Talk:Singapore Airlines destinations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 28 November 2004. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Milan & Barcelona

Is there any official release of information about Milan and Barcelona? I know there are rumours within the company, but until the official press release, should I categorise them under future destinations? -le petit vagabond 11:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moscow services

Is there any official information about the commencement of Moscow services via Dubai? Or is this some sort of "inside" news that is not made public yet? On top of that, how and where was the official commencement date derived from?--Lepetitvagabond

There was so far only a public annoucement that SIA was studying this route a few months ago, and no indication that the flight will be launched yet. I do wonder where the info came from too.--Huaiwei 12:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Destinations from SIN

I once again removed the "via" information for the destinations on the list. The article is titled "Singapore Airlines destinations", not "Singapore Airlines destinations from Singapore Changi airport". The information on the actual routes should be included on SQ's entry on the airport page, or if necessary, on a subpage of the airport. Dbinder 01:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a rather myopic means of restricting the scope of the said topic. A list of destinations is of an airline is about as useful as that. That is can include routing information at the same time makes more sense then your suggestion to have it in the SQ main article. So are you suggesting we dublicate the exact same destination list...plus the information in brackets? Are you suggesting someone interested in SIA's routes will have to navigate to an article on the airport first, when all of these information could have been easily accesible in one article? What exactly is your reasoning for this, other than trying to force all articles to conform to a certain "standard"?--Huaiwei 11:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the desire for some semblance of consistency, which really isn't that strange a concept, the article is titled "Singapore Airlines destinations", not "Singapore Airlines routes" or "Singapore Airlines destinations from Singapore Changi airport", which to me implies that it is a list of Singapore Airlines destinations. Also, I do believe the airport article should list the places that SQ flies from there. It is the only airline for which such information is not listed in the article. And yes I see nothing wrong with duplicating the condensed list (not including country and continent names). All other airports and airlines follow this format. Also, note that I'm copying this discussion to the article's talk page, so any replies should go there. Dbinder 16:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If you all are going to insist on retaining the via's, then this page should be moved to "Singapore Airlines routes", since that's what it is. Dbinder 17:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The ridiculousness of this dispute is probably going to cause my young newphew to get a bad stomach laughing over. If a list is to be remain strictly as a listing of the said entity and nothing else, with no supporting information allowed, I would certainly need alot of convincing as to how that should be a useful development for wikipedia on the whole. Please also kindly explain to us why we have tonnes of lists here which provide more than merely a list of entities, and if you are going to start stripping all of them off their additional information?--Huaiwei 17:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Where are these "tons of lists"? If you are referring to airlines, I have yet to see one. Dbinder 17:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Once again Dbinder, you are being very ridiculous. Could you be more flexible a bit, and don't be so rigid. Would you like it if I remove information from an article which you have done a great research and one removes it from the article. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
If I added superfluous text to an article, I really wouldn't object if someone removed it, to be honest. Dbinder 03:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
If I added information I think is superflous, I dont think I would be wasting my time adding them in the first place. Duh.--Huaiwei 13:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I wasent speaking merely in terms of airlines, but anyhow, lets see. Care to ask for passenger numbers to be removed from List of largest airlines, since this was supposed to be...well...a list of largest airlines and not passenger numbers? Delete all the explainatory notes in List of defunct airlines, since its only a list on defunct airlines? Come to think of it, why do you allow this article to list cities, countries, and continents, since only the airport is actually the "destination" in question?--Huaiwei 18:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikiproject:Airlines, the format for destinations should NOT include routing info. I see no reason why this article should be the exception. Elektrik Blue 82 03:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You must realize that the people that wrote this article have decided that they own it and that it should not be subject to the same standardization as every other airline article in Wikipedia. Dbinder 03:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikiproject is to provide guidelines on formating and inclusion of information. I have never heard of wikiproject being used as a justification for deletion of information or content. To do so is so against wiki-culture that depend on volunteerism. To be honest, it is quite a shame for your dear wikiproject. If the wiki-project is good, other editors will follow it willingly. When you can't convince others, please don't use strong-arm method or confrontation manner to delete content. Please remember that wikiproject does not own all the airlines and airport articles. Wikiproject does not have special authority. --Vsion (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You are right, Wikiproject does not own this article. The original authors do not own it as well. This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you revert this, no problem with me. I'll revert it again to the format that follows the Wikiprojects guidelines. Elektrik Blue 82 04:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Let this be clear. I don't own this article, so you are free to add content to it as long as it is relevant, NPOV, not vandalism, etc. etc. ... . By deleting non-vandalism content, it is you who seems to claim that this is your article, and practising some sort of "censorship". Also, please note that blanking is a form of Vandalism, your deletion of valid content is bordering on vandalism. --Vsion (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
A couple of things: 1) You said you don't own this article, good, at least it is clear. 2) I am free to add content as long as it is relevant. That also translates that I am free to delete content that is irrelevant. Now according to the Wikiproject Airlines guidelines, routing info is irrelevant. I am merely following directions. 3) NPOV. By streamlining the format of this article and making it follow a certain format, I am actualloy promoting NPOV. If you insist in making this article's format different from the rest, then you're elevating this article above the rest, thus, you're not being neutral. 4) Blanking. I am NOT blanking this page. I am merely removing irrelevant information. Make another article if you want, for route info., as Dbinder suggested above. 5) Vandalism. I am merely following guidelines. You on the other hand deliberately ignore these consensually-agreed-upon guidelines, and insist on following your own format. I think that is what you call vandalism. Elektrik Blue 82 12:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
And a couple more things. 1) Rejecting an attempt to remove information based on unacceptable reasoning does not neccesarily equate to article ownership. To see it from another angle, it reflects the behavior of a small group of wikipedians who seem to consider themselves on a higher level and with views which preceed over those who are not participants in a wikiproject. 2) The said "guidelines" is precisely what is is. Guidelines. And guidelines as far as wikipolicy is concerned are merely as such, and not binding. Do guidelines direct you to act accordingly? I am afraid not so. 3) If improving on an article such that it becomes superior to others is considered NPOV, than I suppose we should abolish all Featured Articles. We should frown on anyone attempting to improve on any article. We should strip all articles in wikipedia to the same standard as that of the lowest wikipedia-wide. 4) "Irrelevant" information is only such by your choosing. Others consider them relevant. Instead of us making another page to fit your criterion, why dont you take the initiative to create your own? 5) "Consensually-agreed-upon guidelines" indeed, when they fail to take into account the views of individuals here, apparantly.--Huaiwei 13:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
If you say that it is only my choosing that the route info is "irrelevant", then why did other people agree in the Wikiproject? Perhaps, it is "relevant" only by YOUR choosing? That certainly is not a valid argument. And by being a consensually-agreed-upon guideline, it does not mean that it is universally agreed. Of course, there are those that would not agree, like you. But then, that is the whole essence of a consensus, MAJORITY wins. If you insist in taking this article out of the Wikiproject, then fine, I'll subscribe to that. But then again, you're making a monopoly of the page, which again, is not NPOV. By the way, your line of reasoning regarding NPOV is false. One does not have to strip all articles to conform to the quality of the lowest article. However, if you have similar articles of similar content, such as Airline destinations, then I think it is common sense to streamline these, improving on weaker articles. Now I wonder why you only insist on this with-route-info format ONLY on Singapore Airlines? If you think that that format indeed is better, then why not "improve" on other airline destination articles as well? Elektrik Blue 82 13:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
If your idea of an "invalid" argument is solely based on your believe that it was my choosing, then how does it become validified by yours? So you have others agreeing with you. Am I the only one disagreeing with you then? The manner in which you dismiss these views is certainly intriguing. Majority wins in concensus building? Well not really, for it is a wikipolicy that wikipedia is not a democracy. The points behind the viewpoints are far more important. Have you personally bothered to explain why this article should be about "destinations", and that it has no relation to routing, as thou the ends is the sole perview of this article, and the average viewer will not be interested to know how many of these destinations are direct or require a stopever, for instance?
Taking an article out of the wikiproject does not make a "monopoly" out of it. It just means it is no longer "monopolised" by myopic individuals from a certain wikiproject, and that this article is liberalised from the draconian measures being forced upon it. I dont think anyone is specifically preventing from editing it henceforth, so show us in what way is it monopolised?
My so-called line of reasoning with regards to NPOV is not even in existant. I simply took your skewed understanding of the term, applied it based on your criteria, and demonstrated the lack of basic common sense it has. Your hyprocrisy is astounding. While you claim it is not neccesary to degrade all articles to that of the lowest quality ones, you oppose the elevation of some to a higher quality standard.
The level of your intellectual maturity is certainly suspect, when your citation of the SIA example demonstrates to me what I have suspected all along....that some of you seem to think individuals like myself are attempting to POV push SIA-related articles by making them better at the expense of others. The simple reason why I do it for SIA, is because I am particularly interested in SIA-related issues. Is there anything inherently wrong with this? Would you penalise anyone else in wikipedia for displaying the same editing inclination in choosing to write on topics they are interested or experts at?
And have you ever tried going through the various articles in airline destination lists, and check out who are the pioneers who began this whole collection of articles in the first place? That early on in this exercise, there was a need to fight for its existance, after which it was implimented for more and more airlines? My efforts to improve the comprehensiveness of aviation-related articles have been around for over a year, but seemingly not appreciated by a few in a certain wikiproject (I dont even see any of you participating in that VFD, for eg). For you to simplistically think I am just interested in introducing POV is just about yet another offensive attack on my contributions to wikipedia, and the primary reason I decided to dissasociate myself with that said wikiproject.--Huaiwei 14:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Elektrik Blue, if we are talking about JetBlue, i can understand why it is irrelevant. But dude, we are talking about SIA here, if en route nodes are not relevant, then why Australian news media have been hotly debating about it for years now? Even today, i still can find news about it, see [1]. Apparently, it is very relevant to the highest-level of Aussie government. --Vsion (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table format

I reverted the changes since Huaiwei's Dec. 2 edit for three reasons. First, the infobox doesn't need to be here since it's already in the airline page (and it's double-listed, one probably won't get updated). Second, the table format has too much information that is subject to change, such as aircraft used for particular routes. Finally, flags in destination lists create excess traffic for the server since every single image has to be downloaded every single time a person loads the page. DB (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. SIA can always add or remove aircrafts on every route, subject to change very frequently. The infobox is rather redundant actually. I do like the table format but for several reasons it is not practical. Terence Ong 13:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Despite helping to clean up and introduce the table in some sections here myself, I was personally a tad undecided on whether this is a good editorial direction to take. There seems to be excessive information on the airport itself, for example, while leaving out other information I would have considered of more importance to transportion studies. Anyway I noticed the tables first appeared in Malaysia Airlines destinations before spreading to several other articles. Perhaps this discussion should involve all relevant articles instead of just this one?--Huaiwei 13:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
That may not be a bad idea. It just seems that there's already a lot of info that doesn't get updated frequently enough; I can pretty much guarantee that this would be out-of-date within a month. DB (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I want to redirect your discussion to here for a more general discussion. Thank you ->Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#A table for destination page --Zack2007 13:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IST: Europe or Asia?

Singapore Airlines flies on Atatürk International Airport, which is located in Europe.[2][3] However, for reasons I don't understand, an editor insists on listing this destination as being located in Asia, with edit summaries SQ classifies it under Asia (where? not on this map), Wikipedia is based on WP:V, not a bunch of self-proclaimed wiki-aristocrats and, (in response to my edit summary It is easily verifiable that Ataturk International Airport is entirely within Europe) But has that fact influenced these airlines in their continental classification? Nope. Do these lists need to be pro-EU?

Question: assuming that Singapore Airlines indeed classifies IST as an Asian destination – something that has not been shown to my satisfaction – should we give precedence to this classification by the airline, or should we use the actual location in our Wikipedia article?  --Lambiam 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Should Atatürk International Airport be listed as an Asian or as a European destination?

The main airport of Istanbul, Atatürk International Airport, is wholly within Europe, but Turkey is a transcontinental country that is largely in Asia. Should Atatürk International Airport therefore be listed as an Asian destination, or should its actual location prevail, so that it is listed as a European destination? (The same issue plays a role in several other articles giving airline destinations.)

[edit] Support listing the destination under Asia

  • Proponents arguing that the airport is on the European side do make geographic sense, but they do not make sense in destination lists of this nature. All of our Airline destinations articles handles transcontinental countries by classifying them under the most dominant Continent they are usually classified under. You do not see Aeroflot's destinations split between Asia and Europe, nor do you see Northwest Airlines having their destinations in Hawaii classified under Oceania. If SIA flies to Ankara, do we list another entry for Turkey under Asia? Singapore Airlines clearly classifies Istanbul under Asia, as its flight numbers show[4]. All flights to Istanbul start with SQ4XX, the same as all its flights to Southwest Asia. Flights to Europe start with SQ3XX. In SIA's latest Annual Report (and in all previous reports), it classifies Turkey under "West Asia and Africa": "West Asia and Africa are made up of Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Egypt."[5], and uses this classification when computing its operational statistics for publication to shareholders. There is without a doubt that the airline plans Turkish routes under the Asiatic market, as does many major East Asian and Southeast Asian airlines.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, in regards to Aeroflot destinations, if you would like to look at the list in the Aeroflot article, Istanbul is listed under Europe, and Antalya is listed under Asia. In fact, some time ago destinations of airlines operating to the Russian Far East, e.g. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Khabarovsk, Vladivostok, etc were listed under Europe, and obviously this is not correct. If you are talking about the Russian destinations themselves, the Europe/Asia distinction is of no importance, as domestic destinations are listed wholly under the country level, separated by federal subject (some of which themselves are trans-continental). --Россавиа Диалог 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support listing the destination under Europe

  •  --Lambiam 23:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • assuming the airport is located on the European side, it should be classified as a European airport. If we were talking about the whole country then I would categorise Turkey as Asian, based on how Europeans view Turkey and its position in the united nations geoscheme.Kransky (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • well, the European Union classifies Turkey as European country... [6] --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 20:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OUTSIDE OPINION The destination should reflect the actual position of the airport. The airport is in Europe, so the article should reflect that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The airport is listed as being in Europe by different sources. When one clicks on the airport link and the Istanbul link, they both claim to be in Europe (or the Europe side). Renee (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, just a quick cursory look at the map indicates that it is on the European side of the Bosporus, which would tell me that the airport is on the European side. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Clearly the continental status of all things Turkish is a politically fraught designation. I think it is somewhat problematic that the airports listed here are sorted by both region and country. Turkey, on average, geographically, is in Asia, and thus listing Turkey as Europe is more troublesome than listing Istanbul's Ataturk Airport as Europe. But in the end, the decision here should be physical and not political. The airport is in Europe. maxsch (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • About the airport, and the airport is in Europe. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The airport is not in Asia, so Asian destination cannot apply. I would be fine with some language that indicates the airport serves the bi-continental city of Istanbul and thus provides access to destinations in both Europe and Asia. But if such loquaciousness is undesirable, then it would seem "European destination" would have to suffice. N2e (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further discussion and comments