Talk:Singapore Airlines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore. To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Singapore Airlines is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Date of review: 7 October 2006 |
Contents |
[edit] 2005 destinations?
202.156.2.170 added the following line:
In 2005, Singapore Airlines extended to Glasgow, Hogwarts, Berlin, Las Vegas (2008 renamed Las Vegas Shore), London Gatwick
Where is this sourced from?--Huaiwei 11:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think this is vandalism, Hogwarts is the College that Harry Potter went to!! So I've deleted the sentence. - Adrian Pingstone 16:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Inaccuracies
1. The Singapore-Newark-Singapore flights do not necessarily go over the Arctic Ocean. I've personally flown the roundtrip twice, and NEVER went over the Arctic - crossed the Atlantic on EWR-SIN and the Pacific on SIN-EWR.
2. The SpaceBed does not recline to 180 degrees.
[edit] References
Could someone please add referencesMaxflight 00:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SIA Fleet Status
Huaiwei - pls do not amend the figures. They are derived from SIA monthly fleet status report.
[edit] Incidents and Accidents deletion, advertisement flavor
Some time ago, User:62.252.64.16 deleted the Incidents and Accidents section completely. This section included a description of four incidents, including the unfortunate SQ006 that crashed in Taipei. I restored this section from the last version that included it.
Additionally, I feel that the article somehow smacks of an 'advertisement' flavour. Most likely, the inclusion of a long list of awards and accolades (also by User:62.252.64.16) may have contributed to this. I do understand that SQ is a very successful airline and I have myself enjoyed every experience of flying with them. However, if the tone of the article is a little less of advertisement, and a little more of encyclopedic material, it would greatly help.
Regards, Gajamukhu 18:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- I do agree that this article is in need of attention. It reads more like an almanac then an encyclopedia article for one, with too many lists and data and too little textual presentation. I agree an over-the-top awards list is an overkill, and a mere highlight of the most important awards and a textual description on service quality should be adequate. Anything else either is not worth mentioning, or is probably better off in a sub-page. As for incidents, only two are worth mention, including SQ117 and SQ006 (MI185 can do well in the silkair page). The rest are only "noteworthy" because they are recent, and that's it. What do the rest of you think?--Huaiwei 18:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
perhaps there should be a separate page for the list of awards.Concluding 14:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Possible idea. Think I will get that up soon! :D--Huaiwei 15:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Can't see the point of that either - where is the interest in a long list of awards? Where is the value? I've had a look at the list, trying to work out how to condense it into a workable bit of text... but... well, in the end I think the article is better off without this section. Wangi 15:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Just moved the stuff to a seperate list, and I am thinking of turning this section into one on the airline's service standard/quality. This is important for an article on SIA, because it is so deeply in-grained into this airline's culture since day one, and has contributed much to its image as well as its existance. Also restored SQ006 to the accidents list, although I think it might be better off simply expanding the history section. When all these are done, we will be gone with both sections! :D--Huaiwei 16:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Can't see the point of that either - where is the interest in a long list of awards? Where is the value? I've had a look at the list, trying to work out how to condense it into a workable bit of text... but... well, in the end I think the article is better off without this section. Wangi 15:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
What is it with Singapore Airlines Flight 006? That's the 2nd time in as many days I have reverted back edits which have deleted it from the I&A section! Wangi 14:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- An anon has been compulsively removing this section for no explainable reason for quite a while now. I suppose some admin action may be neccesary.--Huaiwei 15:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fleet
I put up a merge request from the subarticle Singapore Airlines fleet. Most of the information should be discarded and the rest incorporated into the main article. It's way too specific and goes against WP:NOT. Dbinder 00:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I concur. Vegaswikian 02:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would oppose a "dumping merge", because this main article already has a brief section on fleet. So I believe the main question is whether the information in Singapore Airlines fleet violates WP:NOT. I checked the WP:NOT, the most relevant section is "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" which lists the categories of articles under this section. However, I don't see how Singapore Airlines fleet falls into any of the categories: phonebook, loosely connected topics, directories etc. --Vsion 06:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I oppose and this is a strong one. I agree with what Vsion said. Singapore Airlines fleet does not fall under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this is not a directory. This is not a good idea at all. There's already a summary in the main article. I don't understand why you all want to follow the books all the time, and cannot be flexible with the policies. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- The point of policy is just that: setting guidelines for what should and shouldn't be in articles. This article also goes against the product listing policy. If the fleet in itself were something noteworthy and substantial it would merit its own article. However, since it doesn't meet this criterion, the most important information should be merged into the main article, and the rest should be discarded or moved over to Wikisource. Dbinder 16:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- The point here, is that there is an disagreement over the applicability of that policy to this article, and not the policy itself. Some consider this an "indiscriminate collection of information", others do not. I do notice we constantly have a group of individuals who label these text as such, yet could not explain in detail why this is so, despite repeated requests to do so.--Huaiwei 10:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- The point of policy is just that: setting guidelines for what should and shouldn't be in articles. This article also goes against the product listing policy. If the fleet in itself were something noteworthy and substantial it would merit its own article. However, since it doesn't meet this criterion, the most important information should be merged into the main article, and the rest should be discarded or moved over to Wikisource. Dbinder 16:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I concur. *drew 15:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Its *drew with his one-liner concurrences, as always.--Huaiwei 10:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm nominating this for deletion, since that seems more appropriate. Almost all the relevant info is already on the main article page. Dbinder 16:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- The only reason why much of the information in Singapore Airlines fleet is also in Singapore Airlines is simply because the information in the later has not been rewrittern in summary style (perhaps for fear of the former article dissappearing at anytime). I do not suppose an article aspiring to be an FA can have a subsection as detailed as Singapore Airlines fleet, and that is precisely what supporting articles are meant to do.--Huaiwei 10:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- A lot of the information in the fleet section is doubled up in other parts of the article. It should be simplified to just details of the fleet and not services that they provide with the fleet. skyskraper 06:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Service and innovation section
It says "Main article: Singapore Airlines awards and accolades". This article is, of course, just an incomplete list of awards. How is that an article on "service and innovation"? Brian Jason Drake 01:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I've just restored two sentences to this section: free headsets/drinks and most-awarded airline. Surely the second sentence at least is notable? Brian Jason Drake 01:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Failed GA
This article failed the GA noms under WP:WIAGA criteria 2 (accurate and verifiable). When the problems are fixed feel free to renominate the article. --Tarret 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Advertisement
I feel it is a fiarly neutral article, just maybe slightly going toward advertisement. Maybe one or two words could be changed here or there - its not that major. Qaanaaq 11:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SIA logo
What's the meaning of the SIA logo? I mean, why the golden bird? What's the meaning of it?141.213.66.173 05:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy
SIA is not an airline without any controversy. Several people had filed lawsuits against the airline, like those regarding the crash of SQ 006, the pineapple juice lawsuit, and some more as well. Can't remember all the lawsuits, hope someone can add them with sources included into it. We can use sources regarding SQ6 lawsuits such as [1]. Maybe this can be covered in the SQ6 article since it belongs there. Just a brief mention of the SQ006 controversy as well as the MI185 lawsuits too. Some SIA staff tend to suffer from Pinkerton Syndrome, with poor service etc. Some things about SIA needs mention here. The article sounds like advertising for SIA, I do like sitting SIA (who doesn't) but we should also mention a bit here. SIA is not without any criticism and controversy. Terence Ong 14:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
