User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2007/October
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Tornados
Thank for you comment with regard to my removal of the text about Tornados added my an IP user. Yes I didnt think it was notable but that is just an opinion but more importantly it fails to meet the
article guidelines. MilborneOne 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
fact tag on Abiogenic (Russia)
Saw you inserted the fact tag; but since this is a minority claim, shouldn't the assertion be removed until it can be supported by a citation? (e.g. see Wales' comment in relation to verifiability). --Psm 01:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Which article?LeadSongDog 06:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Categorizing warship classes
Hi - I didn't browse the history behind the C and D class destroyer article when I removed those categories but here is the logic for what I've been doing:
- Currently categories such as Category:Royal Canadian Navy destroyers and Category:Royal Navy destroyers (or any other warship type, or specific era categories such as Category:World War II destroyers of Canada) are becoming cluttered with individual vessel articles.
- To try to constructively organize the individual vessel articles, I think it makes more sense to have the ship class categories, such as Category:C and D class destroyers, categorized under the respective navies that used them (Category:Royal Canadian Navy destroyers, Category:Royal Navy destroyers, etc.)
It reduces duplicate categorization in articles and provides for a consistent hierarchy. Hope this helps! Cheers,Plasma east 18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)returned to original talk page
Invitation to join WikiProject Ships
|
Oil shale
Thank you for taking a care of the lead of Oil shale article. Do you think the lead is now ok per WP:LEAD, or additional editing is needed? Could you please look to the Industry section, I think that after moving the paragraph from the lead, this section needs a some clean-up. Otherwise, do you think this article is ready for the GAC nomination?Beagel 09:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good to me now.LeadSongDog 06:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance improving the Oil shale article to the GA level. Of course the work continues and I hope that you will be able to continue to contribute also for FAC nomination and improving other oil shale related articles. I think the next GAC could be the Oil shale geology and the Oil shale extraction. Beagel 14:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Gee, thanks. I've now got Original BS! Keep up the fine work, Beagel. LeadSongDog 18:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit to Murder. Please keep up the good work! Bearian 21:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Gettin' clippered
Thanks a bunch. Trekphiler 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source showing these cases were classified by some government agency as aviation accidents or aviation incidents? How do these cases differ from food poisoning at a restaurant? Crum375 00:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the smoking incident doesn't have a dedicated linked wiki article. Crum375 01:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of a requirement for a government agency to make a classification on wikipedia. Still, for the food poisoning case the CDC and FDA probably count as reliable sources. Likewise in the smoking incident the Supreme Court of the United States ought to be worth granting some degree of credibility. Both cases pertain directly to the safety of practices on commercial air flights, so should meet the list criteria. I've addressed the absence of explicit articles in Aerolíneas Argentinas Flight 386 and Olympic Airways Flight 417, although I believe that in general it's an overly strict policy leading to the creation of trivial articles that could better be in one section of an airline or aircraft's article. LeadSongDog 02:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need government certification per se, but we do need, in marginal cases such as these, a reliable source that tells us that that event was considered officially an aviation accident or aviation incident. This list is strictly focused on aviation safety, and the smoking or food poisoning events could have just as easily occurred on terra firma. So the issue is not notability or reliable sources per se, but specifically whether these meet the strict requirement of aviation accidents etc. Note that there are other aviation lists that are less strict in their eligibility requirements. Crum375 04:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about you, but I like to think that safety standards on commercial airlines are still a tad better than the neighbourhood greasy spoon or cigar bar. Safety is cultural. If you're less than fanatic about it in one respect you'll be less than fanatic about it in others, skimping on maintenance, carrying hazardous cargo, goading customers into air rage, or whatever. In these cases the safety lapses were those of airlines. At least in the smoking case it was actually in flight. In the cholera case the potential harm was greatly increased by the fact that it affected many people moving quickly between countries.LeadSongDog 05:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've extended the discussion in the articles somewhat, and I think they are now more clearly within the criteria at WP:ADL. Please let me know if you still object to them being on the list.LeadSongDog 16:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about you, but I like to think that safety standards on commercial airlines are still a tad better than the neighbourhood greasy spoon or cigar bar. Safety is cultural. If you're less than fanatic about it in one respect you'll be less than fanatic about it in others, skimping on maintenance, carrying hazardous cargo, goading customers into air rage, or whatever. In these cases the safety lapses were those of airlines. At least in the smoking case it was actually in flight. In the cholera case the potential harm was greatly increased by the fact that it affected many people moving quickly between countries.LeadSongDog 05:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need government certification per se, but we do need, in marginal cases such as these, a reliable source that tells us that that event was considered officially an aviation accident or aviation incident. This list is strictly focused on aviation safety, and the smoking or food poisoning events could have just as easily occurred on terra firma. So the issue is not notability or reliable sources per se, but specifically whether these meet the strict requirement of aviation accidents etc. Note that there are other aviation lists that are less strict in their eligibility requirements. Crum375 04:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of a requirement for a government agency to make a classification on wikipedia. Still, for the food poisoning case the CDC and FDA probably count as reliable sources. Likewise in the smoking incident the Supreme Court of the United States ought to be worth granting some degree of credibility. Both cases pertain directly to the safety of practices on commercial air flights, so should meet the list criteria. I've addressed the absence of explicit articles in Aerolíneas Argentinas Flight 386 and Olympic Airways Flight 417, although I believe that in general it's an overly strict policy leading to the creation of trivial articles that could better be in one section of an airline or aircraft's article. LeadSongDog 02:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just a comment - I removed the Aerolíneas Argentinas Flight 386 and Olympic Airways Flight 417 incidents from the Boeing 747 article as they were really not notable and nothing to do with the aircraft. I notice that Crum375 has also removed them from the List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft. I would support his removal they are really not notable and I suspect not that uncommon for inviduals to die on aircraft for various reasons, just because stuff exists does not mean that it is encyclopedic. This is only my opinion if we need a consensus then I would suggest that this should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. MilborneOne 19:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still having difficulty with the assertion that the accidents were not notable. If that's the case, then notability should be addressed on the individual article talk pages. At least that was what Crum375 argued as the reason for mandating having such articles as a condition of listing the incident on List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft. It seems clear to me that both of these incidents are notable and that the articles are well on their way to demonstrating that. Please educate me if I'm misunderstanding this.LeadSongDog 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)