Talk:Singapore Airlines/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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)

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)
  • 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)

Erh ... you fly SIA? $$$? Added the SQ06 lawsuit from your references into the article, not a problem. --Vsion 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisements II

I smell advertisements in this articles. More and more advertisement-like information added each day. Clean-up before it gets too much. Zack2007 16:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of throwing out vague accusations, why not spend some time cleaning it up yourself, since you know what areas you have in mind need addressing. Otherwise, be specific about what sections/paragraphs you are talking about, so other editors can try address this problem. Until then, the {advert} tag goes! - BillCJ 16:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
i suppose zack could be slightly affected by the several references to the accolades SIA has received in the opening 3 paragraphs. maybe a separate awards/accolades etc section with a tighter opening? just a suggestion. Chensiyuan 00:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Where's the controversies? Service, lawsuits etc. We are like promoting for SIA, at the intro. Look at this.
"Singapore Airlines has built up a strong brand name in the aviation industry since its formation in 1972, and has a reputation for being a trend-setter and industrial benchmark in service quality. It is the world's most awarded airline and is one of only four airlines to receive a 'five-star' rating by Skytrax. The other airlines holding this award are Cathay Pacific, Malaysia Airlines and Qatar Airways. An industry bellwether for aircraft purchases, it has a reputation for being a very demanding and meticulous buyer, with its purchases closely monitored by plane makers as an endorsement of their aircraft, and by other airlines for potentially reliable and cost-effective purchases."
It is all advertisement text, "strong brand name" (POV). I don't know what else to say, it's just a bunch of good text and lots of very advertisement like works. If you read the article again. Then you will know what I'm talking about. It just says all the good things about SIA, no criticisms, nothing much about SQ6 (though that's in its own article), nothing service, lawsuits, anything else? Wasn't there some other stuff too? Needs a complete rewrite, we need an article without this advertisements. People think we are advertising for SIA when we are not. Suggest total rewrite and we can try our luck at FAC. Singaporean editors can go to the library to do some rewrite with quite an amount of books and old newspapers in microfilm at Victoria Street. This will really make a difference. Terence Ong 07:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
That SIA has a strong brand name in the aviation industrail is well acknowledged even by its most bitter rivals. There are tonnes of books writtern not just on the success of the airline in this regard, but also on its brand name alone. The airline is indeed one of only four five-star airlines by skytrax, and it is indeed a bellweather in the purchase of aircraft. Stating all these does not negate the presence of less positive aspects of the airline. Simply removing these text is a lazy option.
The 006 incident is but a one-off case which does not indicate that the airline has serious safety issues. You can go read up on the effects of the 006 crash on the airline, and its often cited that it probably benefitted even more because of it. What it is about service which you are referring to anyway?
Anyhow, if there is anything "negative" missing from this article, it is a mention on labour management issues. The occasional flair-ups between the pilots and the company, and the personal intervention by Lee Kuan Yew is certainly worth elaboration on. I find it strange that you made no mention on this if you are serious about having a more NPOV article.--Huaiwei 12:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Have I ever said that SIA has safety issues? SIA is very safe, SQ6 is a human fault, I know that jolly well. Please have some patience, you got to wait on the "negative" stuff, I will cite sources on this from ST. I am doing a total rewrite from scratch and writing a clean article, with the good and bad points of SIA. Of course, SIA has good points and very few bad points. I know how safe SIA is, so don't think I don't know anything. You assume that I don't know that SIA is a very safe airline, which in fact I knew all along even before the times I found out Wikipedia. SIA is my preferred choice of airlines along with other Star Alliance airlines. If you know a lot about SIA, then you as a long time contributor should just go on writing instead of saying. Service, see "Controversy". We need to NPOVise the good points, that's it. Like Zack, I like to fly with them. I fly with SIA for the past five years, never sitting any other airline other than SIA to my destinations. We need to make Wikipedia into a better encyclopedia, let's just collaborate and make this article into an FA. Terence Ong 13:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
From the tone of the above comment, I dont think it deserves a measured response from anyone. Kind of ironic in relation to what he is proposing, it seems.--Huaiwei 13:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's time for a refreshment, I've added {{cleanup-rewrite}} to the page, it won't go any further at this state, it can even be an FA if this article is rewritten and have a broader coverage of things. Terence Ong 09:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No offence everyone. I am nothing against Singapore Airlines. In fact I enjoy flying with them. But this is wikipedia which carries NPOV. If you ask me which part, I can't say so because when I read the article, every few sentences will have some words that are intended to 'worship' SIA. Take the newly added Uniform and branding icon section for example. Look at words like "have become very well known", "a very designated and visual part of the entire brand experience", "reached near-celebrity", "mythical status and aura" and many more. Are these encyclopedic? Can we see such words in Britannica Encyclopedia? So lets join hands to contribute and in a near future we can see that SIA not only is great out there but also its wiki article can get an FA or even a GA status. Wish you good luck :) --Zack2007 13:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I agree some words may be over the top and needs to be toned down, but surely there must be a good reason why the Singapore Girl in her sarong kerbaya is the only airline stewardess to grace the halls of Madame Tussauds?--Huaiwei 13:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The design of the uniform, very unique and special. Other airlines spot very ordinary looking uniforms. Maybe you can fly to London and find out. Terence Ong 13:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Whats so "unique and special" about this uniform? That sounds like advertisement to me. Dosent it look kinda similar to the ones worn by staff of Malaysia Airlines?--Huaiwei 13:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Then hmmm, you gotta ask Madamme Tussauds. Terence Ong 13:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
My question isnt asking for a direct answer. The answer speaks for itself on what I am trying to say in the above.--Huaiwei 13:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Lol. Terence Ong 13:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Correct me if what I'm saying here is wrong, but Singapore Airlines has successfully use Singapore Girl to represent themselves. Singapore Girl has become an icon to a successful airlines. It is not just that the uniform is unique in anyway. (There are other uniforms that maybe unique as well). So I think this successful branding that causes Singapore Girl to become famous and therefore deserve to be in Madame Tussauds. And no need to be mytical to see that. Thats all. --Zack2007 13:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Those quotes Zack provided above were added [2] by a newbie less than 10 days ago. We should clean up that section, but I don't think we want to rewrite the article every time someone come along and add some stuff. --Vsion 14:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It's really quite a mess now and reads more like an awards accolade speech then a NPOV encyclopedic entry.

I'm going to try spend some time to clean this article up. Although, I fear the fanboy force is strong with this one skyskraper 02:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inspiration

I was looking through the list of featured articles and I found two articles on airlines: Pan American World Airways and Ryanair. I also found one article related to transport and to Singapore: Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). Those articles can serve as inspiration for on improving this article. --Oden 20:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fleet Box

The fleet box should be displayed the way it on every other airline page. Their should be 5 columns, with Aircraft, Total, Passengers(First/Business/Premium Econ/Econ), Routes, Notes. The information should be layed out similar to other Star Alliance airlines as well. The fleet area should be located under the Destinations category. The Destinations category should be located under History. Codeshare agreements, Frequent Flyer information, Airline lounge information, incidents and accidents, as well as travel classes and more should be located under the fleet! This is the way most airline pages are layed out as it is the correct way. Your cooperation would be appreciated greatly.--Golich17 02:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For the fleet box, please show me the relevant discussions where you have gained community concensus to use this format, failing which I do not see any reason why I need to conform to it. And please explain why a couple of other major airlines arent following this format too, despite your claims that "every other airline page" does so? And show me where did you come up with the decision that all airline articles must follow that flow of information, as the "only correct way"? Please show me from what authority are you making these decisions for everyone?--Huaiwei 04:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Calm down. There's no need to be so defensive. What Golich is suggesting is basically making this entry comply with the structure for airline entries as described in wiki project airlines and the fleet table as shown in the fleet tables page. Why shouldnt we conform?skyskraper 06:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I arent sure about this being a defensive move, but I am obviously pissified by someone who persists in going round and forcing a certain standard on everyone when he did not bother to discuss them. If I may refer to wiki project airlines, it in no way insists all airline articles must follow this particular flow, nor must it contain only these subheadings. For the fleet table, it says it may contain "A list of the aircraft flown by the airline and the quantity of each. Other information can include the seating, aircraft on order and other information consider encyclopedic." Has Golich17 bothered to discuss the possibility of adding other information which the wikiproject clearly allows for? Check out Virgin Atlantic Airways, for example, which obviously didnt follow the suggested structure to the last bit, and once had a fleet table of its own design until Golich17's intervention 2 days ago [3]? So just how is he justifying the claim that all airline pages conform to his fleet table? Most of them obviously do so because he single-handedly came up with this design and implimented it across mutiple articles without discussion. If no one is going to stand up against this kind of behavior, than he will meet resistance right here.--Huaiwei 16:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I have no prior knowledge of any history between you two, but there is no need to be "pissified" at a user in an article talk page, please take it to the user talk pages! Assume good faith!! For the fleet table, I am in agreeance with Golich17 on its layout. Substituting a notes column for registration column as I feel for most users that it would allow more useful information to be displayed. If it's simply this point that we disagree on then why not just have both registration and notes column? I am willing to agree on this compromise. But I still feel that we should not include registration information as you can find that information on the (which I personally think is a useless and not worthy of inclusion) Singapore Airlines fleet page. Regarding the structure of the article, "not everyone else does it" isn't what I would consider a good reason for us not to here. The purpose of the wikiproject is "To establish standardization for some information that should be contained within airline articles. This would include suggested heading and tables. The primary goal is to make airline articles have a consistent feel." and I consider this to be fair enough. Obviously we would need to make some slight variations in the exact structure of the article, but the core structure should and can be followed. Much of the information contained under headings in this entry can also be incorporated in to other headings during the rewriting period. This is too much of a fan/marketing like page right now and much of that can be easily fixed to make the article more encyclopedic. skyskraper 00:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

When I stated MAJOR Airline, I should of said Major US Airlines, which pretty much dominate the market. Also, many Major European airlines use this format. And guess what... I do have proof that the majority agree on this format. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Fleet--Golich17 04:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, I did not create the format. I found it, we discussed the way it should be layed out in WikiProject Airlines/Fleet and then I helped to implement it. I am sorry if you feel i'm forcing my way through these pages and changing the format thinking I have the sole authority, but that is NOT my intention. Many users who edit airline pages on Wikipedia have reached an agreement on one format, so we can simplify how Wikipedia is layed out. A consistency would be great, and your table is deemed to show a slight inconsistency. I thank you for your input, but before you make changes to tables, please discuss them in the discussion page of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Fleet.--Golich17 04:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
And that consensus is for four columns and not five. Routes was not included in the consensus. In the few case where this may need mentioning, it can be under notes. Vegaswikian 19:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The the first version of the WikiProject Airlines structure guide was made by User:Vegaswikian (diff). I have left a message on that user's talk page in regard to this thread. In my opinion WikiProject Airlines is a useful resource which provides guidance on formatting and content for many articles on a similar theme, but is not an exhaustive guide on how a article must be formatted.

Guidance can also be sought at Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Structure_of_the_article. There are two featured articles on airlines: Pan American World Airways and Ryanair, and both of them differ substantially from the WikiProject Airlines guide and even from each other. If these "rules" are getting in the way of improving this article then I would argue that this is a case of Ignore All Rules! --Oden 10:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to note that I first proposed the version of the table from United that included what I considered to be the important information in a very readable format. It was distilled down to 4 columns in order to get consensus. One reason was that the United table was too hard to use, if I remember the discussion correctly. While I don't like the result, it did represent consensus at the time. If there are more opinions and the consensus is to modify the guideline then it should be done. My concerns are to try and limit the material to information that is likely to be available for most airlines and it should not include information that is route specific. Like others have said, there can be exceptions to project recommendations, but for a consistent look and feel those deviations should be minimal. So if the suggested table is wrong, it should be expanded. Vegaswikian 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to the fleet box my opinion is that it should be kept simple. There is an entire article on the subject, Singapore Airlines fleet, so there's no need to duplicate too much info. Of course, the argument could be made that the fleet box could be omitted entirely from this article and only be placed in Singapore Airlines fleet. It really depends on how long this article becomes when it has been rewritten. (Normally boxes do not contribute significantly to article size, but a big box which essentially duplicates information does take up some place.)

Also the article Singapore Airlines fleet needs a major cleanup, right now it looks like an exhaustive attempt at listing every aircraft ever owned by this airline, which is a Sisyphean task. --Oden 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually if that information by plane is from www.airfleets.net or a similar site then it is a copyvio. If that is the case, those other articles should simply be deleted with the non copyvio material put back here. That would also mean the fleet table needs to stay here. Vegaswikian 21:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of creating a separate article is to be able to expand coverage on the subject. In this article (the main one) the fleet section is one of many, while the separate article provides more space to expand Wikipedia's coverage on the subject. It is also important to remember to provide a source for the information which is listed in the fleet box. --Oden 09:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Also check out commons:Singapore Airlines, I did a search on Flickr for freely-licensed images and have uploaded several new ones, including one of the A380 in Singapore Airlines colours. --Oden 09:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's basically what has happened. A fleet box was created with helpful information, but of no significance to an encyclopedia. The Singapore Airlines page is layed out horribly, and has no order whatsoever. If you view the Northwest Airlines page, which I comprehensively edit, you will see it provides the reader a nice atmosphere, without bulky photos, and without too many errors. The layout is simple, and includes important information that many people would most likely want to know. The fleet tables list basic information, including 5 columns. I believe that since Northwest is a major airline, and since they designate certain routes to certain aircraft, is why we included the routes section in that table. The layout is correct in order, and mostly everything on the page is properly cited, using official websites, rather than unreliable airline forum websites (in this case www.nwa.com). Take what I have just stated in mind, and see the difference between the Northwest Airlines article, and the Singapore Airlines article. Which one do you believe states the information in a proper manner, without throwing in a little too much information.--Golich17 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Now the fleetbox has been cleaned up a bit (with still much to be done), in the historical section of the fleetbox, do we only want to include the aircraft operated by SQ after the demerging of MSA, or do we want to include aircraft operated as MSA? I assume the former due to MSA having its own article. I ask because I have access to much company documentation on operations from the early 1960's through until 2004. skyskraper 08:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Was MSA run as a separate group or was it folded into SQ operations? If the former then the aircraft should not be listed in the SQ article. Vegaswikian 08:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Malaysia-Singapore Airlines (and its predecessor Malayan Airways) was effectively the ancestor of Malaysia Airlines AND Singapore Airlines. The entity was split up in 1972 due to differences in direction (and other politics) in to MAS and SIA. Effectively most of the organisation became SIA and MAS was left with very little in terms of assets, rights, infrastructure, and operations. SIA's history and corporate culture can trace a much clearer lineage from MSA then MAS can despite the supposed common ancestor. Apart from a few regional aircraft and routes, the rest went to SIAskyskraper 09:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Reading the history, I see that again we have duplicated material from Malaysia-Singapore Airlines and Malaysia Airlines which tends to confuse. As I read the various articles and try to ignore the overlap (and what appears to be a difference in dates and other information), it appears that Singapore Airlines was formed in 1971 or 1972 along with Malaysia Airlines. Since this was not a simple name change, the history prior to 1972, including the fleet, belong with Malaysia-Singapore Airlines. The articles for both current airlines should really only include what happens after they were formed in 1972, with a brief explanation in the history section that probably should be mostly identical for both airlines. So the fleet information should be for aircraft in use after 1972. I think. If the articles were rewritten to clear this up, questions would be a lot easier to answer. Vegaswikian 10:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool, if this is the consensus I'm good, I don't want to fill the entry up with useless fanboy guff like some editors. I'll see what else I can find from this material that is relevant and not excessive to the entry. skyskraper 10:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Singapore Airlines officially states its formation date was 1947 [4], and just about all known reputable publications echo this. If you are interested in disputing this, please write to Singapore Airlines and get them to change their publications, else you are clearly violating WP:NOR.--Huaiwei 13:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the point I was trying to resolve. The airline claims birth in 1947 yet it was Malayan Airways and MSA existed when SIA did not prior to 1972. With an entry existing for MSA there is room for confusion in what should be included in the retired fleet, ie: the comets, constellations, dc3's etc. Also, none of this would be original research as it can be referenced to SIA operational material clearly, and much other literature widely published.skyskraper 13:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I dont make factual arguments without relevant sources to back up what I say. If you are going to dispute the airline's claims, then do you have relevant reputable sources to back yourself up? It is nothing unusual for companies to track their linage to their predecesors, and SIA isnt particularly unuusual for doing the same thing. The historical fleet list as tabled clearly only includes aircraft it inherited in 1972, so just what is the big issue here?--Huaiwei 13:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I Think we're on different pages, I was questioning whether we should add the pre 1972 aircraft or leave it at post 1972 and simply have the pre 72 info on the MSA page. I never questioned any factual validity. skyskraper 14:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Different pages?--Huaiwei 14:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Figuratively my friend. skyskraper 14:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

FARE CODES differ between airlines. First/business/economy/premium economy class are consistent terms across airlines and the public. P class J class and Y class are (singapore) airline specific FARE codes for classes, P class may designate First class on SQ but all first class tickets are not P class. I have many many SQ tickets on ALL travel classes that have many different booking classes listed on them. Whilst the seat maps may indicate a letter code for each travel class, booking classes are not consistent across all airlines and fare codes are not simple to understand to the layman. F class and P class are not the same on SQ even if you end up in the same cabin. If i was someone who traveled annually, and saw J, P, Y, etc when I looked up an airline on wikipedia I would not be able to understand what is being discussed. The terms represent jargon that is not a common part of the english language. FIRST, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, and PREMIUM/EXECUTIVE economy are widely recognised descriptive terms that are mostly consistent across all airlines, whether they choose to brand the respective classes individually or not. skyskraper 13:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Layout of Page

The layout of this page is in an improper order. The order should be History (including recent developments), Fleet, Freq. Fly., Airline Lounge, Codeshare Agreements, Incidents and Accidents, Livery,See also (if needed), References, External Links. I will be reordering this page, and reverting the edits will be against policy.--Golich17 19:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be curious to know just which policy will I be infringing for reverting your insistance on applying your preferred order on this page?--Huaiwei 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Singapore Airlines in general section???? Sounds corny. Do we need such a section to be named that way?--Zack2007 03:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Probably because they are trying to inlcude information about the airline, a company and an operating group in a single article. An attempt to split this up was reverted out. Also note that this page as is, is larger then recommended.Vegaswikian 03:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
There is not a guideline that I know of, but there is a Wikiproject that is working in this area. Vegaswikian 03:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no policy or guideline for such a thing. I think this should be left the way it is, with the history section being summarised and forming a new sub page. Needs some changes here and there. I would like to point out that the JAL group (airline, company, operating group) are all in one article, except for the subsidiary airlines and some other stuff. I don't see any need to follow a "policy or a guideline" for such a page or to split this out. Terence Ong 04:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
By having Singapore Airlines in general it sounds like another attempt of a blanket advertisement. In other way, it is a way for the section to say this is what Singapore Airlines is offering... I honestly think that the section should not be named that way. Besides, the contents are mainly about the Singapore Airlines flight attendants --> how come this reflects Singapore Airlines in general? --Zack2007 06:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
And just where is the Singapore Airlines in general section?--Huaiwei 13:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you actually take your time to read the main page of the article? Singapore_Airlines#Singapore_Airlines_in_general --Zack2007 13:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes I do, and I cant see that section unless User:Skyskraper insist on adding that section again [5].--Huaiwei 14:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I support this reworking by Golich17, why should the SQ article be ordered and structured differently to the wikiproject outline when this is being administered across the wiki in attempt to standardise the structure and quality of all the entries? There are a few arrogant and selfish users who are insisting on making the SQ (and other related) entry into an advertising/fanpage with duplicated information from the other SQ entries (that also require editorial attention) that overall detracts from its encyclopedic qualities and the quality of wiki as a whole. If you have an issue with the proposed layout/configuration of the article, then the best place to raise those concerns are on the wikiprojects airlines discussion. Wiki is about WE, not I. Remember that, and remember also that no one user OWNS any article as much as you may feel an affinity for it. skyskraper 08:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Why you explain why none of the major airline articles follow the so-called "wikiproject outline" that you quote, and why the Singapore Airlines article in particular must follow it at all costs?--Huaiwei 13:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
This is your sole arguement against it? Please, get over yourself. This article doesn't belong to you. skyskraper 13:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
And ditto to you? This is not about an issue with myself, and its not an issue of who owns an article. Its about a bunch of people clearly levelling their attention on just one article, when an entire bunch of airline articles, including even major airlines around the world, arent following it to the last detail. Could you explain this strange captivation over this one article? Are you accoding extra attention to it just because there it is about the only article posing strong opposition to certain agendas?--Huaiwei 13:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's just all use consensus, no point arguing everyday. Let's just see what's the consensus here, and there is no policy of this. The word "policy" should not be misused, use "guideline" instead. Let's stop trying to own the article, it is a Wiki. I've voiced my opinions over this makeover and I will let consensus take the course. However, I must say that why articles such as Cathay Pacific, Japan Airlines, Qantas do not follow such a guideline. Its just very weird for SIA to be revamped but not other airline articles. Terence Ong 13:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto to me? Clearly my logic works in a different manner to yours. There are only a finite number of editors available to work on entries, standardisation is not instant. So if there are other entries that are yet to be paid attention to, that is not an indication of some agenda by a small group. The fact that there are hundred of airline articles that need to be worked on and a limited number of people involved in the airlines project makes it a task that can take some time. skyskraper 13:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Too many articles to work on, impossible to do so imo. I think we just need to make an outline format and we don't need to be too rigid here. Just use it as a guideline, things can be tweaked at times. Too many articles to revamp, impossible job, unless there is a large number of people doing it. Terence Ong 13:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh of course standardisation is not instant, hence I mentioned major airline articles. The likes of British Airways, Virgin Atlantic Airways, United Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Qantas...you name it. Even Ryanair, a featured article, clealy has its own deviation from your insisted layout. So considering the main argument to change the layout here is to conform to standardisation, your excuses that this dosent happen for the majority of major airline webpages speaks of nothing but sheer hypocracy and obvious bias against a single article.--Huaiwei 14:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
How dare you accuse me of hypocracy and bias? I came in to pay attention to this page for the purpose of improvement, I'm not part of the airlines project, just someone whose life SIA has played a large role in. There is no agenda from myself, I just want to improve the standard of the article and strongly believe that if we implimented the structure guidelines it will serve to improve the quality of the article. We don't have to follow it to the letter but we should use it as a starting point. There is much information that reads like it has come straight from the marketing department, and there is also much information and detail that should be included on the many individual entries related to the specific areas of Singapore Airlines and summarised in the main article. Many of these also require much attention.skyskraper 14:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
And why should I not? Are you not biased towards this article, since you just said the airline has played a large role in your life? Are you not a hypocrite, when you wax lyrical about standardisation, yet you cant explain the lack of standardisation througout this wikiproject, even amongst its most notable articles? You have no agenda, when you keep labelling others as a "fanboy force"? Instead of wasting all your time rearranging articles and removing content, why do you not take the time to actually add the information which you say are missing, with which we can then restructure and rewrite the entire thing? Many FAs went through this same path. A period of rapid growth with lots of information added. Then it enters a consolidation phase, where paragraphs are re-writtern summary style, and extra info hived of to supplementary articles. The Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) article, for example, went through the above, and emerged a winner. If individuals like yourself keep removing information prior to the consolidation phase, then you are turning many contributors away from the onset, resulting in it being practically abandoned and never reaching FA status depite three years of work. I suppose it came as no surprise that just two airline articles has ever reached FA status, compared to about 18 from Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains?--Huaiwei 15:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The layout of the page is listed here: WP:AIRLINES#Structure. Read it ABSORB IT! This is the proper way. Deal with it.--Golich17 00:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Did this layout ever get absorbed into your grey matter too when you edit United Airlines, may I ask?--Huaiwei 12:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the structure, class of travel is allowed, which can be reffered to as Cabin. Stop trying to find something I do wrong. You are wrong and you are reluctant to admitting it.--Golich17 22:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. ;) WP:AIRLINES#Structure dosent allow a subsection heading called "cabin", so I am renaming it. And I have "every right" to do that, while you are breaking policies for refusing to adhere to the above guidelines, I suppose? :D Hypocracy and double-standards at its finest!--Huaiwei 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your attitude with me is amazing, and it's going to stop. You being stubborn is the problem and you are acting childish. Cabin is a different name for classes of travel, and if you going to act like a teenager, I suggest you not to talk to me because I'm NOT dealing with it any longer.--Golich17 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

First off you need to be aware that WP:AIRLINES is just a guideline - a suggested format, it is not a straight jacket. Then you might notice Huaiwei is toying with you a bit... Thanks/wangi 23:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't help but notice that several participants of WP:AIRLINES have, in the past or present, mistaken Wikiproject as a policy setting or "enforcement" body or hold some "jurisdiction" over articles. It would be good if an experienced user could kindly revise the WP:AIRLINES page to clearly indicate that it constitutes just a guideline, a suggested format, as nicely stated by wangi. --Vsion 03:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Your missing the point. Even if it is a guideline, the reason why it is there is to suggest nicely that this should be the way all airline pages should be layed out. This page is un-organized and I am going to re-organize it. The fleet table is horrible and the way it is layed out is as well. I will be reorganizing it.--Golich17 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
And I will be reorganising it too. And to think someone just claimed he is "NOT dealing with it any longer"? ;)--Huaiwei 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1947 or 1972?

The Sinagpore Airlines website states that Malayan Airways was founded in 1947. In 1972, Malaysia-Singapore Airlines, as it was then known, split into Singapore Airlines and Malaysia Airline System. So, Singapore Airlines as it is known today was not formed as a company until 1972. DB (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

SIA inherited the major part of MSA, which was based in Singapore, same as Malayan Airways. Therefore, these are basically the same airline, despite the difference in name. Anyway, as this is under discussion, I suggest remove the category temporarily, being a minor issue. --Vsion 05:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Both SIA and MAS state that they are founded in 1947, because both lay claim to the original MSA as their direct predecesor, a mere cosmetic change, and an unbroken corporate history. For Wikipedia to assert otherwise, even if we consider it logically wrong, is infinging on the no original research policy.--Huaiwei 15:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you please point to the WP:OR? That facts are clear. The airline was founded in 1972 but traces its roots back to another company established in 1947. Vegaswikian 19:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you show how Singapore Airlines claims it is founded in 1972? I do not see this in any of its publications. The airline consistently describes itself as having been founded in 1947, as [6] begins with "From a single plane to an internationally respected brand, almost 60 years of innovation and service has propelled the growth of Singapore Airlines to become one of the world's leading carriers with an advanced fleet. We began with three flights per week, and today our route network spans 90 destinations in almost 40 countries. Years ago, Singapore Airlines was the first to offer free drinks and complimentary headsets." Now, was Singapore Airlines operating one aircraft on three flights per week in 1972? Did the innovation to offer free drinks occur only after 1972? 2007-60 dosent seem to give me anything close to 1972, unless I need to relearn basic arithmetics?--Huaiwei 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Quoting from your reference. 'The history of Singapore Airlines dates back to 1 May 1947, when a Malayan Airways Limited Airspeed Consul took off' notice that this is about the history and it includes a different airline. Then we have 'In 1972, Malaysia-Singapore Airlines split up to become two entities - Singapore Airlines and Malaysian Airline System' which clearly states when Singapore Airlines was formed. If this had been a simple name change, that you might justify 1947 as the birth date for the airline. However the 2 into 1 into 2 makes that not a clear cut position. So saying that it was formed in 1972 and can trace it roots back to 1947 is totally reasonable. Also, there are other articles that point to a 1971 split. Not sure what impact that has. Vegaswikian 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I read the same sentences, but I didnt form the same conclusion. Malayan Airways Limited was renamed as Malaysian Airways in 1963, then as Malaysia-Singapore Airlines in 1967. They are not three different companies. Apple Computer becoming Apple dosent mean a new company is born. I am looking at "The Quest for Global Quality", writtern by Change Zeph Yun, 1996, ISBN 0201420872 as we speak, which says the exact same thing as the airline itself. So since when did the airline went "2 into 1 into 2"? The sentences I quote all point to the fact that the airline is talking about its existance for 6 decades. A company splitting into two dosent neccesarily mean both entities are henceforth "new" companies. Two companies merging into one dosent always create a new company either.--Huaiwei 06:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
'Apple Computer becoming Apple' is a name change and has nothing to do with a merger or a breakup.
'A company splitting into two dosent neccesarily mean both entities are henceforth "new" companies. Two companies merging into one dosent always create a new company' Your first point here is correct. If Company A splits into 2 companies, say Company B and Company A, then only one new company is created. If Company A splits into 2 companies, say Company B and Company C, then two new companies are created. If Company A spins off some assets and changes its name, then you would have 2 companies, say Company B and Company C, but only one new company was created. It really is this simple. As far as the '2 into 1 into 2' goes, it seems to be clearly stated in the various sources that Malaysian Airlines at the beginning also took over Borneo Airways when it became Malaysia-Singapore Airlines. Hence the 2 into 1 part. If the articles here are wrong or are not making what happened at this point in time clear, then those articles need to be fixed so there is no ambiguity. When Malaysia-Singapore Airlines ceased to exist, it became two airlines, Singapore Airlines and Malaysia Airlines, hence the 1 into 2 part. So, you can trace the history back to a time before the airline actually existed through the mergers and name changes. This is normal. But it is clear that Singapore Airlines came into existence in 1972 with a history from other airlines that had existed before that time. Vegaswikian 07:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
If you feel its better to clarify your doubts, you can email SIA on when the company was founded, they can give you an answer that its founded in 1947. That will be better and we can be very sure that which year SIA was founded it. SIA even had jets painted in 50th anniversary livery in 1997 (now painted back in original livery), you may wish to search for the picture, I may give you the link. But if you wish to confirm it, emailing the company is the best if you doubt that 1947 was the founding date. Terence Ong 10:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Nope, that's original research - we need to rely on published sources. And here's another one for 1947... Thanks/wangi 10:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Factual error, I can play my part on finding a reliable source. I'm not free to search the National Library the whole day just to find out that SIA was founded in 1947. You mean if what SIA tells you is original research? Is this okay for you? You can't find any internet source on SIA's history other than the website. This is just a pic to show you that SIA really painted the plane in that special livery and its history dates back to 1947. [7]
If you really wish to find it, go ahead. But to let you know, its not founded in 1972 and let's don't give readers wrong information. I don't see the founding dates of other airlines being debated and being required to have a source, so why is SIA always picked on? There is already enough criticism of Wikipedia already, enough of that. Terence Ong 10:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You've taken what I've written the wrong way - I've no problem with the history on SIA's webpage and various other sources (such as [8] and [9]) that state 1947 as the founding date. All I was saying that contacting people/companies is never the right thing to do - it is original research and we must use only published sources. Thanks/wangi 11:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
My bad, I may misinterpret what people say sometimes even in RL. I see, so you were referring to the email. You may wish to add that source into the article. But its very clear that it is founded in 1947. I bet they will paint the plane in some diamond livery soon since its the 60th anniversary this year. Terence Ong 11:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
We wish things are that simple. Unfortunately, it isnt always so. I was just casually taking a look at United Airlines, which claims it was founded in 1926 as Boeing Air Transport. Taking the "simple" framework you just outlined, could you establish the "correct" founding date of that airline?--Huaiwei 14:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Did the SIA register as a new company in 1972? Or did the MSA in Singapore rename itself as SIA? If the former was true, in what way were the assets and liabilities of the MSA in Singapore transferred to the SIA? — Instantnood 18:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Can't answer that question. That one you have to ask SIA yourself. Terence Ong 09:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Please define "register as a new company".--Huaiwei 11:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I assume it works similarly in Singapore and Malaysia, but in the US and all other countries I'm familiar with, businesses have to file papers with whatever government body handles business affairs. If the company was registered anew in 1972, then it would be a new company; if only the name was changed, it wouldn't. However, that would be difficult to find out, unless the government keeps a public record of that somewhere, and as has already been mentioned, contacting SQ directly would not be an option. DB (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Contacting the airlines for this matter does not violates WP:OR. Both dates, 1947 and 1972 have already been published, there is nothing original here, but they are conflicting. Contacting the airline for clarification is a sensible suggestion. Although there is a chance that the airline will give both dates in its reply. --Vsion 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I sent an enquiry through SIA website, with this question: "Which year was Singapore Airlines established?" The reply I received from Public Affairs Department is "Singapore Airlines began services as Malayan Airways in 1947." Let's post 1947 as the date of establishment. --Vsion 14:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is the correct marketing answer. That still does not address the area of concern over what happened in 1971 or 1972 when SIA was created. So we still don't know. Vegaswikian 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It is an official reply. If anyone can offer a better source to contradict it, then please present it. Otherwise, let's move on. --Vsion 21:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Official replies should be fine. Such small issues can always become big issues, I dislike making a mountain out of a molehill, its rather pointless and dumb. Time to move along and work on the article than keep on arguing over the founding date of the airline. Terence Ong 15:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Why would that be a "marketing" answer, unless it is assumed a longer history is considered a positive corporate attribute, or that "Malayan Airways" is somehow a coveted brandname SIA would want to be associated with irregardless of facts (on the assumption that the SIA and Malayan Airways are two seperate airlines)?--Huaiwei 17:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
First they weren't answering your question. You asked when was the Singapore Airlines established, and they answered with the year it started its service. Second, you asked the wrong question. You should have asked when was the Singapore Airlines Ltd established (as that's the subject matter of this article as according to the leading sentence). — Instantnood 18:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I asked my question, and got my answer. I'm not interested in asking your question.--Vsion 18:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes you're absolutely correct. That's your question. Your right to ask your question is always respected. Yet the question you've asked wasn't quite relevent to the disputed matter here on Wikipedia - that is - in what way is the SIA a direct successor of the MSA, and whether or not was the Singapore Airlines Ltd a new company in 1972. — Instantnood 18:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, really?! I thought this discussion is about which Category "Airlines established in 1947/1972" to use.--Vsion 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
If the Singapore Airlines Ltd was a new airline company established in 1972, that took up the headquarters, most of the planes, and most of the routes of the former Malaysia-Singapore Airlines at that time of its establishment, in what way was it established in 1947? With what basis can one claim that it was established in 1947? — Instantnood 18:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
On [10],[11] and WP:VERIFY.--Vsion 19:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Quoted from the first link, " The partnership between Malaysia and Singapore in the airline ended in divorce in 1972. Singapore then established Singapore Airlines. ". From the second one, " In 1972, Malaysia-Singapore Airlines split up to become two entities - Singapore Airlines and Malaysian Airline System. ". — Instantnood 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Those were after these quotes "Singapore Airlines began in 1946 ... ", "The history of Singapore Airlines dates back to 1 May 1947." --Vsion 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I always agree that the history of the Singapore Airlines dates back to 1947 (or perhaps 1946, or even earlier). But that doesn't mean that the Singapore Airlines Ltd was established in 1947. All evidences I have gathered clearly demonstrate that the Singapore Airlines Ltd was established in 1972. No source indicates it was the same entity as, and was renamed from, the previous Malaysia-Singapore Airlines. — Instantnood 20:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
You forget Malayan Airways. --Vsion 21:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
To look at it from another angle, I suppose a business entity which is not incorporated dosent exist?--Huaiwei 06:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logic?

Can someone kindly explain why the explanation for the last 4 foot notes were removed? I see no reason that these should have been removed. The change was reasonable and not objected to by anyone as far as I can see. Vegaswikian 07:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias Warning tag (?)

Regarding the bias tag in the article, could someone list the specific content in the article considered to be bias or incorrect, so that others can address the issues. Thx. --Vsion 02:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei comprehensively edits this article and always seem to add his input into it as well. It is impossible to make an edit without him reverting it, as I've tried many times before. This article to me has useless and incorrect information according to www.sia.com and other sources. I try to edit, but all of my edits are not even given a chance and reverted. I guess this page is pretty much locked in to whatever User:Huaiwei thinks. No one elses opinion is allowed.--Golich17 00:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Are the edits backed up by reliable sources? Are yours? Please bring all edits you think are inaccurate to this talk page, because that is a 100 time more likely to get a productive result than just sticking a template on the page. Thanks/wangi 00:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder from WP:OWN for those who have heavily edit and revert this article so much. Please give way to people to edit. Don't quickly revert.

“ Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images or portals) they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders. It's one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic a lot. But when this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you're overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you've posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:

If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. [emphasis added]

If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later. Or if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page. Appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process.

Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not. See also Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Ownership examples

  • Minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording are disputed on a daily basis by one editor. The editor may state or imply that changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article. This does not include egregious formatting errors.
  • Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not. This does not include removing vandalism.
  • An editor appears on other editors' talk pages for the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms: it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting but that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it.

Comments

  • "Are you qualified to edit this article?"
  • "Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?"
  • "You obviously have no hands-on experience with widgets."
 „

Hopefully we can resolve the issues in a more sensible way ok. My 2 singaporean cents. --Zack2007 06:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retired fleet?

Are these fleet retired? --Vsion 02:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Terence Ong 09:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore Airlines destinations on AFD

Singapore Airlines destinations, Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations, SilkAir destinations as well as 169 other lists of this type are under going AFD here, just to let you know. You may wish to voice your opinion on whether such lists should remain or should be removed from Wikipedia. Terence Ong 13:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • For those of you who have not been participating in this discussion this is fallout from a previous AfD which is in deletion review. You can also participate in that discussion. Please read their rules before commenting. Vegaswikian 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Length

This article needs to be drastically cut up into smaller topics. The immense size merely discourages people from reading any of it. Singapore Airlines article would seem to be an encyclopedia in itself. I am not suggesting that we remove any information, but there is an awful lot of stuff that I wouldn't need to know unless I was an avid aircraft or airlines enthusiast. Can we build some concensus on where we should place separate topics? Because I know that if I start cleaning this up, someone will revert everything. Hopefully if we split it into separate topics, then people can fight over more specific topics without trashing other material.--Shakujo 08:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The size is within acceptable range, recent featured article Space Shuttle Challenger disaster is even longer. The {{verylong}} tag is unwarranted, please remove it. I believe there were some previous attempts to move topics to new articles, but they tend to be merged back following Afds. We can try to do that again, but the maintenance-tag is not necessary. --Vsion 08:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You seem personally upset that a maintenance tag was applied, apologies, but as you agree above it does need attention, which is the point of a maintenance tag, and this article is listed in {{opentasks}}.--Shakujo 08:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion regarding the flight numbers. Moving these to the flight number article to make a general directory of all flight numbers, using the SQ numbers as a starting basis, would shorten the article without deleting information; a suitable link would be left on the Singapore Airlines and the flight numbers can link back to Singapore Airlines. The same could be done with Code sharing. What do you think?--Shakujo 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think creating a directory of all flight numbers for every airline would be a violation of WP:NOT (a directory). Same goes with listing all codeshares. Besides, those are relatively small lists. The flight number list looks fine as it is. It's not a list of every single number (which a couple carriers' articles used to have), but a list of groupings by region. DB (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
lol, you are almost exactly a year late, the article you suggest was deleted on 2 February last year, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines flight numbers. --Vsion 03:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Glad you find it funny; however, Dbinder makes a valid point regarding directories, and it would seem to me that if a separate article would violate WP:NOT (a directory) then the argument is equally valid for this section even though it just lists them as groups, thus making the section suitable for deletion. Although I think it is valid to describe the destinations SQ fly to, this section is in effect a directory.--Shakujo 03:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, several editors weren't thrilled about keeping the flight numbers at all. The grouping was a compromise. DB (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I got the impression that some editors consider this article as some kind of sacred cow; hence, the mediation cabal listing. I think that compromise is merely based upon the desire to please everybody all of the time, an impossible feat.--Shakujo 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You seems to know quite abit about the edit history of this article. Have you edited using other account before? --Vsion 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no, I haven't edited this article before under a different account. I just do my research before discussing topics with people. I read through all information available about Editors involved, including their user talk pages and the people they discuss things with. In this instance it lead me to come to the above conclusion because the same users were discussing the same topics in the same manner. In addition, there was at least one occasion where it seemed a group of users were acting as a team to avoid the 3Rs rule. Barnstars and Ban logs are also very informative. One of my goals here is to persuade those users to cut back edits more, thus cleaning up the article and avoiding tag-team reverting. Sorry, no conspiracy theory. I may have come here exclusively because of the mediation cabal, or I may not have.--Shakujo 04:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I was actually asking if you have edited any wikipedia article using other account, but anyway, you can ignore that question. I'm sorry you have such a poor impression of this article, because so many editors enjoy contributing to it. Which tag-team reverting incident are you refering to? I don't quite remember that. --Vsion 05:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Directory or Not?

In the past it was suggested that the Flight Numbers section of this article is more like a directory WP:NOT (a directory). Unfortunately, I still think the current format is still a directory. I think it should be shortened and referenced to flight number. What do other people think? I want to avoid a revert war.--Shakujo 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Avoiding a revert war will need to wait on mediation. One problem with the current wiki process is that material that is directory like, can make sense and enhance an article in some cases. However splitting that material off into it's own article generally results in an AfD nomination with mixed results. So splitting data like that off is not always a safe bet if you want the material to be retained in the encyclopedia. Vegaswikian 06:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the flight number section in this article it appears obvious that all the information is not actually needed for a general encyclopedia article, an encyclopedia for airline enthusiasts maybe. It looks like a Trainspotter's guide containing lists of individual train serial numbers, in other words a directory. I think we need to cut most of this section and just have a brief description, rather than the long list here. I want to hear the justification for keeping all of the information before I shorten it because my previous edits have been reverted for reasons that simply sound petulant.--Shakujo 07:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not too surprised that this topic has to crop up again. The same questions applies. In what way is this list a "planespotter's guide", when it merely tells you a range of numbers going to a certain region? Is it detailed to the point of being a directory? A traveller isnt going to look at this list to figure out where his plane ticket is going to take him to. He dosent have to refer to this list to buy his air ticket. Are there no better reasons to remove them?
This section was originally added by myself to give the viewer a rough idea of the airline's market coverage and a apprioximation on the relative sizes of each, to supplement the information in the destinations list. This may be considered outlandish to an indifferent individual, but I would dispute this believe that wikipedia is all about "general interests" and nothing else.
Anyway, I often find those attempting to remove individual sections would look at it singularly, and not consider its contribution to the entire article as a whole. It wont be long before someone asks why we need destination lists, why we need an incidents and accidents list when it could go into the history section, why we need a list of codeshare partnets...blah blah blah. Airline articles would probably end up stripped of nothing but its history at the end of the day.
And finally, I would appreciate if discussions which affect more than one article go into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines, and not in a single article's talkpage itself. The troubles over multi-lingual names in Singapore Changi Airport currently ended up having them removed from that article, yet allowing thousands upon thousands of other articles to retain them. I do not feel this is an objective way of doing things.--Huaiwei 09:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason I think it is a directory is that there is a specifc link between the numeric coding data of the flight numbers and the flight destinations, in the same way that there is a specific link between the numeric data in a telephone directory and the addresses of companies and people. The grouping only reduces the appearance of being a directory.
As to the argument that anything less would not detail the airline's market coverage, a lot of the flight numbers are codesharing, so in effect you are covering the market share of a partnership between two or more airlines. A person stepping onto one of these flights would not be legally flying with SQ, but with a partner airline. While there is an argument for including details of code sharing agreements, maybe this should done in the correct context of Airline Partnership, something worthy of separate article status given the financial importance of such partnerships.
If this meant to cover market share only, and not be a directory, why do the following appear: "SQ700-SQ799: Unutilised" and "SQ8000-SQ8999: Charter flights"? Isn't it odd to list their market share by stating where they do not have market share because they do not use these codes? The only possible reason for this is to explain why a chunk of numeric data, i.e. part of a directory, is missing. The listing of charter flight numbers is also odd, there are very few airlines that do not consider Charter requests, especially national carriers which often receive such requests from their respective governments.
Regarding the argument that this should be discussed in the Airlines Project, that is a fair point; however, there is a specific case to be answered here in this article and any discussion on that project page would not necessarily fix the problem on this page. I will add a note about this discussion to the project page discussion.
"thousands upon thousands of other articles" is rather an exaggeration. There are only around two hundred airline categories, some of which only contain one airline.
Sometimes you have to compromise. You stated that you added this section and obviously you feel upset at the suggestion that it be deleted entirely; that is not what I am suggesting. I do not know what you do in the real world, but in real-life publishing you have to compromise, you have to edit; you have to realise that not everybody has the same opinion and be able to justify everything that you want to include. Merely arguing that a directory is not actually a directory with no reason, and that if we moved it somebody would declare it deletable are contradictory arguments as well as being flawed. If you want to defend your interests without outside intereference, I would suggest that you edited it yourself. You are not suprised this has come up because you know it needs to be edited. However beautiful a 60,000 word essay is, its still too long if what is required is a 6,000 word article.--Shakujo 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The section on flight number is useful, not a directory. The article is not long, in fact, I find it rather short and hoping it can be expanded further. I think the "thousands upon thousands" is an under-estimation, hardly an exaggeration.--Vsion 01:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe I was referring to this specific section, not the entire article; however, surely your goal is to make the article the best on wikipedia, not the longest? Anybody can do that.
  • If you check out mathematics and the project itself, you will find that "thousands upon thousands" is currently, as a matter of fact, statistics, logic and common sense, an exaggeration.
  • Just because we say something is something does not make it so. Thus, reasoned arguments are always best over opinion. If you can argue its inclusion in its current form, or in an edited form, please do. I genuinely want to hear the reasoning. Do not confuse my opinion with my reasoning, my opinion is that there is room for something here.--Shakujo 05:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Now we are at point-by-point discussion, okay, I will play along ;)
  • Nobody is aiming at "longest", but rather "comprehensiveness" which is an objective of wikipedia.
  • The "thousands" refers to number of articles in the wikipedia-space, not just airlines articles. You have misunderstood.
  • Huaiwei already explained it, a list of ranges of numbers pointing to continents is not a directory. As an analogy, a list of telephone numbers is a directory, but a list of area code (or country code) is not a directory. Or do you think they both are? --Vsion 06:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so let's discuss.

  • 1. Looking at my earlier point about Unused flight numbers, would you agree that they do not serve the objective of describing SQ's market share as intended by the original editor?
  • 2. Is it necessary to include Charter flight numbers, since these are by their very nature Charter?
  • 3. What is your view of those that are purely code shares?
BTW A list of Area Codes is usually an essential part of any telephone directory. I personally have no objection to directories per se, the difference between an encyclopedia and a directory is a very thin line and we must consider things objectively, what is its final use and who is going to use it?--Shakujo 06:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The nature of its usefulness is the same as this list of North American area codes, and the bunch of articles in Category:Area codes in the United States. --Vsion 15:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I am not currently focussed on making these articles suitable for Good Award status, but I am sure they are on my very long to-do list.--Shakujo 04:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with WP:NOT then. This article is not under review anyway. How about contributing to it? I listed some sections that need expansion below, welcome to contribute.--Vsion 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Vision has captured the gist of my point perfectly. I agree a list of individual flight numbers do cross the line and may appear to be a directory. A list of code ranges much less so, for they merely give you an approximate indication, the kind of stuff analysists would do, and not something end-users would. That is the primary purpose of summary articles.
I fail to see why there is a major captivation over the inclusion of unused, charter, and codeshare flight numbers. They merely help complete the list, instead of having unknown gaps which leaves the user wondering if the list is even complete. Unused ranges also do give a clue as to the airline's future expansion plans. Reserving a number series may indicate accomodation for a new or potentially enlarged market. Charter and codeshare flights are typically treated differently, but there is little reason to remove them here. Why should the viewer not deserve to know the extent of the airline's codesharing activities compared to flights it actually fly with its own metal, for instance?
Sure, concensus is about give and take, and sure, compromises may have to be made. I take offence by your statement that "Sometimes you have to compromise." Are you suggesting that 1. I do not compromise, and 2. you are not liable to compromise as well?
So what you're saying is that I am unable to compromise because I can justify my arguments? I am sorry, I do not understand how that fits into a reasonably normal discussion. I want to hear your specific reply to my arguments, then my counter-arguments, and then we come to a compromise. Compromise isn't something an individual can do on their own, that is just one person giving up.--Shakujo 03:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly, but if you cannot catch this train of thought, than I suppose we are better off just letting it past.--Huaiwei 13:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
And yes indeed. Thousands upon thousands of articles in wikipedia are indeed carring codes which was removed from the Singapore Changi Airport page (even if my statement was "misleading", I hope you realised "Singapore Changi Airport" is not an airline!)--Huaiwei 14:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Thousands upon thousands" is used to indicate multiples of one thousand. There are numerically not enough pages detailing topics relating to airlines to justify your statement. "Hundreds upon hundreds" would be more accurate.
    • I believe Vision has already reminded you that the "thousands upon thousands" of articles I was refering to refers to the entire wikipedia site, and not just those related to airlines. If we cannot even get this clear with you, I do not see how we can go any further on more complicated matters.--Huaiwei 13:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope we are not intending to make this a personal thing. Suggesting that I am unaware that Singapore Changi Airport is not an airline, would seem to be treading very close to that line. FYI in real life I travel via both the airline and the airport a lot, I think I spotted the difference a long time ago. I hope that is the end to any involvement of personal issues. I am sure everybody can remain intellectually detached as befits the topic. I also explained above that I came to this article because of reasons other than a specific interest in the specific topic. Our aim is get this article accepted as being of the quality required to meet Wiki's Good Article Award.
    • You need not write at length on the extent of your familiarisation with aviation. What we are commenting on is the logic of your comments, and not you. If course if you choose to take it personal when others couldnt quite make sense of your reasoning, than I dont think anyone can do anything about it.--Huaiwei 13:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You still have not justified the purpose of the entry. Your original justification is obviously inappropriate in the case of non-existent market share, i.e. unused Codes; and the completeness of the list is equally served by referring the casual reader to references outside of Wiki. You obviously have justification for its inclusion, so please provide it or edit this section appropriately.--Shakujo 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Your refusal to accept my justification is but your personal opinion. I, too, fail to comprehend why the addition of charter and unused flight numbers renders the entire list unencylopedic, but I wont go so far as to claim you did not justify their exclusion.--Huaiwei 13:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposals: 1.Combine the listing of codeshare flight numbers; 2. Remove the unutilised and chartered listings; 3. Add an appropriate reference for further information outside wiki. The justification is: 1. Codesharing arrangements are listed in the table of the section above; 2. the original purpose was to cover the airline's market share and this is done equally well with these adjustments.--Shakujo 03:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposals: 1. Expand the history section; 2. Expand the corporate management section, 3. Expand the service section. I believe this would be more constructive. Since the listed are now formatted as tables, readers can easily skip over them if they are not interested. This is not a significant issue and there are some rationale for their inclusion, as given above. --Vsion 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't use the same numbers for different proposals. Vsion, it's not clear to me whether you oppose any or all of Shakujo's three proposals; I invite you to clarify. It seems to me that your argument is intended to support the idea of continuing to have the tables, and that Shakujo's proposals will not remove the tables but only edit them. If you wish to support or oppose Shakujo's proposals, please mention them by number, indicating clearly your position on each one and reasons for that position.
It's my understanding that we now have 6 proposals. I suggest that Shakujo's three proposals be referred to as S1, S2 and S3, and Vsion's proposals be referred to as V1, V2 and V3. --Coppertwig 12:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe you are taking Vision's comments too literally. It is obvious what his underlying message is.--Huaiwei 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
So just to clarify your last comment, you Huaiwei think that we should take the underlying meaning of comments made by Vsion? In the context the underlying meaning could be interpreted as meaning "let's just ignore the previous suggestions without supplying a good reason"? Is this incorrect? Should we also ignore the statement made by the mediator here at the Mediation Cabal listing? --Shakujo 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to elaborate on how you came up with that particular interpretation from Vsion's comment?--Huaiwei 07:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, at your suggestion I am going to take a break at this time. I will happily explain next week.--Shakujo 07:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of MSA

From various different sources it's pretty certain that the Malaysia-Singapore Airlines was headquartered in Singapore. Was the Malaysia-Singapore Airlines incorporated in Singapore between secession of Singapore from the Malaysian Federation in 1965 to MSA's break up in 1972? If not, where was it incorporated? — Instantnood 18:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yould you mind keeping related discussions together, instead of popping up a seperate section for each question as thou they are not related?--Huaiwei 06:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of airline

I see that a number of edits have been done on the name of the airline. When reverting someone else's edit, please provide an informative edit summary e.g. "see talk" plus a comment here; the Popups summary (without discussion added) should only be used for obvious vandalism. The changes in the name of the airline are not obvious vandalism. Please discuss the name of the airline here on the talk page before making any further changes to it. --Coppertwig 13:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Singapore International Airlines? That name has never exist in the time of SIA's history. SIA is just an ICAO code and an abbreviation of the company, the "I" does not mean "International". For goodness sake, SIA or any other sources have never ever used that name. That's just nonsense. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 07:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you; that's the sort of explanation that should be provided (either in the edit summary, or on the talk page with something like "see talk" in the edit summary) whenever doing the type of revert done for example by Sengkang on 09:23, 16 February 2007, i.e. not of obvious vandalism. Even if the airline has never used that name, the user putting in that name may have believed the user was improving the article; and even if the name was put in for reasons other than to improve the article, that is certainly not obvious from the edit summaries, especially to anyone not familiar with the detailed history of the name of this airline. Just saying "revert -- the airline has never had that name" in the edit summary would be sufficient. See Help:Reverting#Explain reverts. --Coppertwig 12:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
"Singapore Airlines" is the correct name now, as per company's website. However, I'm not too sure if "Singapore International Airlines" has never been used in the past. It seems too common to be an error. It might have been an old name that was shortened, although I don't have a source to back this up. --Vsion 07:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe in the past there was the "International" inclusion in the name. Presently though SIA is merely the ICAO designator and SGX code for the company. Whilst the company itself abreviates the name to "SIA", until we can verify and reference this, "Singapore Airlines" it must be. I will have a look through some more "vintage" annual reports to see if I can gain some insight. skyskraper 09:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In addendum, I have a vague recollection that the name "Singapore International Airlines" was used after the split of MSA and SIA, then "Singapore Airlines LTD" was adopted at a later point due to a corporate restructuring/organisation. Again I will try get to the bottom of it, time to go get dusty. skyskraper 09:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
If you can find sources for such stuff go ahead. SIA is the abbreviation and this is used by press and media worldwide. That's pretty obvious imo. I doubt that SIA was ever known as "Singapore International Airlines" in its history. If you can find such stuff, I leave it to you. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 10:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines#Request for Comment: Reasons For/Against Request for comment on mediation in progress.04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this dispute still active or can I close the case? --Ideogram 03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Page

I have kept quiet the past couple of months about this page. I have made some good edits in other airline pages, and I want to intergrate them into this page. Please take a look at Northwest Airlines, Continental Airlines, US Airways, United Airlines, American Airlines, and so on. All of these pages look similar to each other, which will make it easier on the reader to navigate through those pages. Everything is in the same consistent order and all features of the sections in the articles match up. Take a look at this page. Click on other Star Alliance airlines' pages. They look completely different compared to this page. Any reader in my mind would find that this article includes complex information that does not need to be displayed. Registration numbers, flight numbers, and so on to me take up space and are useless. Any reader would see that the layout is not consistent with other pages. This page as I have said so many times before needs serious attention and help. I want to at least change a few things JUST to make it "go with the flow" with the other pages. I read the mediation, and to tell you the truth, you guys have missed my point.--Golich17 18:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done, very organised and comprehensive. I will try to help out on the article and its sub-pages. As for registration numbers, a mention on the fleet subpage will be sufficient. And the cabin section really needs a rewrite. Some mention of the history should be mentioned and about the pilots union and all their long lengthy history as well though this takes a lot of time. Terence 16:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Financial performance

Some time ago, I removed the blank "Financial performance" section under "Corporate management". It seems that nothing about financial performance has been added since then, yet it seems relevant. Brian Jason Drake 05:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kris?

Can anyone shed any light on the significance of the word "Kris" to Singapore Airlines? I know a Kris is a ceremonial dagger in the south east asian area, but it features heavily in Singapore Airlines marketing. Just curious? ElectricRay 06:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts by Huaiwei

It seems that Huaiwei is reverting edits made by others, even when the edits are factually correct and are referenced. Seeing as he has a habit of this, I guess I have to explain all of my edits here. I would ask you Huaiwei, not to revert these edits, because you have done so once, and you have reverted with false information.

  • Services to Johannesburg by SIA were not the first to Africa, as the airline had previously flown to Cairo in Egypt, which of course is in Africa.
  • I have removed reference to the aircraft models. It is absolutely irrelevant in any history of any airline. Does it belong on wikipedia? Ask yourself if the airline would include trivial information like that in any historical write up on their company. The inclusion of the aircraft models is hobbyist, and this is not a hobbyist encyclopaedia (unless the article specifically deals with hobbies, which SIA does not)
  • It is not necessary to have Los Angeles International Airport, California. Los Angeles is enough. I have left the link to Newark Airport, so that those unfamiliar with the airport will be able to view that particular article and understand it is actually servicing the New York area basin
  • I have added information on when the A380 was first ordered, when confirmed, and when info started to be given.
  • I have added months to the years when talking about specific A380 events. This makes the article flow better, instead of jumping around from 2004 --> 2005 --> July 2005 --> January 2005 --> September 2005, etc
  • I have re-arranged the A380 section of the history to follow chronological order
  • I have added the {{fact} tags to the following comments:
    • The announcement was met with fury
    • who threatened to sue Airbus
    • He further claimed that SIA will be receiving the Boeing 777-300ER before the A380.

Just because we may know it is true, you need to provide references, particularly when writing about claims which others have made.

I don't have time to do a major edit of the article, as I would like to as I am working on the Russian articles, but will do so in time, particularly as the history of this airline is sorely lacking, and too much emphasis is being put on trivial titbits of information (awards, fleets, flight numbers, etc). --Russavia 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Some further notes...
  • The 747s in the SQ fleet have never been known as Megatops. The 747-200s (from memory) never had a monicker. The 747-300s were nicknamed "Bigtop". Only the 747-400s were known as Megatops.
  • I have listed the various Airbus aircraft which were used, instead of just 'various'. I have left out the A300 as at that point in the article, it is discussing an era during which the A300s were not operated at all.
  • SIA is not the largest airline in Asia. Not in terms of fleet size, or passengers carried, nor RPKs; the 3 most common ways of distinguishing what is 'largest'.
  • "Air hostesses" has been changed to "female flight attendants".

--Russavia 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I can help your find sources for the unsourced statements. However, no guarantees can be given. Well, some things that you removed are false information. There is still a lot of information lacking in the article, e.g. SIA and Alpa-S, especially the current arbitration case. Today, SIA announced SGD60 fares and Channel NewsAsia has an article on this. Terence 14:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Largest in terms of passengers carried internationally not overall (domestic and international). I would really like a comprehensive history of the article and the good and bad of SIA. For the cabin section, there is no mention about the old cabins and the whole thing is not written in prose. United Airlines is quite a good example on how an article of an airline should be like. Its a guideline and we don't need to strictly follow it. Terence 14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me just point out that the sentence in question pertaining to the airline's size, "In addition, it is the largest airline in Asia and ranked sixth in the world in terms of international passengers carried", actually refers to SIA being the largest airline in terms of international passrngers carried in Asia (and 6th worldwide). This is merely a case of context misinterpretation, and not for you to jump to conclusions that I am "reverting despite the facts were referenced". If you arent too happy with others somewhere else in wikipedia, you dont have to bring those bad vibes all over wikipedia to proof a point and to repeatedly fling unwarranted personal attacks against them. Another case in point: You insist on calling "air hostesses" "female flight attendants". Is there any hard and fast rule on this, and what you are basing this change on?--Huaiwei 15:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That sentence was poorly worded, hence why I removed it. Also if such a statement is going to be made, I would be careful because SIA could be taken over at any time in terms of international pax by Thai or Cathay. But this does still not explain why you reverted the rest of my edits? Now to your other comments Huaiwei, I would ask you to look at our interactions and see who has flung mud first, if you don't like having it flung right back, don't do it yourself, right. And in regards to changing air hostesses to "female flight attendants", air hostesses is an outdated term from an era long passed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 07:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
You removed an entire sentence, facts and all, citing "poorly worded" as the only reason. If SIA is to be overtaken by any other airline, you are in the liberty to update the figures. Meanwhile, I am left wondering if my comments above have any intention to explain the reversion of the rest of your edits? I do not think there is a need to expend energy on that. Afterall, I am dealing with someone who appears not to see it a need to explain removal of entire texts, rewording perfectly readable sentences, and actually claiming certain phrases are "outdated", all without any sources to back that up. I doubt my actions would have mattered much. I am further amused by the mud flinging analogy, which simply reaffirms my suspicions that I am dealing either with a kid attempting to claim self-credentials as a purported adult, or an adult who hasent quite matured despite advancement of age. I hope, for your sake, that neither are true.--Huaiwei 16:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airbus A380 launch customer

Airbus A380 seems to list several launch customers for this aircraft including Singapore Airlines. Vegaswikian 03:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, 'launch customer' can be seen in several different ways. Emirates was the first airline to order the A380, hence it is a launch customer. Singapore will be the first airline to place it into service, hence it is a launch customer. Additionally, if a manufacturer states that they need 100 orders for a project to go into production, any company which has an order within the first 100 orders, is also a launch customer. I have done a small re-write of that section to include "a launch customer" into the piece, as I see DB has done already whilst I was editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
That was a delightfully eclectic (and unsourced) definition for the phrase "launch customer". Unfortunately, it fails to explain several comments made in the edit histories, in particular "SIA was not the launch customer for the A380, merely it will be the first to have it delivered and enter into service" [12] and "Perhaps you should learn what a launch customer is Huaiwei, time for talk page again" [13].--Huaiwei 15:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with this article

I am playing around with wholesale editing of this article, and from where I sit I see major problems with this article which need to be fixed, but which when changed will only result in a revert war. These problems are:

  • Introduction - the article introduction is so long it could almost be moved to Singapore Airlines article introduction. There is too much trivial information in the introduction, and too much information which belongs fairly in the body of the article.
  • Early history - for a major airline like SIA, there is basically no history of the airline from 1972 onwards. The logo image needs to go, as it is already in the infobox
  • Modern history - this section is disjointed, needs to be more informational. Also, the timetable image needs to go, as it is copyrighted to SIA, and I can see nothing on the image page to show that SIA has given their permission to use.
  • Incidents - Why is the SilkAir crash in this article? Is this an article for Singapore Airlines or Singapore Airlines Group? The link to List of accidents and incidents on commercial airliners - Singapore Airlines needs to go, as the 2 notable incidents are already covered in this article.
  • Structure - the subsidiary section needs expanding, by bringing the articles which are stubs into this article, whilst giving a brief "introduction" to those companies which warrant having their own articles (such as SilkAir). This will not grow the article in length, as the third paragraph in the introduction belongs in this section.
  • Partnerships - seems to be ok, except it is not referenced at all
  • Destinations - see 'General problems' below
  • Codeshare - it is unreferenced, non encyclopaedic cruft. Additionally, many of these codeshares are with Star Alliance partners; one of the main purposes of these alliances was to facilitate wholesale codesharing amongst partners. We don't need to know every codeshare destination for SQ. Take a look at the American Airlines article to see how this section is handled. Transplant that to this article and you will be left with a couple of lines. This section needs to trimmed right down and cruft deleted.
  • Flight numbers - non encyclopaedic cruft pure and simple, and it needs to be removed. The text states that the reason for the changing of flight numbers is due to increases in traffic to China and India. Looking at the list, one could be forgiven if they thought that increases in traffic to China and India were due to the changing of flight numbers. The section provides little to no context.
  • Fleet - see 'General problems' below, although the fleet table is inline with all other airline articles, so no problem with that part of this section.
  • General problems - Many parts of the article are unreferenced. Too many parts read as an advertisement. Some parts jump all over the place. Some parts are in totally the wrong spots. Many parts need major editing for style. Many parts do not provide sufficient context which would allow for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Many parts violate WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:CRUFT. Most importantly, the article as a whole has a tendency to violate WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND.

For an airline which is held in such high regard, it is really surprising that it is stuck as a B class article, when an airline which is held in such low regard (Ryanair) has reached featured article status. I see there is a to-do list at the top of the talk page, however, it doesn't seem to have made much progress. Where is the concensus on issues surrounding this article?

Over the coming weekend, I will do a complete re-write and see how we go, so apart from wanting to get other's comments on what needs changing, this is as much a heads-up as anything that I will be attempting big changes to the article in the coming days. --Russavia 22:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time off to write the extensive commentary above. If you are thinking of rewriting the entire article, however, I would suggest you do so in your user sandbox first, considering how often even small edits can trigger massive disruptive editing here.--Huaiwei 11:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The companies

Can someone explain the structure and relationships of Singapore Airlines Limited, Singapore Airlines Group and Singapore Airlines? Some sources would be nice. Vegaswikian 06:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Limited operates as Singapore Airlines. The "Singapore Airlines Group" is not a legal entity but is a term for use when talking about Singapore Airlines and its subsidiaries. --Russavia 08:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
So does Singapore Airlines Limited own Singapore Airlines and does Singapore Airlines own the other entities in "Singapore Airlines Group"? Vegaswikian 18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Kindly take some time off to read the official site before asking elementary questions.--Huaiwei 11:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
If that page said something about the specific question it would be a valid pointer. So far it has been impossible to get this answered from several web searches. The wiki article itself does nothing to make this clear either. If there is a clear source please clue me in since searching on and off over several months has not revealed the answer. Maybe it's my search parameters, but I still have not been able to figure this out. Vegaswikian 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, moving ahead, Singapore Airlines Limited is the registered and legal company name. Singapore Airlines is its operating/trading name. It is the same as QANTAS Airways Limited is the registered name and it trades as QANTAS Airways, or simply QANTAS, these are operating/trading names. Singapore Airlines Group is a non-legal entity which is only used when discussing SQ and subsidiary activities, results, etc. Example is "the airlines of the Singapore Airlines Group carried xxxx pax last year", of course this would mean SQ and Silkair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 23:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
Now if Singapore Airlines Group is a holding company for the airline company called Singapore Airlines, this should be plain clear in the site's corporate website. If you are unable to find this information there, or in any other website, then this most probably simply means your assumptions are inaccurate and cannot be verified in the first place. Singapore Airlines Limited is simply the full corporate name of Singapore Airlines, much like McDonald's Corporation is, well, McDonald's. And the company which owns the various subsidiaries is the airline itself. The term "Singapore Airlines Group" has to be used in some cases, as the term "Singapore Airlines", may or may not include SilkAir, for example, even if the later is fully owned by the former.--Huaiwei 15:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Limited are different names for the same company, then one should not be listed as the owner of the other in the infobox. If we are going to mention Singapore Airlines Group in the article then it should be clear what its components are. We know from here that Singapore Airlines has divisions which are not identified and that the Singapore Airlines Group has subsidiaries which are also not identified. From here we know that Singapore Airlines Cargo was in the Singapore Airlines Group and now is on its own. From here we read that 'The Singapore Airlines Group of Companies include Singapore Airlines, SIA Engineering Company and Singapore Airport Terminal Services.' Is 'The Singapore Airlines Group of Companies' the thing wee are calling 'The Singapore Airlines Group' So there is no clear source as to what these names are used for and how they interrelate. If the answer is so obvious, why is it that the editors that believe this can not point to a clear source or modify the article to explain all of this muck? Vegaswikian 20:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
In the first place, I can't recall anyone insisting on adding an entry in the "parent company" field other then yourself, IIRC.--Huaiwei 22:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well given the name of the company that the stock trades under that would be a reasonable request. But has been pointed out, the article introduction needs work to explain this. Those that know the facts need to write a clear article introduction that does not leave questions or confuse. Vegaswikian 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Why would the introduction need an explaination on what the full name of this company is, when the vast majority of companies on this planet are in a similar situation? Is there a need to explain that McDonald's Corporation = McDonald's?--Huaiwei 11:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alpa-S and Singapore Airlines

A recent case regarding SIA pilots flying the A380 pay should be more than that of the 777s. The relationships between SIA and Alpa-S should have some sort of mention in the article. I have newspaper articles cut out and there are web sources from CNA. I think this is notable enough to mention in this article, but which section should we put it in? [14] [15] You may take a look at these news articles for the time being. Terence 06:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore Airlines Cargo and Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations -- needs everyones attention

I have recently edits Singapore Airlines Cargo and Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations to reflect what their very own schedules reflect, however, these edits are being reverted by a certain user to reflect incorrect marketing. I suggest that everyone take a look because it is getting beyond a joke that factually correct edits are being reverted by Huaiwei, back to articles which are incorrect. I have also posted to both article talk pages, so I suggest that anyone interested take a look. --Russavia 17:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The said edits made by Russavia reflects his personal interpretation of airline timetables, despite the presentation of multiple sources which debucks his interpretation. Wikipedia is a site built upon credible sources, not on the whimps and fancies of semi-clueless individuals out to interpret information in their own way in order to push his POV.--Huaiwei 18:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a reliable source for the destinations actually flown by the cargo airline? Those are the only destinations that should be listed and not space on aircraft of other airlines. Vegaswikian 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Vegas, yes. You can see from my final edit [16] that I have referenced the SIA Cargo timetables. All destinations flown by SIA Cargo metal are marked in red. Those are the only flights which I have referenced in my complete clean up of that particular article. --Russavia 20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Using that as a starting point, and it is far from the best source since it is not what I consider to be a clear source for the purpose here, I went back to the Singapore Airlines Cargo and Singapore Airlines articles. I was hoping to see the cargo flights listed under their own IATA code, but they are not it makes this a bit harder. It appears that both airlines use the SQ IATA prefix for their flights. The cargo article clearly states that they fly to 9 locations. The SIA article lists the cargo flights as SQ3000-SQ3999 and SQ7000-SQ7999. So I think it is clear that to be consistent with all other airlines, destinations are listed only for those airports where the airline's aircraft are actually flown. So from the reference above this means using the 74F aircraft and the SQ3000 or SQ7000 flight numbers. This would imply that they only fly to 9 locations and that is all that should be listed. Any other locations that they service are by using aircraft of a different company even if it is closely related. Those are not destination they fly to, just locations that they serve. Anyone know what a JL74F aircraft is? I suspect that it is flown by Japan Airlines so KUL would not be listed as a destination severed. Vegaswikian 22:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Please refer to this edit of mine [17]. It is very rare for cargo subsidiaries to operate under their own IATA code (if they have one at all, which SQ Cargo doesn't), but will rather fly under the IATA code of their parent. Or they may fly under their ICAO code (as per Aeroflot Cargo). The edit of mine states that Singapore Airlines Cargo offer cargo product to all SIA mainline destinations, however SIA Cargo flies its own metal to 36 destinations in 18 countries (as per the timetables, which will get to in a moment). Out of these 36 destinations, 9 destinations are only served by SIA Cargo (example, Brussels and Sharjah), whereas the rest of the 36 will receive scheduled flights from both SIA mainline and SIA Cargo metal (and example is Sydney, Los Angeles, London, Johannesburg, Hong Kong, etc). On a sidenote, the article does need to be amended to 10 destinations only served by SIA Cargo but not SIA mainline, as SIA Cargo flies to Macau, which I believe SIA mainline does not fly to. As to the actual destinations, in the timetables which have been referenced, all flights labelled in red in the timetable are SIA Cargo metal flights. On the right hand side is a notes section detailing that some flight numbers are operated in codeshare with another airline (such as JAL) using either JAL or SIA metal. So JL74F aircraft is obviously one of these codeshare flights operated with JAL 747F metal. Any destinations operated with codeshare partner metal only have not been included in the destination list, and hence why if you refer to my edits, Kuala Lumpur has not been listed as a destination. The edits I have made are 100% correct as per wikipedia guidelines, and the reality of the situation of SIA Cargo (airline) operations. --Russavia 22:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Before I make my full comments later, I would like the above users to discuss the fundamental similarities and differences between Code sharing and cargo subsidiaries of airlines.--Huaiwei 11:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that some fellas here think it ok not to respond to comments once the article appears in a manner favourable to their desires. Is this asking for a little rocking of the boat?--Huaiwei 13:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

I reverted an anon removal of the references tag and added a section level one. In looking at the section, there may be sufficient references in that section at this time. Can some of the regulars take a look and if the article and the history section have sufficient references, pull the template? Vegaswikian 00:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KrisFlyer merge

I think KrisFlyer should be merged in. It's not notable enough for a standalone page, and furthermore, single-airline programs in general really don't need their own articles. DB (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a merger will be a good possibility since other major airlines like British Airways Executive Club and UA Mileage Plus getting individual articles for their FFPs. Another option is that to create individual articles for these FFPs. I think most of us would prefer the first option. The KrisFlyer article has a lot of things that is copy and paste from SIA's website, so no point having an individual article for now. Terence 10:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that KrisFlyer is non-notable?--Huaiwei 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Mileage Plus redirects into United and Executive Club redirects to British Airways. KrisFlyer is much smaller than either of those, and is not notable in itself. If KrisFlyer deserves its own article, than most US and European programs do as well. Most of the content in the article is tables of unencyclopedic info that appears copied directly from the website. DB (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, UA Mileage Plus and BA Executive Club is notable. KF is also notable enough. However, since even larger FFPs are being merged into the main article, it looks like we have to merge KrisFlyer too. Now people just have to search Wikipedia to find information rather than going to other websites. Terence 07:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Kindly read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yet again, we have "because articles for airline X does not exist" as the primary criterion for deletion. Kindly move beyond this level of discussion and lets have more sophisticated and mature discussions with viewpoints which are better thought-out than those above.--Huaiwei 15:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You should try practicing what you preach once-in-a-while. DB (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as I recall correctly, I cannot recall ever demanding to delete any article because another similar article is non-existant.--Huaiwei 15:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I think a merge is a good idea. The Krisflyer page is nothing special, and basically should be merged, it really does not warrant a standalone page. - le petit vagabond 07:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Kindly explain why Krisflyer is nothing special, and if it being "special" is a primary criterion for inclusion.--Huaiwei 15:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Its nothing special because it totally lacks independent verifiable third-party sources, sources which are not part of the Singapore Airlines PR deparment. If anything, all of the frequent flier programs should be put up for deletion, because there is so much hesitation to merge into the main article. --Russavia 11:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I didnt know a topic's "speciality" is dependent on the existance of independent verifiable third-party sources. What if I am able to find independent verifiable third-party sources about any aspect of KrisFlyer? Are you going to retract your comments then?--Huaiwei 13:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Some 2 months have gone by and not a single independent verifiable source has been found and added for the article KrisFlyer, so I would assume that there are none. --Russavia 09:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore Airlines fleet

As the Fleet section is duplicated in Singapore Airlines fleet should the Fleet section be removed from this article ? MilborneOne 17:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I would more inclined to do the reverse - merge the fleet section back into the article (without the cruft of course), and get rid of what is otherwise a non-notable subject page. --Russavia 04:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Since the main article is already 55K, splitting out sections is logical. Given that there is a main article for this, the text in the Singapore Airlines article appears excessive. Moving the information to the fleet article should be a slam dunk. However that article is 57K! I still think the move to the fleet article should happen. Then the article bloat needs to be addressed. Removing all of the non encyclopedic tail numbers and their related tables could really focus the article down to a reasonable size of encyclopedic material. Vegaswikian 05:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not think wikipedia is going to be in a sorry state of affairs just because it retains a section summary which is explored in greater depth in a more specific article. This is standard across wikipedia articles. Also, kindly explain why certain details are deemed "encyclopedic", unless they are merely a matter of personal opinion.--Huaiwei 07:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Vegas, the article could reduce in size by at least 10k if the unencyclopaedic content is removed, in particular the codeshare section (this goes against every other airline article and guidelines) and the flight numbers section (it is an indiscriminate collection of information, and has no noteworthy commentary which would make such a section worthy). Just MHO. --Russavia 17:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a point on the fact that it retains a section summary, it is clearly not a summary but is a repeat of items in the sub-article. The fleet article could be trimmed back, a list of individual aircraft is not that notable and could be easily found is specialist websites. Of more interest to the general reader would be previous types flown, how many, when and what they were used, rather than a just a list of registrations. I would suggest that the full aircraft listing could be deleted. MilborneOne 11:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I have difficulty understanding the logic behind your comment. Is your entire commentary refering to Singapore Airlines fleet, or to Singapore Airlines? If it is the former, kindly explain why it should only contain a summary of facts, when that summary should normally reside in the main article? If the secondary article is to be scaled back, mind telling us if your intention is to have all that info in the main article instead?--Huaiwei 11:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Singapore Airlines - change fleet section into just a summary. Singapore Airlines fleet - remove full aircraft listing. MilborneOne 12:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
While I agree with the former, I would hesitate to agree with the later.--Huaiwei 12:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I do want the listing of current fleet be there, but not so detailed though. I'm neutral to the second suggestion, no comments. Terence 13:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exclusion of flight number lists

The list of flight numbers has been removed from this article as per the concensus reached at the WP Airline project, discussion of which can be read here and here. --Russavia (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Past discussions in [[18]] and [[19]] show no consensus to remove. The said WikiProject discussion includes room for variation where justified, as has been demonstrated in past discussions here.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that your first reference is directly related. The second one is basically over the data being a directory or not so it does have some standing. However both of those came before the project discussions to try and work towards a common look in this area. So, I'm not sure that no consensus, specifically over the discussion about this article, can be taken as a reason to override the project recommendation which represented consensus after the article specific discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur but would make the additional point that editors should seriously consider whether this is a major point worth edit-warring about. Alice✉ 19:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year 2008 RomanceOfTravel (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To quote Huaiwei from the discussions on this talk page which he linked to above: And finally, I would appreciate if discussions which affect more than one article go into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines, and not in a single article's talkpage itself. The troubles over multi-lingual names in Singapore Changi Airport currently ended up having them removed from that article, yet allowing thousands upon thousands of other articles to retain them. I do not feel this is an objective way of doing things. As this article clearly falls under the scope of a WP project, this was discussed at the links which I provided above, and concensus was reached within the project on several issues which affect all airline articles, that being that flight number lists do not belong, codeshare lists should only list partner airlines (not destinations), and unless the individual aircraft in a fleet have some degree of notability that aircraft registrations do not belong.

So we are now at the point where an editor says that concensus has not been reached on this talk page, and he suggested taking the issue to the project talk pages, which has been fulfilled and concensus reached, and that editor is now saying that concensus has not been reached on this article talk page. We are going to go around and round in circles here. Consensus has clearly been reached on these issues, and it is time to implement what concensus has reached, it is totally pointless to try and clean an article up if when concensus is reached if the results of that concensus are not allowed to be implemented by a number of editors. Happy new year to you all also. --Russavia (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Attempts have now been made on several more occasions to remove information in this article inline with concensus obtained in the Airline project wikigroup, and it is continually being reverted by Huaiwei. Contrary to what Huaiwei is saying, it is not only myself who has attempted to remove this info, but another editor has also attempted to. Huaiwei also claims that concensus has been reached on this talk page, however, there is no such evidence that this concensus exists, nor has any concensus been reached even been attempted on this talk page post-the project page concensus. I myself have every intention of abiding by concensus, and it seems that any attempts by myself to implement concensus reached on the project page is pointless so long as Huaiwei continues to ignore concensus reached. As such, I feel I no longer have any choice but to request a RFC/U on this issue, because the constant revisions of concensus gathered omissions from this article reeks of article ownership by Huaiwei, and that is just not on. --Russavia (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Russavia on this. Huaiwei, WP:AIRLINES states unequivocally that "Types of material that should not be included include: Tables of flight numbers by destination". I don't see any convincing reason why SQ alone should be an exception, and I certainly don't see a consensus here or on WP:AIRLINES that such an exception is warranted. If anything, the two links provided by Huaiwei above show that there is disagreement about whether the codeshare table is appropriate. Jpatokal (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historic Fleet

I have removed the table of historic aircraft as it appears in the Singapore Airlines Fleet article, but left the summary. It has been reverted by Huaiwei despite the fact this has been discussed before and I understood that only a fleet summary was needed (for both historic and current) as it was all in the sub-article. Have we changed our minds? MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The so-called discussion on this topic has never ended conclusively, if it was discussed at length at all. The said tables were moved on the condition that it be expanded in Singapore Airlines fleet, which did not happen under the non-action of those who tried to move the tables[20]. Attempts by certain individuals to actually delete the entire Singapore Airlines fleet article further complicates things, since that will entail merging everything back into this article once again. If individuals with vested interests cannot agree on the direction this article should take, than do not expect "consistency" in any "decisions" made, if at all.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be a great idea to have a good and comprehensive article on the Singapore Airlines fleet - but, until that article is up to scratch, relevant unique material should not be removed from this article unilaterally. Alice✉ 19:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I should mention that the table I removed is the same as the table in Fleet, so it was not unique material. That is why I used term duplicate table -- it means the same not unique. A lot material on the current fleet is in both article. If we have got two article then we should not repeat material and just summarise the info in this article (as I have said before). MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If you may just pay a little more attention to what I wrote, I mentioned quite matter of factly that this "duplicate table" was actually the result of a move which was subsequently overturned, although its existence in the second article was somehow allowed to stay due to disagreements on whether to keep Singapore Airlines fleet or not. I should know the history behind this quite well, for I was the one who introduced that table in this article in the first place, while I had no play in actually duplicating it elsewhere. Meanwhile, would you not agree that a table is actually a better summary than plain text in this regard?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont have a problem with the table in general (although I am still not sure that the actual registrations are notable) my concern was the duplication. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
In a paper encyclopedia, this duplication would be a waste of resources and render the resulting tomes too heavy to lift down from the shelves. One of the reasons Wikipedia is Wonderful, is that we are able to link and repeat in whatever form is most helpful and efficacious to our readers. Alice✉ 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually the advantage is to hyperlink and not repeat the data in different places requiring multiple updates when it changes. One source available everywhere from a single link. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a very good point you make about ease of updating, Vegaswikian. I did read somewhere about a technical method of doing that on simultaneous passages - was it something about anchoring - off to search for it... Later: I didn't find what I was looking for. One problem with using the linking method is that our articles are not stable; a once relevant link may slowly (or suddenly) transmute into something entirely inappropriate (or just plain wrong if a vandal attack goes un-noticed). Alice✉ 21:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Somehow I don't think that not linking to the fleet article for the historical fleet data implying that the base article would not be stable is not reasonable. Keeping data in two places in case of a vandal attack is not justified. Most articles, especially the ones we are discussing here, are watched. So that is not an issue for the SA fleet data. Keep it, especially the tables and the gory details, in one article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
My points above were more general; returning to the current two articles under discussion, I can certainly agree that, in the short term at least, there is no danger of our current ever-vigilant team of editors not noticing any creeping (or sudden) deterioration.
Huaiwei: Is there any argument remaining for keeping more than a "see also" (and perhaps a very brief one or two sentence commentary) in the "Fleet" section of this main article once the Singapore Airlines fleet article is up to scratch?
"Deletionists": In my view the Singapore Airlines fleet article is still missing some significant detail and is not yet "up to scratch" - for example, it seems to be entirely missing a "Fleet expansion" text section... Alice✉ 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any chance of the fleet article getting deleted. There is simply too much support for it. Yea, improvements will make it's nomination less likely. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
That's good to hear, Vegaswikian; my carpetbag term of "Deletionists" was intended to include those editors who wish to see most of the current "Fleet" section here deleted (or at least drastically cut short). For the avoidance of doubt, I'm broadly in favour of this approach in principle - but only when (and only after) the Singapore Airlines fleet article is "up to scratch" Alice✉ 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I must admit that I have been gradually expanding the fleet section in the main article with the final intention of porting almost everything over to Singapore Airlines fleet and leaving a standard-sized section and summary table in the main article as per standard MoS practise. This, due of the ever present possibility of Singapore Airlines fleet becoming a target for yet another AfD. It is actually rather tragic that things has to be done this way, but I often privately think that if all parties can just sit down and take time to actually write articles, before constantly arguing what goes in and out, everyone might actually turn out to be much happier at the end of the day, satisfied with a job well done born out of communal agreement than hostility.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Strange but I actually agree with Huaiweis points and support his/her approach of moving over the tables etc to the fleet article. With a balance of tables and textual detail in fleet it should resist afd. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear!Alice✉ 19:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Orders/Options Table into Current Fleet Table

In my opinion, I believe the Orders/Options table should be merged with the current fleet table. It will remain consistent with most other airlien pages in Wikipedia, while also making the page a little shorter in length due to the removal of the Orders/Options table. The opening paragraph to the Orders/Options table can be placed below the current fleet table, as many other airlines also have that. I think this would make the Fleet section easier to read and more streamlined. I'm not going to do anything just yet, as I want to hear what other editors have to say. If it seems to be favorable, I will execute the merge. However, once they are merged, editors with their own opinions regarding this issue should not continually revert back to the old style! This seems to happen almost anytime I attempt to make an edit on this page. We work together in Wikipedia. NOT EVERYONE CAN ALWAYS BE HAPPY! If you have a problem with me doing this, please leave a comment below, it's that easy!--Golich17 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I find this line really comical: "However, once they are merged, editors with their own opinions regarding this issue should not continually revert back to the old style!". Is this a blatant sign of WP:Own, since it implies that no one can touch an edit you initiate? Edits which make sense can certainly be kept, but if they are made merely to "shorten an article" for no better reason than aesthetics and "bring consistent", than I certainly think you need to offer better justification than that.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Huaiwei: I know you didn't mean it to, but your response came over as a little bit sharp. I think it's good that Golich17 is seeking to discuss controversial edits in advance and I think that sort of attitude should be encouraged in all editors. Please delete this comment if you feel it is superfluous and/or you have taken the comment on-board. Alice✉ 21:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I didn't mean to be "a little bit sharp", for I am probably not sharp enough. Golich17 has a long history in being extremely disruptive with SQ articles, coupled with a rather unpolished tongue to boot. While I would probably give him credit for actually writing in much more mature language in recent weeks, the loud sentences in capital letters just gives him away. I would read all his comments such as "We work together in Wikipedia" with a huge pinch of salt, thank you.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't intend to leave strong comments. Even if they are, they still remain constructive, therefore I'm not doing anything wrong. The reason I pointed out that I do not want edits reverted after they are discussed about is because many people seem to do that after anyone makes in edit, more often my edits. I edit airline articles comprehensively, and so far many of them are detailed and layed out in a more user-friendly format that does not suggest the article is for "advanced" readers only, which is what I belive the Singapore Airlines article boasts. Hofefully I can get some commentary as to what others believe should be done with the fleet sections... Anyone?--Golich17 (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
First and most importantly, an encyclopaedia makes no apologies to any novice reader who cannot understand an article, and makes no excuses to write itself down to the most basic level. Wikilinks exits for a reason, functioning no differently from cross-references in paper encyclopaedias in allowing users to refer to another article on any unfamiliar terms or concepts. We are writing an encyclopaedia. Not a nursery picture book. Second, what you personally consider as "user-friendly" is but a matter of your personal interpretation. I do not consider an article devoid of basic technical data as "user-friendly", but at least I recognise that as my opinion, and I do not insist that others should stick to my definition of "user-friendliness". As a matter of fact, you did not explain to us why a single table amalgamating an entire horde of information is supposedly easier to read for novice readers, and is more "user-friendly". Ultimately, you are simply adopting a different strategy in the talkpage to do the same thing in the article mainspace - to revert everything to your preferred version strictly conforming to the last detail to WP:Airlines recommendations. I have never seen any discourse you engage in reaching a higher level of sophistication, and I am still able to see through your ultimate intentions, Golich17.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You made a simple question into a complex argument, which I'm not about to have with you. Please listen to me and listen to me clearly, because I don't feel the need to repeat myself time after time. All I want to know is what OTHER editors think of a merge of the orders/options table into the main current fleet table. Not only would it save space (yes it would save space, as many of the aircraft in the table have ongoing deliveries, which can be merged into its fleet row and simply place (xx orders) under the amount the fleet currently comprises of), it would make the table more streamlined, having all information, except retired of course, in one simple and easy to read table.Huaiwei, I appreciate your comments, however you never address the issue that I am talking about. You tend to talk off-topic, and it really is a waste of space. What you think is my opinion most of the time is either a good opinion or a fact... so please, should you need to add a comment below this, please talk regarding the fleet table, NOT what you feel about me.--Golich17 (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah and while you write long stories hard selling your supposed "contributions" to wikipedia, someone has already made significant changes to that section. I wonder why you have no comment on that? ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your notification regarding this matter. I had no idea anyone changed the fleet section. For one, it does not have anything to do with the Singapore Airlines fleet. It looks as if were looking at a Boeing page and an Airbus page, discussing the features of those aircraft. I don't want to revert the edits only because I do not have enough time to do all of that, which would require a tremendous amount of work. However, what does everyone else feel about these changes just recently made to the fleet section, which I strongly oppose of!--Golich17 (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but are you damn sure of what you are saying with regards to the fleet section now looking like a "Boeing page and an Airbus page, discussing the features of those aircraft"? Are you looking at the correct article? Oh and since you oppose the current version, could you even articulate a reason why?--Huaiwei (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
You know what, do whatever you want with this article. It makes me very tired to elaborate what I'm trying to point out to you, therefore, I find no reason to edit this article. You don't evidently need (or want) my opinion, so I'm not giving one. I don't like this article period and it needs to be revamped as I've said over and over and over and over and over again.--Golich17 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
That's funny. First you want to edit an article without saying exactly why. When asked to elaborate, you make an about-turn, throw the job back at the one asking for details, and walk off in a huff claiming "tiredness" and "I don't like it". If you have problems even enunciating what you have in mind, what would you expect others to do? Agree with you that we do not like the article too??--Huaiwei (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)