTSB report and then arguing notability on that basis alone (again, I'm not saying that's the case on AA268).  I believe that the standard on a particular flight number should be whether they received significant coverage in the media, not just whether they were investigated.   Interestingly enough (to me anyway) was that the first use of a defibrillator to save a passenger's life in flight took place in the 1990s on a Boston to L.A. flight, American Airlines Flight 11.  Of course, AA 11 is more famous for what happened in 2001, but the first incident is worth a mention in an article about defibs on passenger carriers.  Mandsford (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)