User talk:LeadSongDog

"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)

AfD nomination of Air Europa Flight 196

An article that you have been involved in editing, Air Europa Flight 196, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Europa Flight 196. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Vocal quartets

Hi, I saw your name in the edit history for American Quartet (ensemble), and I thought you might be able to tell me what sort of music they performed -- were they a barbershop quartet, as the article stated previously? Also, if you're knowledgable on the subject of Vocal quartets, your input could be very helpful in the CFD discussion for Category:Quartets that's taking place here. Thanks in advance for whatever assistance you can offer. Cgingold (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 268

I stand by my assessment of AfD consensus to delete. But if you wish, feel free to bring a deletion review, just let me know if you do. Cirt (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I assessed the overall comments made. Consensus was to delete. I read all the comments and rationales, and agreed with them, in addition to balancing those against WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Pesce-pollotarian

I think you are right. I'll leave it to somebody who willing to do it more than myself. Although I am one of pesce-pollotarian, this is not really my subject of interest, though I am interested to read it. It is not a type of vegetarian though. It does not include the word "veg" in front of it w_tanoto (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit on WP:MOSNUM

I don't want to revert any more since I'll be accused of edit warring, but what does your edit summary mean? This is clealy not article space. Can you please revert it (unless you meant something else)?--Kotniski (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you're refering to this edit it clearly wasn't in talk, which was the point in the template document. If you've reviewed the template doc and still think it belongs in the WP:MOSNUM article, I'll be happy to self rv.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The doc page (which I recently updated, incidentally, though I don't think I changed this point - at least, I didn't intend to) says that underdiscussion is for use on "project pages, not on articles". MOSNUM is certainly not an article, and I've always understood the term "project pages" to be synonymous with (or at least include) pages in the "Wikipedia:" space, which MOSNUM is. I don't think it can possibly mean talk pages - after all, what would be the point of putting an underdiscussion template on a talk page?--Kotniski (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Self-rv'd it. The Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Changes_to_guideline_and_policy_pages discusses the intended usage.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)