Talk:Singapore Airlines/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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)

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.


References

Could someone please add referencesMaxflight 00:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

SIA Fleet Status

Huaiwei - pls do not amend the figures. They are derived from SIA monthly fleet status report.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.


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

Retired fleet?

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

RfC: Flight Numbers and Codeshare Agreements

Unfortunately Wiki Bureaucracy dictates we go for this token discussion of the repeting of views before we go anywhere else.

Focus Cities

Did someone just randomly pick destinations and decide to call them focus cities!? I mean seriously, Amsterdam, they don't even fly there daily!? 210.9.142.8 (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure looks like it ("Kula Lumpur" and all). I've deleted the lot until somebody can come up with a source. Jpatokal (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I concured with the move. Seems like they did just spin a globe and point at focus cities. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the SQ006 accident pic

Arpingstone removed the pic and said: "(Pointless pic removed (accident computer drawing). Not from the official report, shows nothing, indistinct, and doesn't help understand the accident in any way. Please don't add it back) (rollback | undo)"

Arpingstone, I feel the rationale has many serious flaws. Here I will explain:

  • 1. The official accident report was written by the Republic of China (Taiwan), and therefore it is likely copyrighted. This means that there are more restrictions for the usage of the image. If you have evidence that the ROC allows free use of its contents, please find evidence of this. Otherwise it will be treated as a copyrighted document.
  • 2. Anynobody produced the image to illustrate the accident so that it could be freely distributed on Wikipedia. A copyrighted image that could not be properly expressed by a free use image would be limited to the accident page itself.
  • 3. To call it "pointless" is absurd. It is there to illustrate the conditions in which SQ006 was taking off. The fact that Anynobody created the free use image shows that the illustration can be reproduced in a GDFL/GNU manner, and therefore there is no need to use the copyrighted images.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to support User:Arpingstone nothing to do with copyright but because it is a really bad image. It is dark and unclear and indistict on the screen. We do not know if it is an accurate reproduction of the scene so it could be misleading. Whoever created it really needs to look at what a 747 looks like because the aircraft in the image only has a passing resemblance to a 747. I would support the image not being used. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It was dark and "unclear" because a typhoon was reducing visibility AND the jet was taking off at night. That is the reason why SQ006 collided with equipment in the first place. How much visibility should the author add? How much would detract from the fact that SQ006 was taking off during a typhoon? Also what about the 747 is not "accurate"? I mean, it is not the most detailed model, but I gave him a link to the airliners.net image of the B747-400, a specific model with a specific paint job. He knows that the jet looks like. You may also wish to see the Commons talk page to see some of the process used for the SQ006 image: commons:User_talk:Anynobody WhisperToMe (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(after several edit clashes) Thanks for your comments. I regret saying it was pointless, I should have said that in my opinion it was pointless (which is gentler). I don't see how the fact that the official pics can't be used (because of copyright) affects whether the home-made pic looks sensible on WP or not. However I never take part in revert wars so by all means put it back and I'll leave it alone. My opinion remains that it looks amateur in a "professional" encyclopedia. Sorry my comments came out so harsh. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the comments really came out as "harsh" - I believed the logic was flawed because of the copyright issues. Anyhow, from my perspective the images should be sufficient for Wikipedia. If anyone has watched the "Head-On!" National Geographic Channel TV program that portrays the 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision - the CG models used to simulate the collision look a lot like Anynobody's. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Arpingstone -- esp. as a thumbnail, the image is so dark and blurry as to be incomprehensible, and it adds no value to this article on SQ as a whole. Even the context is missing: the one-line summary of the accident doesn't say a word about weather conditions. Jpatokal (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
My issue with the image is not with its visual quality (I use a normal screen, and my eyesight is not perfect, yet I do not find it as visually challenging as to be "incomprehensible"), but with its value-addedness. We could add a real photo of the plane just prior to collision and I will still be asking if it serves any educational purpose. A CG reproduction of the plane's impact with the construction equipment, or of the crash site immediately after collision would probably be of much higher value.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want I can ask him to see if he can make an image of the collision itself after he is finished with some other requests :) - Another reason why I wanted the pic is because the airline retired the livery after SQ006. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You can see promotional tropical livery in the thumbnail of that picture!? On my default monitor settings I can barely see that it's a plane.
But like Huaiwei says, I don't see how a CG image of a plane on a runway illustrates anything relevant. If you want to illustrate the accident, then (say) a map of the correct and mistaken paths would be much better; and if you want to illustrate the tropical livery, then any of eg these would be far preferable (licensing permitting). Jpatokal (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The map of the accident route already exists: - And it includes a CG of the tropical livery Image:SA600_Runway.png WhisperToMe (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
In all honesty, the SQ006 picture is pointless. It doesn't serve any significant purpose in helping the readers to understand the accident. Bonchygeez (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi all; I have decided to take on the MedCab request for this article. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-22 Singapore Airlines for more information, and add yourself as an involved party if you're interested. Here's hoping we can resolve this in an amicable fashion. Regards, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Parent company....here we go again.

Not having noticed that the parent company has been removed from the infobox for quite some time now by the looks of it, I have placed it back, and surprise, surprise, Huaiwei has yet again reverted it. This issue has gone on now since at least August 2007, and it has been an absolute headache. This is the very last time that I will be addressing this issue, as it is difficult to continue to assume good faith when an editor claims that a reliable source is not a reliable source, claims that information is not verifiable when it is, demands that I explain every word of every edit, which is reverted without question, and without the courtesy of responding to questions asked of him, making it appear to me that he is making a point that he has a certain right above every other editor to have certain controls over content, or perhaps one is just being inconsiderate. But hey, even though I am admittedly guilty of being uncivil to Huaiwei on a few occasions in the past, and I will admit that I do not believe Huaiwei has acted in good faith in regards to this issue, I will assume good faith one last time, and I will explain every word, even though just as Wikipedia is not a textbook, and is not meant to teach subject matter, I should not be expected to play professor and educate.

Parent companies are an integral part of the business world, and as this article is also under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies, and of course WP:FIVE, the parent company which is verifiable and which comes from a reliable source should not be removed without concensus, as I see no reason why Singapore Airlines is so special that this info is not included in this article, yet can potentially be included in every other company article on WP. With the growing interest in Government-linked companies and the use of Sovereign wealth funds by governments, this information is all the more important, and there is much obfuscation by these GLC's in not disclosing their holdings, just look at Temasek Holdings as a prime example, publishing an annual report for the first time in 2004, yet it still only reports on the major investments it holds, no-one knows for sure just how many companies it actually owns and has investments in.

In August 2007, when Temasek Holdings was placed as the sourced and referenced parent company, Huaiwei reverted it, with the commentThe IHT is not an authority in deciding for SIA who its parent company is. Kindly find any source in (of course, IHT is in reference to the International Herald Tribune, a respectable and reliable source). I am willing to go out on a limb here, but Huaiwei is not an authority in deciding that the IHT is not a reliable source with a [[WP:V|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy].) Reverting and tons of original research occurred by Huaiwei after this. In the last few days, I have re-added Temasek this time being sourced to Forbes, and surprise, surprise, Huaiwei reverts it, this time stating, The only reliable source on a company's structure is obviously the company's own publications. And they simply do not show such a relationship. Again, Huaiwei is claiming that Forbes is not a reliable source with a [[WP:V|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy]. But alas, Huaiwei, the company's own publications do show such a relationship, that's the beauty of being listed on a stock exchange, they are required to, and that information was provided back in August last year, and you reverted it, claiming it did not show that relationship. If only looked at what has been written previously on this very talk page, unfortunately, another user has deleted it, but here it is. Mind you, what you are suggesting is that we write the entire article using only sources provided via Singapore Airlines, and that is squarely outright against the verifiability policy. Given that Huaiwei does not believe that a source which states that Temasek is the parent company of Singapore Airlines is not a reliable source, I hereby am providing a list of further sources which state that very fact, and will provide some further info on certain sources, and perhaps Huaiwei can then provide a reason as to why each and every single one of these sources is not reliable, and then they can be discussed by the entire project as to their reliability, and whether any of them should be used for providing verifiable information, remembering of course, that many of these sources are used on this very article? (Of course, they are reliable due to them extensively being used throughout Wikipedia, and due to them more than fulfilling requirements). Or perhaps, Huaiwei can stop reverting referenced, reliable, verifiable information, based upon purely belief that reliable sources are not reliable.

  • International Herald Tribune - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and its parent Temasek signed a definite agreement to buy a 24 percent stake in China Eastern Airlines to add flights in the second-largest aviation market in the world. NOTE The IHT is being used in this article for the following citations SIA was shut out from the Toronto market after complaints from Air Canada of losing market share to SIA, and was forced to stop flying Boeing 747-400s into Jakarta in the wake of protests from Garuda Indonesia when it could not use similar equipment to compete, It similarly faced constant opposition from Qantas to allow it full aviation rights out of Australia, in particular to the United States, The cancellation was seen as particularly damaging to McDonnell Douglas due to the company's reputation, The A340-300 had been a replacement for a cancelled McDonnell Douglas MD-11 order, which could not meet long-range requirements as far as distance was concerned.
  • Forbes - article - quote from article - For a price tag of 7.2 billion Hong Kong dollars ($923 million), Singapore Airlines (other-otc: SGPJF - news - people ), renowned as the best-managed airline in Asia, and its Singaporean government-controlled parent Temasek Holdings, are taking a combined 24% stake in money-losing China Eastern Airlines, China's perpetual aviation laggard. NOTE The example article, unbelievably, is not reliable to use to include Temasek as the parent company, yet it is reliable to use to cite this from the WP article: The deal, worth 7.2 billion Hong Kong Dollars, would have involved SIA buying 1.24 billion shares at 3.80 Hong Kong dollars a share and caused a major rally in China Eastern Airline's shares, which rose 83.91% to reach 6.86 Hong Kong dollars one day after the announcement of the deal
  • Bloomberg L.P. - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines Ltd. and parent Temasek Holdings Pte may pay about $930 million for a stake in China Eastern Airlines Corp. to expand the carrier's reach in the world's most populous nation, people involved in the talks said.
  • Reuters - article - quote from article - Shareholders of China Eastern Airlines (0670.HK: Quote, Profile, Research) rejected on Tuesday a deal to sell a 24 percent stake to Singapore Airlines (SIAL.SI: Quote, Profile, Research) and its parent Temasek Holdings TEM.UL for US$920 million.
  • Financial Times - article - quote from article - if CEA's minority shareholders reject a proposed HK$7.16bn (US$917m) investment by Singapore Airlines and its parent Temasek at a shareholder meeting on Tuesday.
  • MarketWatch (owned by Dow Jones) - article - quote from article - Shares of Singapore Airlines Ltd. traded little changed Wednesday, a day after minority shareholders of China Eastern Airlines (CEA) blocked a bid that would have seen the Singaporean carrier and its state-owned parent Temasek Holdings take a 24% stake for HK$7.1 billion ($918 million).
  • The Australian - article - quote from article - Air China blocked a deal this year whereby Singapore Airlines and its parent, Temasek Holdings, would buy a 24 per cent stake in China Eastern.
  • Asia Times Online - article - quote from article - China Daily reported this Wednesday that Singapore Airlines and parent Temasek Holdings may pay about US$930 million for a combined stake of about 24% in China Eastern Airlines to expand the Southeast Asian carrier's reach in China.
  • Shanghai Daily - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines Ltd and its parent Temasek Holdings Pte signed an agreement last month to buy 24 percent of China Eastern Airlines Corp at HK$3.80 a share.
  • The Daily Telegraph - article - quote from article - Hong Kong-based Cathay had drawn up plans - revealed by telegraph.co.uk on Friday - to buy a minority stake in China Eastern Airlines Corporation, potentially trumping a previously-agreed deal between China Eastern and Singapore Airlines and its parent, Temasek Holdings.
  • Fairfax Media - article - quote from article - The companies announced in September that Singapore Airlines and its parent Temasek would pay $US918 million ($NZ1.21 billion) for a combined 24 per cent stake in China Eastern
  • Air Transport World - article - quote from article - China Eastern Airlines continues to press on in its effort to reach a deal with Singapore Airlines and plans to cooperate with SIA parent Temasek to fashion terms that will be acceptable to minority shareholders, who vetoed the sale of a 24% stake last month.
  • The Honolulu Advertiser - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and parent Temasek Holdings Pte agreed to buy a 24 percent stake in China Eastern for about $918 million last month.
  • USA Today - article - quote from article - This could mean the government reducing its majority control of SIA as it allows more carriers to be based at Changi and builds a terminal for low-cost airlines to further cement its air-hub position, analysts said. (the operative word here being control)
  • The Standard - article - quote from article - Shares in China Eastern Airlines (0670) soared 75.1 percent to close at a record HK$6.53, the day after the carrier announced Singapore Airlines and its parent, Temasek Holdings, have agreed to invest US$918 million (HK$7.16 billion) for a combined 24 percent stake in the mainland carrier.
  • Channel NewsAsia - article - quote from article - Established in 1974 by the government, Temasek controls some of Asia's best-known companies including Singapore Airlines and Singapore Telecommunications. (the operative word here being control)
  • China Daily - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and parent Temasek Holdings Pte plan to buy about 25 percent of China Eastern, Li Fenghua, the Chinese carrier's chairman, said at a shareholders' meeting in Shanghai today.
  • People's Daily - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and parent Temasek Holdings Pte are seeking to buy 24 percent of China Eastern to expand in China's growing aviation market.
  • Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation - article - quote from article - The rejection of a plan to sell 24 pct of China Eastern Airlines to Singapore Airlines and its Singapore government parent Temasek will delay the Chinese carrier's development
  • China Central Television - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and its parent, Temasek, offered 3.8 Hong Kong dollars a share for a 24 percent stake in China Eastern.
  • Hong Kong Trade Development Council - article - quote from article - SINGAPORE Airlines Ltd. and parent Temasek Holdings Pte have agreed to pay about US$918 million for a 24 percent stake in China Eastern Airlines Corp., as economic growth boosts air travel in China.
  • Xinhua Financial Network - article - quote from article - The rejection of a plan to sell 24 pct of China Eastern Airlines to Singapore Airlines and its Singapore government parent Temasek will delay the Chinese carrier's development, China Eastern president Li Fenghua said.
  • The Economic Times - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and its parent Temasek Holdings had made a persistent bid to buy a 24 per cent stake in CEA for 3.80 Hong Kong dollar per share.
  • The Straits Times - [21] - quote from article - Leading the charge is the Singapore government investment arm Temasek Holdings, which owns Changi Airport and a controlling stake in Singapore Airlines.
  • The Star - article - quote from article - Singapore Air, the world's second biggest airline by stock market value, saw its bid to increase exposure to the booming China market suffer a setback after shareholders of China Eastern last month rejected a deal to sell 24% of the firm for US$920mil to Singapore Air and its parent Temasek.
  • BusinessWeek - article - quote from article - And in September, Temasek scored an mergers and acquisitions victory when the fund teamed up with its subsidiary Singapore Airlines to take a 24% stake in China Eastern Airlines, acing out Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific.
  • The Age - article - Singapore Airlines and its parent, state investment company Temasek Holdings, are in talks to buy a 24 per cent stake in China Eastern Airlines.
  • Thomson Financial - article - quote from article - Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd is preparing a statement to respond to reports that it is seeking to invest in China Eastern Airlines Corp, a move that could possibly thwart a bid from Singapore Airlines and parent Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd to buy a stake in China's third largest carrier.
  • London Stock Exchange - article - quote from article - Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd is preparing a statement to respond to reports that it is seeking to invest in China Eastern Airlines Corp, a move that could possibly thwart a bid from Singapore Airlines and parent Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd to buy a stake in China's third largest carrier.
  • Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania - article - quote from article - It was a perfect deal and it had approval from the top levels of Chinese government. Singapore Airlines (SIA) and its parent company, Temasek, were set to purchase a 24% stake in Shanghai-based China Eastern Airlines.
  • Associated Press - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and its parent, the Singapore government investment agency Temasek Holdings Ltd., offered $923.8 million (7.2 billion Hong Kong dollars or about HK$3.80 per share), for the 24 percent stake.
  • Singapore Business Review - article - quote from article - Last year, Singapore Airlines and parent Temasek Holdings offered to buy 24% of China Eastern Airlines at a price of HK$3.8 per share, totalling HK$7.16 billion in order to expand their businesses in China's booming aviation market.
  • The New York Times - article - quote from article - The companies in its stable represent at least one-fifth of Singapore's market capitalization and it has controlling stakes in Singapore Airlines and Singapore Telecommunications.
  • Payload Asia - article - quote from article - SIA and parent Temasek recently signed a definitive agreement to buy 15.7 and 8.3 per cent stakes respectively in CEA, with the Singapore carrier pledging significant cooperation with the Shanghai-based carrier.
  • The Boston Globe - article - quote from article - The statement by the Hong Kong-based carrier increases the probability that China Eastern shareholders will reject an offer for a 24 percent stake by Singapore Airlines and its parent, the government investment agency Temasek Holdings Ltd,. when they meet Tuesday in Shanghai.
  • World Trade Organization - article (word document) quote from article - Singapore Airlines (SIA) is Singapore's national carrier and a publicly listed company. It is majority owned (56.76%) by the Government through its holding company, Temasek.
  • Cargonews Asia - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and parent Temasek Holdings' bid of HK$3.8 per share for 24 percent of China Eastern was blocked by minority shareholders late last year after comments by Air China that the offer price was too low.
  • The Wall Street Journal - article - quote from article - By launching its offer, CNAHC had scuttled an earlier deal that would have given Singapore Airlines Ltd. and its parent company, Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd., a 24% share in China Eastern.
  • Today - article - quote from article - Not because his ambitious target - Shanghai-based China Eastern Airlines (CEA), the third largest carrier in the world's fastest-growing, but still highly regulated, economy - spurned the HK$7.2-billion ($1.3-billion) advances of SIA and parent Temasek Holdings.
  • The Sydney Morning Herald - article - quote from article - Temasek owns many of Singapore's largest companies, such as Optus-owner SingTel, Singapore Airlines and Singapore Power.
  • World Bank - article (PDF format) - quote from article - In Singapore, Temasek-the national holding company-has a $90 billion portfolio with shares in over 20 major SOEs, including such well-known multinationals as SingTel, Singapore Airlines, and Raffles.
  • Asiaweek - article - quote from article - Affected companies contacted by asiaweek, including Temasek Holdings, the Singapore government investment arm that controls SIA, SingTel and DBS, declined to comment on any share price implications.
  • Businessworld - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines' parent company Temasek and a group of other investors are launching a low-cost airline called Tiger Airways.
  • Condé Nast Portfolio - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and its parent, the Singapore government investment agency Temasek Holdings Ltd., offered $923.8 million (7.2 billion Hong Kong dollars or about HK$3.80 per share), for the 24 percent stake.
  • Daily Times - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines: Singapore Airlines and its parent Temasek Holdings Pte agreed to buy a 24 percent stake in China Eastern on Sept. 2 for HK$7.16 billion ($917 million), after more than a year of talks.
  • Air Transport World - article - quote from article - Separately, SIA and parent Temasek said they signed a definitive agreement to buy 15.73% and 8.27% stakes respectively in China Eastern Airlines for a combined HK$7.2 billion ($927 million).
  • Fortune - article - quote from article - But that makes its choice of partner odd, as Temasek also owns Singapore Airlines, which in turn owns both low-cost regional feeder airline Silk Air and Tiger.
  • CNN - article - quote from article - China National Aviation Holding, which owns 12.07 percent in the Shanghai-based carrier, said in a statement Tuesday that the HK$3.80 per share offer by Singapore Airlines and its parent, government investment arm Temasek Holdings, did not "reflect the fair value of China Eastern."
  • Asian Development Bank - article - quote from article - With few exceptions, the airline industry in developing Asia is dominated by state-owned enterprises. Although one such carrier, Singapore Airlines, has consistently been ranked as one of the world's best and most efficient, the record of state ownership in other airlines is poor.
  • The Edge - article - quote from article - The Singapore government, which controls flag carrier Singapore Airlines Ltd, also has equity in two budget airlines. Its state investment agency, Temasek Holdings, holds 19% of Qantas Airways Ltd.'s JetStar Asia and 11% of Tiger Airways, set up with the founder of Irish discount carrier Ryanair.
  • Aviation Week & Space Technology - article - quote from article - Tiger's main owners are Singapore Airlines and that company's state parent, Temasek Holdings.
  • Shenzhen Daily - article - quote from article - TEMASEK Holdings Pte., a Singapore state-owned investment company with US$85 billion in assets, may join its unit Singapore Airlines Ltd. to bid for a stake in China Eastern Airlines Corp., Morgan Stanley said.
  • JLM Pacific Epoch - article - quote from article - Air China Ltd's (601111.SH; 0753.HK) parent company China National Aviation Holdings Company, will vote against China Eastern Airlines Corporation Ltd's (600115.SH; 0670.HK; NYSE:CEA) proposed deal with Singapore Airlines Ltd (SIA) and its parent company Temasek Holdings at CEA's shareholder meeting scheduled for January 8, 2008, reports the Beijing News quoting Air China vice president Fan Cheng.
  • Xinhua News Agency - article - quote from article - The document sets out the framework for a cooperative partnership in conjunction with a proposed strategic investment in CEA by SIA and Temasek, which owns 54.8 percent of SIA.
  • ASEAN-Australia Development Cooperation Programme - Regional Economic Policy Support Facility (an initiative of AusAID in support of ASEAN) - article - quote from article - Governments' controls in other ASEAN airlines are still significant despite the various privatisation initiatives. For example, Singapore, despite being seen as having more foreign investor-friendly investment rules in place, sees the Singapore Airlines (SIA) being owned as much as 57% by the state investment holding company, Temasek Holdings.
  • Four Corners of the ABC - article - quote from article - It seems all flight paths lead to Singapore Inc. Brierley is now a Singapore company with 7 per cent owned by, yes, the Singapore government through a company called Temasek. And that's not the only coincidence. As well as its shareholdings, which weave a path through New Zealand to Ansett, the state-owned Singapore Airlines has 49 per cent of Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic. It turns out that Richard Branson has very close connections with Singapore.
  • AsiaOne - article - quote from article - Temasek controls some of Asia's best-known companies including Singapore Airlines, Chartered Semiconductor, Neptune Orient Lines, port operator PSA International and Singapore Telecommunications.
  • Gulf Times - article - quote from article - China Eastern Airlines nearly doubled in value to a record after Singapore Airlines and its parent Temasek agreed to buy a combined 24% stake in the Chinese airline for US$918mn and Singapore Airlines shares climbed 1.6%.
  • The Guardian - article - quote from article - With a portfolio of more than 160bn Singapore dollars (£55bn), Temasek is among Asia's wealthiest sovereign funds. It controls Singapore Airlines and Singapore Telecoms, owns a 13% stake in Standard Chartered Bank and bought 2% of Barclays earlier this year.
  • BBC - article - quote from article - The state-controlled carrier earned 868 million Singapore dollars ($553m; £293m) between March and September.
  • Flight International - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and China Eastern Airlines were due to unveil a deal on 2 September in which SIA and its parent, Temasek Holdings, are to jointly buy a 25% stake in China Eastern.
  • Mint a newspaper from HT Media Ltd. Sister publication to Hindustan Times. Partner of The Wall Street Journal. Article using content syndicated from Agence France-Presse - article - quote from article - Temasek controls some of Asia's best-known companies including Singapore Airlines, Chartered Semiconductor, Neptune Orient Lines, port operator PSA International and Singapore Telecommunications.
  • The Independent - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines will hold 49 per cent while its parent company, the Singapore state investment agency Temasek Holdings, will own a further 11 per cent.
  • Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China - article - quote from article - According to the plan, Singapore Airlines will buy 20 percent of the stake while its parent company Temasek, a Singapore State-owned investment company, will buy 5 percent. The total of 25 percent is the maximum allowed by Chinese law.
  • International Enterprise Singapore, agency of the Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry, utilising a newsfeed from The Business Times - article - quote from article - Ironically, the one venture where it seems to be doing reasonably well is its China-based Great Wall Airlines freighter airline business, where it has a 25 per cent stake, while its parent Temasek has 24 per cent.
  • SIA Engineering Company - annual report (PDF 4.0mb) - quote from Page 94 - SIA Engineering Company Limited (the "Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore, which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Singapore Airlines Limited and its ultimate holding company is Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, both incorporated in the Republic of Singapore.
  • Singapore Airlines - annual report (PDF 6.0mb) - quote from page 80 - Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore. NOTE This exact source has been referenced by myself in this article on many occasions, and Huaiwei dismisses it, because he does not believe it says what it says. And now he still wants a company source? And it is his continual rejection of this source which has caused me such a headache, particularly, as he has taken it upon himself to use this source to claim things such as, Temasek is the parent company of the Singapore Airlines Group, something of course which it is not, and of course when I have told him this is not verifiable, it is dismissed by him. Additionally, referring to this change from today, which references page 80 as mentioned just above, it clearly states Singapore Airlines is a subsidiary of Temasek, yet this is reverted to saying that Temasek is a simply a major shareholder. I hope this will not be the case, yet again. Looks like I spoke too soon. Of course, Huaiwei can always tells us exactly what this statement means: Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore. --Россавиа Диалог 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The above lengthy post makes zero mention, nor demonstrates any real intent in resolving past disputes which has been left hanging, including but not confined to these: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Russavia has shown an inability to remain consistent in even defining the entity "Singapore Airlines" in this article, choosing to take differing opinions just to ram through his personal POV, in particular his "concern" of Singapore Airline's reputation as a quality airline, and now, his agenda in pushing through greater emphasis on the actual role of Temasek Holdings and its shareholdings in various companies, including that of Singapore Airlines. Without any new information to support this stand, I fail to see any reason to shift away from the status quo, which is to outright delete the contested field until a reasonable compromise may be found. And that status quo has remained for several months until Russavia decides to reignite it again. Numerous news articles will simply not hold in this regard. I have seen numerous articles, most of whom simply copies from one another, calling Singapore Airlines a "parent company" of Tiger Airways:[27][28][29]. Do you plan to be consistent and enforce that relationship as well?--Huaiwei (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the airline and everything to do with your personal squabble. Take it to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-22 Singapore Airlines, please. Jpatokal (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether this is a personality or content dispute is not for you to judge, Jpatokal. Kindly do not capitalise on each and every dispute to your advantage and respect the views of each party concerned.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't give a flying fillip about which one of you is "right". You're both acting like kindergarteners and, seeing that you've both agreed to participate in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-22 Singapore Airlines (which is about you two and this very article), you should sort this out there instead of edit warring here. Jpatokal (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
And that jolly well should be so, because you are in no position to judge either party. You are similarly in no position to call anyone names, not talk to anyone in a condescending manner, just because they have been involved in a dispute you could care less about. Even banned users deserve better treatment, so kindly avoid attempting to repeatedly aggravate the situation with needless comments.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, I have always stated that this article is about the company, which happens to be an airline, and I challenge anyone to show anyone any different. Out of all the above, when it is CLEARLY stated in the Singapore Airlines Annual Report (remember you are the one who insisted back in August that you want a company source, which of course you duly ignored, and then proceeded to use to engage in original research), what do these 2 sentences mean to you?

Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore.

What does being a subsidiary actually mean? It can mean only ONE thing. If CompanyA is a subsidiary of CompanyB, then CompanyB is the parent company of CompanyA.

In regards to Tiger, take it up on that article when the need arises, but I for one would never include Tiger as being a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines, due to the sheer number of sources which do make this clear distinction, but it is very fair to state that Tiger Airways is a state-controlled airline due to its ownership of Temasek, and its control of Singapore Airlines, the Singapore government does have control over Tiger.

Now, bringing it back to SIA, and still related to Tiger somewhat, if the government chooses to exercise that control or not is irrelevant, it is still a state-controlled airline. In the case of SIA, with each ordinary share of SIA carrying one vote, and with Temasek owning 54.47% of these share (and of course with the Minister of Finance holding a golden share), Singapore Airlines is controlled by (by legal definition) Temasek Holdings, and Temasek Holdings is the parent company (by legal definition) of Singapore Airlines.

Additionally, this is made all the more interesting by SingTel, which the other day I updated to show as Temasek being the parent company, and which you reverted again citing that news sources are wrong. But then straight away, you have basically reverted your own revert and included a source from Temasek (albeit quite a contentious source considering its content). So in that instance, I used a reliable, verifiable source which you reverted, and then added back the information using a self-published source. Your questioning of the reliability of sources claiming that they are not reliable has a dark cloud over it right about now due to that article. Yet, on this article, you already have discounted a self-published source, and for what reason I have no idea. Does the inclusion of Temasek, mean we will have a category of Category:Government-controlled companies with Singapore Airlines prominently placed there? Not a priority for me, but its a possibility (however, truth be known, I am working on a Temasek in-article template at the moment, due to much increased spotlight on governmet linked companies and the use of sovereign wealth funds [yeah, I know, Temasek doesn't regard themselves as one, but 99% of the world media does]). I have to question your motives here Huaiwei. I will be upfront about mine, to present the correct information without allowing advertorial PR to obfuscate and keep to NPOV - whilst it is true that Temasek is the majority shareholder, this does not in itself portray the reality in that it is the parent company, a piece of fact acknowledged by Singapore Airlines itself. --Россавиа Диалог 10:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And on a related note, due to Huaiwei refusing the recognise that Forbes and the IHT, two notable and reputable financial media companies, are reliable sources, I posted this on the reliable sources noticeboard, and the concensus there is, is that yes Forbes and the IHT are reliable sources, and perhaps in relation to the links regarding Tiger but not relevant to the discussion at hand here, that if incorrect information has been printed, then it is up to the company to request a correction. --Россавиа Диалог 10:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You sound extremely sour over my comment that Forbes and the IHT are inferior in reliability when compared to official publications by Singapore Airlines, Russavia, to the point of now misquoting me of actualy dismissing both publications entirely on all aspects[30], despite me never stating such a viewpoint[31]. Thank you, Russavia, for once again demonstrating your rampant habit of misrepresenting and exaggerating the comments and viewpoints of your "editorial foes" in a bid to discredit them during the heat of a dispute.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If everything was this clear-cut, Russavia, why was this issue not resolved many many moons ago? Why did you fail to convince even a nuetral party like Vegaswikian, who clearly also has doubts?

  • Kindly state clearly whether this article is about Singapore Airlines the parent airline, or Singapore Airlines Limited and its group of companies, and tweak the entire article accordingly. You have insisted on presenting Singapore Airlines as a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings, which will only be true if we are talking about the group of companies under the SIA umbrella (hence "Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company")" as stated quite clearly in the annual report, and not just the "parent airline" alone). Yet when the article is then modified to reflect this group of companies, you insist on reverting them back to Singapore Airlines the parent airline minus all its constituent parts. You can write an entire essay on your viewpoints, but if you cannot substaintiate them with simple logic and display consistency in applying them, is it anyone's fault that your POV continue to be removed (and not just by me alone)?
  • Even if we are to put aside the scope of this article, you ask for a check on definitions to bolster your point. Well, "Parent company", as that subsection in Holding company says, is a "holding company that owns enough voting stock in another firm (subsidiary) to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors." Are you even in possession of a single verifiable source demonstrating Temasek Holdings actually exercising "management and operation control" over Singapore Airlines or any of the companies it has a majority stake in? The choice of terms used demonstrates a particular POV. The Australian media, for example, are prone to happily call Temasek a "parent company" of SQ especially during the hype of SQ's clashes with Qantas when the later called SQ a "government-subsidised company" when no such proof exists. The Singapore media (and a few other sources including those you cite above), on the other hand, tend to refer to Temasek simply as a "majority shareholder", without implying further relationship of any kind. Is this attempting to give undue weight to advance your POV?
  • I find it of particular concern that you consider highlighting Temasek's roles in its subsidiaries a urgent need in response to recent hype over sovereign funds, and that you take issue with Temasek's lack of disclosure. And here you are calling others attempting to suck up to state PR mechanisms, as thou you represent greater NPOV values? Your recent additions to this article attempting to portray Singapore Airlines negatively[32] has proven once again your inability to write with adequate balance and good unbiased research:[33]. Your views on Singapore-related matters, be it on Singapore Airlines, on Temasek Holdings, on Singapore's hotels, etc, etc, continue to be a major source of concern for several SGnb members[34][35], and I would continue to challenge you on your believe that you hold greater nuetrality in view compared to those members.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Temasek, it is a 55% shareholder of Singapore Airlines, (and has held a controlling stake since 1974 1975.) That seems to make it a parent-subsidiary relationship, as the SIA annual report says. There seems to be only one editor disputing this, but it seems to be one of the best sourced facts in Wikipedia. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to say that, yes, tamasek is the parent of SIA as both tamasek and SIA say so. Bonewah (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of you have failed to address the issues brought up above. Are you refering to SIA the group of companies or SIA the parent airline?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As you bring it up, I will ask you directly, since clearly none of us get it: How does 'SIA the group of companies' differ from 'SIA the parent airline'? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't. Singapore Airlines Limited (trading as Singapore Airlines) is the same entity at the Singapore Airlines Group of Companies; the Group of Companies monicker is used mainly in financial circles, so that it is possible to break up the company into the company and subsidiaries for purposes of financial reporting (e.g. reporting profitability of the company as an entity as a whole, or broken down into constituent companies). I suggest also looking at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-02-22_Singapore_Airlines, as this issue is also covered there, in particular, Huaiwei states = But on hindsight, if Singapore Airlines = Singapore Airlines Limited = Singapore Airlines Group, which this not cause even greater confusion when they are actually the same entity (in the most basic sense minus the technicalities)? Now there will be an attempty by Huaiwei to obfuscate even more, but I say this.....
  • The IATA code SQ belongs to Singapore Airlines Limited
  • The aircraft in its fleet are registered to Singapore Airlines Limited (the Singapore CAA says so)
  • Huaiwei has no problem on SilkAir and Singapore Airlines Cargo with Singapore Airlines Limited being the parent company
  • The Singapore Stock Exchange doesn't have a listing for Singapore Airlines Group of Companies, but it does for Singapore Airlines Limited
  • IATA doesn't have a member called Singapore Airlines Group of Companies, but it does have a member called Singapore Airlines Limited
  • I can find no entity registered in Singapore called Singapore Airlines Group of Companies, but can find Singapore Airlines Limited
  • I can find no reference in any bilateral service agreements mentioning Singapore Airlines Group of Companies, but can find Singapore Airlines Limited
  • All sources regarding the China Eastern Airlines stake don't make any mention of Singapore Airlines Group of Companies taking a stake in that airline, but Singapore Airlines Limited (and its parent company Temasek Holdings)....refer to the long list of sources above, one of which is used as a reliable source in this article for info on that stakeholding, which apparently is not reliable enough to source Temasek as being the parent of Singapore Airlines
  • Other Temasek controlled entity articles have Temasek Holdings as the parent where verified, e.g. SingTel, which can also be called SingTel Group of Companies.
  • The list goes on, this article is about an airline which happens to be a company (as required by law) --Россавиа Диалог 16:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Subsidiary --> Parent --> Subsidiary?

So after reading the above exchanges, it would appear that Huaiwei and Russavia have a personal conflict, and Huaiwei is fighting tooth and nail to avoid having to call Temasek a "Parent Company." After many struggles, the substantive question remaining is not what is posed above, because Huaiwei appears to have (after much struggle) acknowledged that Temasek is a majority shareholder of Singapore Airlines. The only remaining quabble is whether the corporate "Majority shareholder" of 55% of SA's stock is therefore SA's "parent company." Huaiwei appears to appoint a close managerial connotation to the words "parent company," which may or may not exist in Wikipedian English.

So the question remains: Does a longtime "Majority Shareholder" which is a limited liability corporation necessarily mean a "Parent Company"?69.140.102.62 (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a conflict, and it is directly related to this issue which has been ongoing now for almost a year. Verified information has continually been removed by said editor. As to the question you have raised, if the laws of the country stipulate conditions which are met for a company being the parent of another, then yes, it is a parent company. Particularly, when the subsidiary company acknowledges it is a subsidiary of the parent company with:

Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore.

Taken from Page 80 of the 2006-07 Singapore Airlines Annual Report which can be found at:
http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/docs/company_info/investor/annual/SIA_AnnReport0607.pdf
--Россавиа Диалог 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
To avoid Russavia being drawn into an edit war, which will be bad for everyone's blood pressure, I have also reverted Huaiwei's deletion of sourced material. I still do not see a reason for Huaiwei's repeated deletions in all the above comments. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have also reverted the change to avoid Russavia becoming involved in an edit war. There is no reason for this accurate and verified information to be removed from the article. SempreVolando (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
At what point does this go to the next step with {{Uw-vandalism2}} and the later templates being added to user talk pages? Another options are {{Uw-longterm}}, {{Uw-own1}}, {{Uw-nor1}}, {{Uw-npov1}}, {{Uw-unsourced1}} (for adding unsourced material so it may not apply). I think everyone has been hoping that mediation would resolve this. But since that is not the case, then all avenues to deal with this edit war need to be used. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is not vandalism, so those templates would be over the top. A couple of users are behaving childishly, over a couple of issues, but surprisingly continue to work constructively on the rest of the article. Temporary blocks might just work (people are breaking 3RR which gets automatic 24 h block.) RFC and arbcom are next steps - will just get several useful editors 'topic banned'. Lets wait until they get bored again. Boredom may be a better mediator than a human. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why I offered other options. Are you saying that none of those suggested warnings are appropriate? This is more then a simple edit war. Knowing some of the parties involved, I don't see this blowing over. There is an effort to try and formally mediate this dispute but that requires the involved parties to agree to the process. At this time, the key players have not all agreed so the second mediation step may not happen. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
A guide to applying WikiLove towards another editor.
  • I am all for NPOV but when I see such POV crusaders pushing their view into my face, I find that an insult. You don't go around other people's house and steal or stick something in there whilst claiming to be waiting for the Police to arrive to arrest you and still expect the owner wouldn't pull out a 12-gauge shot gun without any buckshots that won't have your name on it, do you? Perhaps that was a bad analogy but the bottom-line here is, please respect others here even if you disagree with them. I agree to disagree and I also disagree to agree but should you find yourself unable to do so, I think it's best you take a break and do something else instead of getting your temper or view fouled up by your personal inability to agree with what I just said here.
Read also
  1. Wikipedia:WikiLove
  2. Wikipedia:WikiHate
  3. Wikipedia:WikiCrime
  4. Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot

--Dave1185 (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

GA quickfail

I regret to inform you that this article meets the criteria for being quick failed. The article contains quite a few "citation needed" tags. Please provide citations in all of these instances before renomination. Thanks. Nikki311 14:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge Singapore Airlines fleet

With WP:AIRLINES deeming registrations irrelevant (and the community agreeing with comments on VS and VX fleet page AfDs leaning towards delete), there is no longer any material on the SQ fleet page that can't be merged into the main SQ page. With the SQ page effectively being a repository for 2 tables, I feel it ought to be merged into the SQ page, as pretty much no other airline wiki page has separate (and pretty much redundant) fleet pages. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is nothing on the standalone fleet page which cannot be merged once the 'cruft' of plane spotter style registrations etc... has been deleted. SempreVolando (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Listing specific aircraft is the only way to have confidence in the numbers. There is no other way to verify claims about how many aircraft there are. 85.18.243.58 (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes there are. It's called "external links". And that's how the numbers for every other airline is verified. There is currently no way to verify the accuracy of those specific aircraft, as the people that want those tables kept have failed to provide valid sources. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a website to give the in-depth specifics about this kind of information. Just like the other editor has said before, we can provide a valid external link to another website that can provide that information.--Golich17 (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually this should be a reference tag using a cite template. That way the source, and when it was referenced, is with the data. If you want to check the facts, just click on the reference. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

There is too much reverting here, the page will end up protected soon if you don't stop. I admit that I'm mystified why the parent company info is impermissible. Could someone please provide a *brief* explanation or link demonstrating why the Tenekwhatever parent is wrong? Please no attacks on other editors as explanations William M. Connolley (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Huaiwei acknowledges that Temasek is the majority shareholder of the corporate entity known as "Singapore Airlines Limited", but disputes that this makes Temasek the parent of the airline called "Singapore Airlines", which is only one of many business units in Singapore Airlines Ltd. Jpatokal (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines are two names for the same company. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying I agree with the line of argument above, I'm just attempting to summarize Huaiwei's POV. Jpatokal (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You have actually summaried my primary concern very well. Goes to show that discussions can indeed take place without the insults and derogatory comments. As for Vegaswikian's comment that Singapore Airlines Limited = Singapore Airlines, yes I have stated before that Singapore Airlines Limited = Singapore Airlines = Singapore Airlines Group. An important point to consider, thou, is that this equation is true only when the "Singapore Airlines" element is not specified to refer solely to the "parent airline", a term the company frequently uses to refer to the airline called "Singapore Airlines" within the group of companies called "Singapore Airlines Limited", commonly shorterned also as "Singapore Airlines". Btw, it is interesting to note that this discussion is now taking place back in the talkpage, when it dosent seem to work in a MedCab, and a formal mediation process on this seems to be stuttering even before the word "Go"!--Huaiwei (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I only added this article to my watchlist a few weeks ago, I think that Jpatokal and Vegaswikian have correctly summarised the complaint. So I have a proposal to make that may satisfy all concerns, and may make your mediation shorter:

  1. Omit the 'parent' section of the infobox
  2. Describe the ownership of the business and its legal entities in a couple of sentences of article prose, without using the word 'parent'

Comments?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I second your proposal, all in favour say aye! --Dave1185 (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose, as I have on previous occasions, removing parent from the infobox, and also oppose not using the word parent in the article, in order to satisfy what I believe is not a valid concern. Airlines are companies, not just a brand which flies people from A to B whilst offering them all sorts of inflight entertainment, and extensive wine lists, etc. They are companies. To remove this verifiable information is to turn the article into the brand, whilst also turning it into an article on the Singapore Group of Companies (which is not a legally recognised entity - it isn't registered anywhere). Even then, a "group of companies" is simply another way of Companies have an ownership structure (in many cases they have a parent), many companies have subsidiaries. It's a fact of the business world. These articles are on the company, not the brand. Wikipedia is not an avenue for which to promote a brand. Read the article introduction and one can see why it is not a good idea to set such a bad precedent on Wikipedia articles dealing with companies. --Россавиа Диалог 09:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The said dispute is not between a brand vs a company. Rather, they are between a part of a group of companies vs the entirety of that group. This has little to do with WP:NOT#ADVERTISING as Russavia constantly allerges, even if the article is about the brand, for there are obviously various brands on this planet which meet the notability criteria easily.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I also oppose, somewhat reluctantly. Hroðulf's proffered solution was, in fact, the status quo for a long time, but the fact of the matter is that there are countless solid primary and secondary sources where Temasek is described as Singapore Airlines' parent (see above), so why should we not state this as a fact with, perhaps, a footnote or link to the full explication? Jpatokal (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A footnote is not even necessary if one looks at the article as it stands right this very minute. Under corporate management, much emphasis has been placed on the Singapore government stating it would take a hands off approach to the management of the company (along with a laundry list of instances where it has actually interfered in company affairs). If a shareholder holds say 40% of voting rights, it doesn't have the ability to manage that company alone; if a shareholder holds 55% (as Temasek does), then it does have the ability to manage that company on its own volition, and whether or not they exercise that management right in day to day affairs of the company is irrelevant, it doesn't change the fact that they do in fact, legally (and verifiably), control that enterprise. And this is more than covered by that emphasis already evident in the article. --Россавиа Диалог 17:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There are also plenty of sources describing Temasek Holdings as the "biggest shareholder" of Singapore Airlines without mentioning the word "parent". At the same time, I find plenty of sources describing Singapore Airlines as the "parent company" of Tiger Airways despite the former holding only 49% of the later.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The prolem is Huaiwei, is that it was yourself who made me jump thru hoops, and demanded a source from the company. And this has been provided dozens of times, and now again from the annual report:

Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore. Are you disputing that this statement from Singapore Airlines, in an annual report which was audited by Ernst & Young, and submitted to the Singapore Stock Exchange in accordance with various Singaporean corporation laws, is wrong? --Россавиа Диалог 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

        • And which part of the above source do you think I am actually disputing, Russavia? I am quite amused by this claim, considering I was actually the first to cite this statement!--Huaiwei (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ages ago a tried to make this into three articles. One on the company, one on the brand and one on the group. This would have done a lot in my opinion to make the articles simpler and easier to read. It would have also made it clearer how the company was really set up and working. However the fact that this is mostly a single company that is also an airline really forced it back into a single article. I still think that if you pulled out the SIA brand into an article, you would have ample space in a much smaller article to explain this particular problem and maybe end one edit war. It would not address the issues with the airline per say. However I have no idea at this point in time if that idea is viable or even reasonable. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If a solution must be worked out to end edit wars, than any solution may have to be re-examined. I have objected this proposal before due to same problem that they are but one entiry, but I am prepared to relook at this proposal if no other compromise can be found. I wonder if Russavia understands the meaning of "compromise" thou to take a similar stance and explore all possible options thou.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I would love to hear from other editors if the SIA brand (airline) as an article is an acceptable way to go. Clearly the owner of the brand is Singapore Airlines Limited with its multiple names and ownership issues. If we went in this direction, how would Singapore Airlines Group fit in? It would be something associated with the brand and probably the parent company. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It would be a lot of work (unless you already have your previous attempt at a split in history or in a sandbox.) Also, maintenance would be harder, as some facts would belong in 2 or 3 articles. And it has been done elsewhere, such as Coca-Cola and Royal Bank of Scotland Group. I personally dislike it, because to me it confuses readers and editors that are new to the topic, but if others think it would work, and the pitfalls more manageable than the problems we have right now, then it is certainly an option. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly support Hroðulf's approach, an approach which I have recommended before and which is already implimented in a way in the existing article. The "parent company" field in this article has been filled by "Singapore Airlines Limited" for many many moons until the unilateral amendment to "Temasek Holdings" by Russavia. Despite my objections to this given the concerns already stated above, he proceeded to make such changes in numerous other articles, so much so that I had to voice objection in [36], where I have recommended that the entry "parent company" be replaced by a far less suggestive and more descriptive term of "major shareholder(s)". As per Hroðulf's second proposal, it may be worth noting that the article[37] already attempts to explain its corporate setup, as well as the role its "majority shareholder" actually plays (or doesnt play) in the running of the company. There has been no need to use the word "parent" to accomplish this.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Nice to be supported. I don't see why you dislike 'parent'. It is not suggestive, only descriptive, and means exactly the same thing as majority shareholder. However I accept that you and Dave1185 do dislike it, so I think we should find a way to work with you as long as it does not involve deleting facts. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Hey, I work in this company for the past eleven years. It is a known fact within my company that Temasek Holdings is just a majority shareholder, else why do we (SIA) have our own board of directors, this is also true for the other subsidiaries such SATS, SIAEC, SATS Auxiliary Police and this has been so since the founding of this company since 1972. --Dave1185 (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Why does it have a board of directors? Simply answered, it is required to, because it is a company listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange, and a company which is bound by the laws of Singapore dealing with corporations. And it is also a known fact within the business community that Temasek isn't just a majority shareholder, but is the parent company. Even Singapore Airlines itself acknowledges this in its own annual report in which it states:
          • Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore. --Россавиа Диалог 18:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I hope I am not visually challenged, but I clearly fail to see the words "parent company" appearing anywhere in the quotation above.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • While not really helpful, corporate ownership makes an interesting read. At one point didn't someone source a policy or guideline that provided the guidance to list a majority owner as the owner in infoboxes? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Parent Company vs Holding Company vs Majority Shareholder

OK... so, I think I understand this better now. We all agree that Temasek own a majority shareholding, but disagree as to whether this makes them a "parent" or not. Just because there are WP:RS saying they *are* the parent doesn't mean we have to say the same. The substance is that T are majority shareholders. The article already says this, in its current state, though no very prominently. Would replacing the word "parent" with "majority shareholder" in the info box be a good idea / acceptable compromise or not? (btw, one thing I'm missing in all this heat is why anyone cares enough to revert so assiduously... is there a political undercurrent that no one is mentionning, or that I've missed? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • That's a very good idea, but there's an unfortunate side effect for other articles: for airlines that are 100% owned by another company/airline, it would be misleading to characterize the sole shareholder as merely a "majority" shareholder. But this could be neatly worked around by just defining a "majority shareholder" field in addition to "parent", and picking the right one for each article. Alternatively, just call it "Main shareholders", and list the actual percentages? Jpatokal (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This can easily be solved by adding the % shares owned to the entry as already done in several articles. Thus, a "majority shareholder" field with the entry "Temasek Holdings (100%)" immediately tells the reader that Temasek is also the only shareholder.--Huaiwei (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Ahh... I just tried to do this, but of course it didn't work without the infobox being modified. Is modifying the infobox a problem? I don't think parent needs deleting, just maj-share adding William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As per our discussion, I agree with your recommendation. As for this big mess, well... call it a kind of persistent disagreement between User:Russavia (as well as those in his camp) with User:Huaiwei (as well as those in his camp). I'm all for NPOV here but as I told you before, myself being an employee of this company I find this issue amusing and yet flabberghasted by the amount of dirt it has managed to stir up here. --Dave1185 (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Another thing is, why the need to add another footnote or infobox to an article that is already quite bloated (in size, that is) when there exist a section in the page that aptly describe this whole ownership thingie. Read: Singapore_Airlines#Corporate_management. And dare I say this, with the page approaching 100K in size why would anyone want to merge the fleet part back into the page? I wonder... is there some kind of hidden agenda? Read also: Wikipedia:Article size. --Dave1185 (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would ask that others look at the SingTel article, in which a similar thing has occurred. I posted information in that article that SingTel is a subsidiary of Temasek, which was reverted by Huaiwei. Which he changed to a majority shareholder only. If you look at that article as it stands now, you will see not only does it have Temasek as being the parent in the infobox, but it also clearly states that SingTel is a subsidiary of Temasek. Why the difference for this article? I don't get it. --Россавиа Диалог 18:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You're missing the point. No-one is disputing the 54% ownership. People are disputing the description of "parent". I've proposed that we replace "parent" with "majority shareholder", and people seem happy with that. Another possibility would be to replace parent with "is a subsiduary of" . I think you are being unnecessarily confrontational William M. Connolley (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Because the Singapore Telecommunications article is for a group of companies. If anyone tries to insist that SingTel Mobile's parent company is Temasek Holdings, you can expect me to remove that immediately as well.--Huaiwei (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I am not missing the point at all. As it stands now, I believe that I am the only person who has yet provided a description of a parent company. A parent company can be described as:

A parent company is a holding company that owns enough voting stock in another firm (subsidiary) to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors.

That definition is from parent company

A company that owns or controls subsidiaries by buying up all or the majority of their shares. A company has a controlling interest in another when it has acquired over 50% of its issued shares which have voting rights. Where a parent company does not operate in its own right, it is called a holding company.

That definition is from [38]

The company owning the majority of the voting stock of another corporation.

That definition is from [39] or, there is this definition

Definition of subsidiary and holding company 5. —(1) For the purposes of this Act, a corporation shall, subject to subsection (3), be deemed to be a subsidiary of another corporation, if —

(a) that other corporation —

(i) controls the composition of the board of directors of the first-mentioned corporation;

(ii) controls more than half of the voting power of the first-mentioned corporation; or

(iii) holds more than half of the issued share capital of the first-mentioned corporation (excluding any part thereof which consists of preference shares and treasury shares); or

(b) the first-mentioned corporation is a subsidiary of any corporation which is that other corporation’s subsidiary.

That definition is from the Singapore Companies Act, and it is within the requirements of this law that Singapore Airlines makes the following statement in its Annual Report:

Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore.

The argument has been made that Temasek is not the parent company due to it apparently not interfering in the day to day affairs of the running of that company. (I have italicised apparently, because it is insinuated in the article by the use of verifiable sources, yet this issue which is also covered by plenty of verifiable sources is being glossed over)

Might I remind everyone, that whilst Wikipedia is run partly on the grounds of concensus, the policies which surely take precedence over concensus are verifiability and no original research. As of this point, in over 12 months, not a single definition has been offered by any party which states that a corporation needs to actually exert control in order to be defined as a parent company.

Additionally, a majority shareholding needn't necessarily mean that a company is the parent. Take EasyJet Switzerland SA for example; here is a company which has easyJet plc holding a 49% stake, yet easyJet plc is the parent company. How so? If one refers to the 2007 annual report of easyJet plc, page 87, inline with the Britsh Companies Act 1985, easyJet Switzerland SA is regarded as a subsidiary of easyJet plc because

The Company has a 49% interest in easyJet Switzerland SA with an option that expires in 2014 to acquire the remaining 51%. easyJet Switzerland SA has been consolidated as a subsidiary from 24 June 1999 on the basis that since that date the Company has actually exercised a dominant influence over the undertaking. A minority interest has not been reflected in the financial statements on the basis that holders of the remaining 51% of the shares in easyJet Switzerland SA have no entitlement to any dividends from that holding and easyJet plc has an option to acquire those shares for a predetermined consideration.

Any concensus to not call Temasek Holdings the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited needs to be done within the policies of WP:V and WP:OR, not simply because some editors have a problem with it existing within the article, and moreso, when said editors have not provided a verifiable definition of said term in the first place. That is the point, and it is one that may have not been looked at. Call it confrontational if you will, however, I see it as squarely falling under several policies of WP:FIVE --Россавиа Диалог 19:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are too prolix. Multiple defns are not good. To take your first: wiki does not have an article called parent company; only a redirect to holding company. That should tell you something. Ditto youre second, which says Where a parent company does not operate in its own right, it is called a holding company.. As far as I understand it, the argument is precisely that T fits this category and is therefore not to be described as "parent". Why do you insist so hard on "parent"? I can't see the point. What is wrong with "subsiduary of" or "majority shareholder"? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I would have no problem at all with the use of "subsidiary of". And I say this because of the subsidiary-->parent company relationship. --Россавиа Диалог 19:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As of this point, in over 12 months, not a single definition has been offered by any party which states that a corporation needs to actually exert control in order to be defined as a parent company - well, amusingly enough, you've just provided one yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell me which one that is? --Россавиа Диалог 19:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I quoted it: Where a parent company does not operate in its own right, it is called a holding company. Meanwhile, does anyone else object to "subsiduary"? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. How widespread is this problem or confusion for the airline template? Since this is the only place it has received extensive discussion, I'm not sure that changing the template is needed. As I said in the newly added section, this issue really belongs in a discussion of {{Company}} and not the airline template. 20:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that definition doesn't state anything about exerting control. A holding company is simply a company which exists only to hold stakes in other companies. It doesn't produce anything. It offers no services to anybody. It exists only so that it holds shareholdings in other companies. An example of a holding company is Druk Holding & Investments Limited, which was formed by the Bhutanese government in order to hold the stakes of various companies, including Drukair. Whilst it fulfills the definition of a holding company, it is in fact the parent company of several companies (denoted on that page under DHI Subsidiaries), including Drukair. --Россавиа Диалог 21:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
So is Temasek Holdings a holding company or a parent company based on these definitions?--Huaiwei (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Based on those unreferenced definitions, the company type of Temasek Holdings is a holding company (whose purpose is only to own other companies), and in regards to the companies which is owns a majority of voting stock in, such as Singapore Airlines, SingTel, etc, the relationship Temasek holds to the companies it holds stock in is defined as being the parent company of those companies. This is one example of how holding company and parent company are quite different meanings. However, holding company and parent company can be interchangeable, meaning that they mean exactly the same thing. Which means that within various definitions of holding companies and parent companies, Temasek Holdings is a holding company, which is the holding company (parent company) of many companies in which it holds investments. All verifiable of course. --Россавиа Диалог 18:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. So if you are asked a question: "What is Temasek Holdings?" and there are only two MCQ choices "A: Holding Company" and "B, Parent Company", how would you answer?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I would answer both, because it is. It is a holding company and it also the parent company of numerous companies in which it holds stakes. If the question was "What is Temasek Holdings' relationship in regards to Singapore Airlines", then the answer is against both. Parent company because this is the most widely used term used for this relationship, however, as written in Singaporean law, the term 'holding company' is used, albeit with the same definition of a 'parent company' - the term 'holding company' and 'parent company' are interchangeable in this context. --Россавиа Диалог 16:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
So may I ask if your view is that the terms "parent company" and "holding company" are one and the same, in this regard? In what way would they be different in another context?--Huaiwei (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Some basic issues with the article covering the company and the airline.

I mentioned this in the edit war section, but maybe it needs to be split out its own discussion.

Currently the article is about a company and an airline and some other stuff. While this increases the size of the article, it does not have a significant impact in the long run on the article size. Currently the article only includes {{Infobox Airline}} we probably need to include {{Company}} since that includes different information. However doing so, would further increase the size of the article. If the brand could be split out, clearly the parent would be Singapore Airlines Limited hence no problems over that issue and the contingent that wants to get this article to GA status could focus on that goal.

{{Company}} includes some important information in the box that the airline template does not, like the type of company. An interesting side effect of a split along these lines, some of the material that could be split out, like the fleet mentioned in the section above, could probably be moved into the company article. This should be OK since they are in fact the owner, unless there is some other structure that has not been mentioned yet. No need for articles that have questionable encyclopedic value. As a note, this template defines parent as Holding company or group of the company. Example: Google. So in the company template the issue of what the parent is may also be put to rest.

Is this worth pursuing as a concept? In the end, the company would be covered in single article. However the brand would get its own article. Clearly Singapore Airlines as a brand is a very encyclopedic article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

An interesting concept. One which I would almost agree to, as it would remove any notions of marketing from this article. But one which I couldn't agree to, as it is too problematic. And the main reason for this is just what would the brand article contain? Some things it couldn't contain
  • Any information on any aircraft. As these aircraft are registered to Singapore Airlines Limited, as per the CAAS aircraft register. Any attempt to state that these aircraft are operated by the brand would constitute original research. For example, it was Singapore Airlines Limited that was sued in relation to SQ006, not a legally non-existent brand (aside from the trademark).
  • Any information on any flights. As the flights are operated by Singapore Airlines Limited, as per approvals by the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Civil Aviation Administration of China, and others. In addition, the Singapore Airlines Contract of Carriage states "NAME OF CARRIER : SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED"
  • Any information on financial information, or shareholdings in other companies. As per various filings with the Singapore Stock Exchange, and other verifiable information.
  • Any information on people within the organisation. As per Singapore Airlines annual reports and other filings, these people are employed by Singapore Airlines Limited. The brand has zero employees.
Of course, it is possible to attempt such a split, but I wouldn't expect it to last for long before it is Afd'ed. --Россавиа Диалог 20:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
For any decisions to be made and enforced (as consensuses have apparently been reached in the past but disregarded), the mediation action needs to be undertaken, but it's not invalidated. Arbitration time? Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Why the rush for arbitration, Butterfly0fdoom? You appear to be unusually determined to rush this through despite being only involved in this dispute for a very short time, and having hardly any experience in working out a compromise anywhere around here. What is your motivation?--Huaiwei (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I may be new to this dispute, but, looking at the discussion history, it's clear this debate has gone on for an excessively long period of time and it's clear that discussions here aren't leading to anything conclusive. I don't appreciate you operating as though I have some ulterior motive. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No one is in any position to prejudge others, something I clearly do not appreciate from you. Wikipedia is a community of editors, not a community of judges. You have absolutely no greater right to demand action on any other editor based on nothing but presumptions, and skipping normal channels of dispute resolution on the premise that these will fail before they have a chance to conclude, or even to commence at all. Your failure to properly discuss a merger/deletion of Singapore Airlines Fleet despite it causing an edit war and your failure to discuss the removal of financial data in Singapore Airlines and then immediately inserting it as a topic for discussion in a mediation case are cases in point. Kindly refrain from such hostile editing behavior if you genuinely interested in editing in good faith.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is in theory a good idea, although may I point out that the scope of the article need not be structured over "who owns what". To look at the fleets, for example, the Singapore Arilines article would carry details on the fleet operated by itself, but the Singapore Airlines Limited/Singapore Airlines Group article would carry details on all aircraft operated by Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Cargo and SilkAir. Ditto to information on manpower, on operational statistics, on financial performance etc. Russavia appears to be going to extremes to talkdown this proposal.--Huaiwei (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your take on what the brand would cover hits the essence of what should be included. Basically the brand article would cover the airline as if it existed as its own entity. Normally listing fleets at the parent company could be an issue, but this would be one of those cases where the exception would be justified and in fact the only thing that made sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this will not exactly be an exception. Let's look at many of the major legacy American carriers, where the holding company (for eg: AMR Corporation) contains information on the fleet operated by all of its subsidiaries, while the airline article (eg: American Airlines) only refers to aircraft it operates. I am not sure if you still have problems accessing the annual report of SIA, but it makes very clear distinctions between information relevant to the entire company group, or only to the parent airline, and it will be relatively easy to present this information here without having to crack our heads trying to decipher just which data goes where. In the most recent section on labour which I added, the annual report has stated that the group employed 29,457, while the parent airline employed 13,942. It should therefor make perfect sense to state each statistic in each article, if we are to have two distinct articles that is. Another advantage of such a split is that we can move Singapore Airlines subsidiaries to the group article.--Huaiwei (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If I were to start doing this today, I'd either start by moving stuff into the Singapore Airlines Limited article leading with {{tl:company}} which has a definition for what the parent is, or doing the Singapore Airlines Group article. The problem with the later is does SAG become the parent of the Airline or a child? Foing the latter would probably reduce the size of the article by a lot more then splitting out the company. On the other hand, splitting out Singapore Airlines Limited would move the owner discussion to a smaller article with less of a spotlight. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm now the problem is deciding which name to use. Each has its pros and cons. Singapore Airlines Limited is the official name of the airline group, and it is technically more correct to say that "Singapore Airlines Limited" is a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings, and is listed on the SGX. However, I believe it will cause more confusions between itself and the parent airline article. Singapore Airlines Group, on the other hand, will be very clearly distinct to the reader, and the term, although not 100% official, is used in official capacity by the company in many aspects, including in its financial reports. But of course, it becomes an issue when saying "Singapore Airlines Group is listed on the SGX". Either way, I do not think they actually have an impact on how much content to move...both names will entail details on the same group anyway. As for your query, Singapore Airlines Group is definitely the parent of Singapore Airlines.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Huaiwei, please provide a source for your statement of "As for your query, Singapore Airlines Group is definitely the parent of Singapore Airlines." --Россавиа Диалог 06:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
When the SIA Annual Report frequently makes statements such as "As at 31 March 2007, SIA Group operating fleet consisted of 121 aircraft – 107 passenger aircraft and 14 freighters. 94 and 13 of the passenger aircraft were operated by Singapore Airlines and SilkAir respectively.", you will have to find us convincing source stating that "As at 31 March 2007, Singapore Airlines operating fleet consisted of 121 aircraft – 107 passenger aircraft and 14 freighters. 94 and 13 of the passenger aircraft were operated by SIA Group and SilkAir respectively."!--Huaiwei (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If this original research on your part Huaiwei is to have any merit at all, this needs to be explained. You have made a claim that Singapore Airlines Group is the parent of Singapore Airlines. Can you then explain to everyone here, why it is that when this dispute started, it was YOU who introduced in to the article this: "Singapore Airlines is the parent airline company of the Singapore Airlines Group of companies." Your reasoning is totally out of whack, and you are obfuscating and trying to confuse others with your whacked theories relating to companies, instead of words, perhaps you can present the structure of the company as a flow diagram? And do it using what you have said so far. For example, you yourself admit there is no difference between Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines Group of companies, yet now you are claiming that Singapore Airlines Group is the parent of Singapore Airlines (Singapore Airlines or Singapore Airlines Limited, asking as now you are saying there is a difference?). You also claimed way back when that Singapore Airlines Limited was the parent company of Singapore Airlines. Additionally, you are making an EXCEPTIONAL claims with what you are claiming, so you may want to familiarise yourself with WP:SELFPUB and WP:REDFLAG. Sorry for saying it's whacked, but there is no logical reasoning behind your theories at all, and there most certainly no grounding for it by verifiable sources. As to your claim of using the fleet to detail ownership, uh uh, I have already presented a verified source above for the fleet, that being the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore civil aircraft register. If Singapore Airlines Group is indeed the the parent company of Singapore Airlines, then you need to find a source which states this. And if indeed Singapore Airlines Group is the parent company of Singapore Airlines, then there will be records lodged with various Singaporean government agencies showing this, e.g. if you go to this link search by entity name, put in search SINGAPORE AIRLINES, and search by records containing those words, you only two results, one being for Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd and the other being for (is there really any need for me to even insert what this link takes you to?). I think that until such time as you are able to find those sources, we simply follow my proposal below. --Россавиа Диалог 17:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

One further comment, as I have said before, we are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to do marketing for Singapore Airlines. If one looks at Austrian Airlines as an example. Austrian Airlines owns Lauda Air and Tyrolean Airways (the latter operating as Austrian Arrows). Together, and with other companies which Austrian Airlines owns, they are referred to as the Austrian Airlines Group. This is done for two reasons, and they are reasons which I have mentioned many a time previously. The first is for the reporting of consolidated financial accounts. The second is for marketing purposes. Below is taken from the glossary of the Austrian Airlines annual report

Austrian Airlines Group: Austrian Airlines, Tyrolean Airways, Lauda Air and other Group companies (scope of consolidation for the IFRS Group financial statements); in marketing terms, the umbrella brand for Austrian, Austrian Arrows and Lauda Air.
Above Huaiwei has used information from the SIA annual report. Annual reports are used for 2 purposes. The main purpose, and especially for publicly listed companies, is for the reporting of financial results. The second, and not required, purpose is for marketing purposes, e.g. summarising news and events in the 12 months that the report covers, future plans for company, and other advertising/marketing materials. In terms of issues relating to ownership, as this information forms part of the financial statements of the company, in the annual report you refer to only the financial information, as this is audited by a third-party company. Needless to say, I am leaving this with Huaiwei to find some non-SIA sources which back up his claims, and have re-introduced information into the article, not waiting forever for his information to come to light (which it won't). --Россавиа Диалог 17:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You know why you have problems understanding the entire chain of comments? Because you are so stuck in your singular interpretation that you simply refuse to accept that ALL my comments are completely verifiable, and practically all of them are directly quoted from official sources. On the other hand, you are the one insisting on introducing your own POV by replacing quotable phrases like "substaintial shareholder" with "parent company", the former of which is peppered all over the annual reports, while the later is never mentioned anywhere in the said report. I challenge you identify each of my my past comments which are not verifiable from the said documents. I would also like to know what your response will be if it turns out that I was able to do so for every single one of them. The challenge is on!--Huaiwei (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My proposal to end this year long dispute

I have a proposal to end this dispute for once and for all, a year is way too long for this to keep going on. My proposal is this:

We introduce Temasek Holdings into the infobox as the parent company, and we also state very clearly in the text that Temasek Holdings is the parent company, not just a majority shareholder. This is as per the dozens upon dozens of verifiable sources, not a single one which has yet been shown to be incorrect. It is hard to dispute these facts when even the company itself acknowledges the fact. The burden that is placed on me in introducing this information has already been more than met, and over the 12 months, not a single source has been introduced into any discussion to dispute this. The only thing which has been mentioned is that Temasek is the 'majority shareholder'; it is impossible for anyone to argue that this does not mean they are the parent company, when it has been shown, and verified, that in holding 54% of the shares in the company, with each share holding 1 vote, Temasek is indeed the parent as required to declared by Singaporean company law.

As per all of the policies and guidelines, WP:V, WP:RS, this information is being placed back in by myself. As can clearly be seen the ONLY person who seems to dispute this fact has ZERO interest in discussing this issue, and will instead simply remove VERIFIED information. This has NOTHING to do with me wanting to push a certain point of view (which would be what exactly anyway), when this information is introduced into EVERY single other article without resistance - I could care less if the Singapore government thru Temaseks holds a controlling stake of SIA or not, I could care less if the Singapore Government thru Temasek says it doesn't interfer in company affairs (although it clearly has of course), and I could care less about any of the other inferences as to my motives which have been said when discussing this issue. I could also care less about Huaiwei's motives in keeping this information out of the article, whether that be because he doesn't understand business/corporations laws, or whether he has a problem with openly displaying Singapore government ownership of key companies in Singapore, the fact of the matter of is, is that that WP:V is a policy, and the information is verified.

I will not, and can not, continue to simply allow an editor to drag his feet and not conclude this in a more timely manner. As can be seen from the latest informal cabal, plenty of time was given for a response to be given, only to be told that a response would be given when that editor sees fit; although it is obvious said editor (Huaiwei) was reading that cabal, as it was only after the lengthy submission on the cabal about Singapore government interference (namely by Dear Leader) in company affairs, especially in the realm of labour disputes with pilots, did the Labour section appear in this article. That cabal was closed without result. And furthermore, the recently request for formal and binding mediation which was filed by myself was closed as not being accepted due to all parties not agreeing to it; namely Huiawei not agreeing, even though he was advised it mediation was requested, and even though he was active in posting on that mediation page, and even the talk page of the mediation request.

Inline with another policy of Wikipedia, I am reinstating this information into the article. If it is necessary to take this issue back to the mediation panel then so be it. And if it is necessary to file a RFC on me then so be it also. But I am keeping in mind that WP:IAR clearly states that if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, then break it. The policy on concensus is not relevant in this instance, as there has been no evidence presented to dispute the verified facts which are in dispute. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability of information takes precedence over unverified, unsourced and, in some cases, incorrect information being used as grounds to dispute the reliability of said verified information. This is why I am reinserting this information, as the processes, or more to the point, the abuse and disregard for Wikipedia policies and mediation processes is hindering my ability to improving this article and also Wikipedia as a whole. --Россавиа Диалог 16:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It appears that the very person who claims that the other party has "ZERO interest in discussing this issue" actually fails to make any comment in this discussion during the long period which I has no access to wikipedia, failing to address practically all of the suggestions already put up by other parties besides myself. The lengthy "solution" he proposes above has never moved from his original position. In contrast, others involved in this dispute has been willing to move from their original positions in a genuine bid to come up with a reasonable solution that all can consider acceptable. For someone who claims to uphold principles of WP:V etc etc etc (a classic example of someone Wikilawyering for all its worth), he gives yet another indication of his lack of adherence to WP:NPOV with that [[Lee Kuan Yew|Dear Leader]] comment. Here we are talking about someone openly insulting a primary political figure of another country, in a way which is completely irrelevant and uncalled for. Clearly, this individual is driven not merely by a small issue over the role of a Sovereign wealth fund in a widely respected company. He is politically motivated, and this point shall be raised each time he launches another spirited attack against another country, its leaders, and its people.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And in another classic example of someone who is simply not interested in the dispute resolution process, we have User:Russavia reinserting the disputed entry in the said article[40]. Perhaps this subsection should not be called a "proposal", for clearly he has every intention to impliment it even before a single comment has been made in response here?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yawn* Of course, I have no interest at all in dispute resolution. Like that cabal, in which I said I would only participate if all parties agreed to acknowledge any concensus resulting from it. This was said because of previous examples involving yourself, where you have totally ignored the concensus, such as the previous cabal on this article, the cabal on the Changi Airport, and all over wikipedia in general. Why would I want to waste my time discussing anything when all is said and done you are only going to ignore it anyway? But low and behold, I did participate. Did you? And it wasn't me who refused to accept the request for binding dispute resolution just recently, that was yourself. Now, if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is, are now willing to accept the request for binding dispute resolution? --Россавиа Диалог 19:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for confirming that you are simply not interested in the dispute resolution process. I am further amused by your accusation that I "totally ignored the concensus...all over wikipedia in general" Just who are you trying to smoke, User:Russavia? Kindly be fully aware that my contributions to this site extent far beyond the disputes you try to ignite between us, and that you certainly do not factor that high up my priorities in this site. Turning down mediation requests do not equate to a refusal to mediate, especially when it was found that users are filing mediation requests without a geniuine desire to consider alternatives, but instead are doing it to force compliance to your preferences. I suppose you have taken a leaf from the Mynamar Junta by organising a "referendum" in a way that the result will obviously favour themselves?--Huaiwei (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your prosoal isn't a way to end the dispute; its just a way for you to get your own way. [41] isn't a plausible edit, its just restarting the edit war. Don't do it. We've already had discussion above as to why "parent" is misleading; please don't try to pretend that you're unaware of it. There are several suggestions above as to how it can be described in a way that makes the ownership clear whilst avoiding the loaded word "parent". Why are these unacceptable to you? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Because where is the verifiable information from reliable sources to back up the viewpoint that the use of parent is misleading, or that having this info is NPOV? What we have here is opinions of editors trumping verifiable information, and that just is not on. --Россавиа Диалог 09:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
And you are suggesting that your preferred version is not an opinion of a single editor, interpreting reliable sources in your own way? Seriously, cut the nonsense. You view is not any less POVed then the views of those you disagree with. If you cannot even recognise this basic fact, just what can you accomplish with any form of dispute resolution?--Huaiwei (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah - read the dozens upon dozens of sources above which state very very very clearly that Temasek is the parent of Singapore Airlines. That my boy is not original research, but reading verifiable information from a reliable source exactly as it is written. I don't see any sources from a reliable source called The Huaiwei Times, or an article from a reliable source written by a reporter by the name of Huaiwei. And I doubt we ever will, if even for the very laughable original research edits which you made to this article when I began to press this issue way back when. It is yourself who keeps changing their mind, whereas if one looks, over the last 12 months, my position on what is what has not changed one little bit. So please, don't accuse me of original research when I have done nothing of the like in this regard. --Россавиа Диалог 17:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
lol! Talk about civility at its finest from Russavia. Anyway, are you able to even cite me one of my viewpoints which was not verified? Each time citations were asked for, a source could be provided, and easily too. Your accusations of WP:OR on my part is clearly an opinion of your own, for observe, in particular, your reactions when I cited from an authoritative source on the relationship between Singapore Airlines (the parent airline company) and Singapore Airlines Group. As much as you can supposedly find "dozens upon dozens of sources" supporting your favourite phrase, there are also "dozens upon dozens of sources" using alternative phrases. Your highly selective and engineered research methods, your tendency to downplay the existance of equally reputable sources stating the alternatives, and your attempts to descredit them when they are cited, are typical behaviors of those intent on pushing a POV regardless of fact. And cite me even one instance where I have supposedly "changed anyone's minds", for just who do "they" refer to?--Huaiwei (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You already said above I would have no problem at all with the use of "subsidiary of". Are you withdrawing that? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No I am not withdrawing that, because subsidiary describes the relationship of Singapore Airlines to Temasek, whilst at the same time, it allows for the parent field to be completed as per verifiable information from reliable sources because the relationship of Temasek to a subsidiary is parent company. It's about time that people realise this. --Россавиа Диалог 17:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"It's about time that people realise this" sounds everybit like an attempt to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to push a POV, do you not think? A company who has a subsidiary may be called a "holding company", a "majority shareholder", or a myriad of other names besides "parent company" to that subsidiary. Other users here has all found it perfectly ok to use any other term which basically means the same thing, all of which can similarly meet "verifiable information from reliable sources". On the other hand, you are the only one who vehemently insists that only the phrase "parent company" is acceptable, and this is what is intriguing.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Formal request for mediation (2nd filing)

As the informal mediation in relation to the various issues regarding the Singapore Airlines article was not successful, I have now instigated a request for formal mediation on these issues at MedCom at this link. The previous request for mediation was not succesful as not all parties would participate, however, I am trying again with this request. I have added a number of 'involved parties', however, if you believe you are involved in the disputes raised in the request, please add yourself to the 'involved parties' list and add yourself to the 'Parties' agreement to mediate' section. Perhaps we can now have these issues resolved in a timely manner. --Россавиа Диалог 21:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Russavia's POV-pushing saga continues...

I would just like to put on record, that Russavia has recently created[42] a category called Category:Government-owned airlines, promptly populating it with several entities which of course includes Singapore Airlines[43]. He also adds[44] Singapore Airlines to Category:Government-owned companies in Singapore for good measure, despite that category containing only two entries, each of which are holding companies established and 100% owned by the government. He did not proceed to add to that category the entire range of companies in which the Singapore government has a stake in, all of which, Singapore Airlines included, are commonly referred to as government-linked companies instead.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's valid. China Airlines is indirectly owned by the ROC, just as SQ is indirectly owned by the SQ government, and CI was put in that same category. How is it POV? It's fact. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for stating your viewpoint, although this is placed here as a behavorial record, not a call for content discussion.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not what this talkpage is for. If you have problems with a user's behavior, you put your objections on their talkpage. Stop abusing the functions of Wikipedia. By putting it here on the talkpage, you open it to content dispute. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, I have another verifiable reliable source which states The battle won't likely impact relations between Singapore and China, say analysts. Both Singapore Airlines and Air China are government-owned. The source is here. Of course, many many more sources can be found by searching Google. Due to this source, the category is being added back. --Россавиа Диалог 00:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Singapore Airlines is government-owned. Come to think of it, my friend has shares in Singapore Airlines. Must be a paradox. RomanceOfTravel (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Being "government-owned" doesn't imply that the government owns 100% of it, just a controlling stake. Jpatokal (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Jpatokal, that is indeed correct. I too, believe it or not, hold a parcel of shares in SIA (imagine that!!!), but it still does not change the verifiable fact that the airline is controlled by the government, either by actual or theoretically control, take your pick which, it doesn't change that fact. Another airline I also own a small parcel of shares in is Aeroflot, which also is, low and behold, government-owned via its 51% shareholding via Rosimushchestvo, although in Aeroflot's case, the government doesn't hold a golden share with which it could enforce its own will upon the company (as demonstrated by the s**t storm that erupted within the board over the A350/787 purchases. Many companies around the world, not only airlines, are semi-privatised, meaning that the government still holds a stake, either or minority or controlling stake; most of the Singaporean companies in which Temasek holds a 50+% stake are government-owned and only semi-privatised. --Россавиа Диалог 22:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Gold qualification

This is incorrect, but explaining why gets a little complex:

Once you have achieved Silver status, your qualifying 'elite' miles will reset to zero and a further 50,000 miles in the next 12 month period is required to achieve Gold status, meaning in practice 75,000 miles must be flown before Gold is achieved - for instance 50,000 miles in your initial membership year will achieve Silver status and Silver status requalification only - not Gold status.

Assume your first qualification year started Jan 1st 2008, and you reach 25,000 miles on June 1st 2008. Your second qualification year will now be reset to start from June 1st, so you can reach KF Gold by flying another 50k miles before June 1st 2009... but! your first qualification year is still running, and you will be given Gold if you reach 50,000 miles before its end (Dec 31st). However, the website only shows the 2nd qualifying year, leading to endless confusion... Jpatokal (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC) (who qualified for KF Gold by flying 50k in a single 12-month period)

It's a tad confusing ain't it? Didn't use to be that misleading when they had fixed qualification periods. --Planenut (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Today's edit waring

Do we really need this edit war? There is, for the majority of editors, a consensus on these topics. Why can't we leave it at the consensus position? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course this did not stop and is continuing. Sigh. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Quite frankly, the editors concerned both want their own way without overall consensus. They have demonstrated on occasions looking over the edit history of this article --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 00:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The burden of proof of verifiability has been more than met, and frankly, certain editors have no intention of entering into mediation, etc. So what's the deal exactly? --Россавиа Диалог 01:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
There have been many discussions here, in informal mediation and on the airlines project and there is a well established consensus. However some editors have made a decision to ignore the consensus. If you look you will see that there is consensus to pretty much support one of the editors involved. If you don't think there is a consensus, please clue everyone in on where there is not a clear consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Vegas: Look at Talk:Singapore Girl - this is getting way out of hand WhisperToMe (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like more issues that are not the ones here. I'm not going to jump into that discussion. This one is more then enough for my plate. I suspect that my comment about using the talk page probably would apply over there. Editors need to understand that we need to create consensus when there are issues. And once consensus develops then we all need to accept that fact and respect the consensus. If you still think consensus is wrong live with it and work to see if you can get consensus to change. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This would probably be the last time I'm reverting this. But its pretty clear that one editor is trying to enforce their view on top of others, and both editors concerned have ignored consensus and/or have made little attempts to resolve this over the years.
I'd even go further to suggest that those editors concerned should refrain from editing the article for a while, but it's clear that this wont be the case. It wasnt that long ago that both editors concerned were stretching it per WP:Civil in past discussions. Time for a outside party to step IMO. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 05:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Please show where I have ignored concensus at any stage on this article. If I am guilty of anything, it is of attempting to implement that concensus on one of the worst fanboy articles on WP. --Россавиа Диалог 03:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
And additionally, I have attempted to resolve this issue, and have bent over backwards to jump thru every hoop demanded at Huaiwei's whim. Firstly, the International Herald Tribune isn't a reliable source for information on ownership of SIA, and neither is Forbes, etc, etc; even though articles which state exactly what I inserted into the infobox are actually used in this article as it stands now for references. Secondly, he wanted a company source (which totally goes against WP:V anyway!!!) that states this, so many company sources were provided, but this wasn't good enough, because it goes against his trying to veil the truth that SIA is a government-owned and controlled airline; of course the argument used by said editor was that it doesn't state that Temasek is the parent company of SIA, rather it states SIA is a subsidiary of Temasek. I would challenge said editor that he go over to George W. Bush and challenge the fact that George H. W. Bush is the father of George W. Bush, after all it states that George W. Bush is the son of George H. W. Bush and I guarantee you that right before he is told where to go his argument will be called preposterous, argumentative for arguments sake and totally idiotic. Would I support such comments in that instance? Absolutely I would, just as I think the argument used on this article is. Thirdly, two attempts were made for mediation; the first attempt was unsuccessful due to Huaiwei claiming he was without internet access, although it can be shown by his own contributions that he did have internet access for sometime before the mediation request would have closed, and the second attempt was outright refused by Huaiwei, yet agreed to by all others. So please, don't state that I have made little attempt to resolve issues. Take it all to WP:RFC/U for all I care if need be, but I do agree that outside intervention is required. --Россавиа Диалог 21:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Formal request for mediation filed

As previous attempts at gathering concensus in relation to the various issues regarding the Singapore Airlines series of articles have not been successful, I have now instigated a further request for formal mediation on these issues at MedCom at this link. I have added whom I can see as involved parties; not sure if others can add themselves if they have been involved though? --Россавиа Диалог 00:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I hate coming back to this article time and time again because none of you have the sense to control yourselves. I have indefinitely full-protected the article at whatever state I happened to come upon per The Wrong Version. This soap opera has gone on longer than necessary. —Kurykh 02:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good and about time that something was done. However, the article needs to be reverted to this wrong version, as it also takes into account Huaiwei's unsupported removal of content to Singapore Airlines fleet in yet another show of ownership by himself declaring there is no concensus for a merge. These issues need to be addressed for once and for all, so that this article can finally be cleaned up and irrelevant content removed for which there is concensus. --Россавиа Диалог 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
No, of course not; you know full well that reverting between two disputed versions under full-protection is a blatant violation of policy. Hammer something out, then ask me to come back. —Kurykh 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't aware of any policy it would have been in violation of; so that I know for future reference, can you point out which policy that is? Additionally, you may want to protect Singapore Airlines fleet as part of blocking this article, as that too is now being affected. I'll start the mediation process, yet again (3rd time lucky!) and see what happens, but truth be known, it's all getting a bit old now. --Россавиа Диалог 23:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I filed a request for the SQ fleet page to be protected. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content which clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to make changes unrelated to the dispute, or to make changes for which there is clear consensus. Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute.

— Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes

Since I see no content policies broken in the version that was protected, I decline to further touch this article. —Kurykh 23:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing archive data

I have posted a report of the problem for the bot operator. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the initiative!--Huaiwei (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like there was a special run of the bot and the material wound up in the correct place. So it would appear that the problem has been resolved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes I see that the problem has been resolved for this article at least. I hope it is not an issue across the entire site?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I would hope so. I did not get a reply from the bot operator. However there was the extra run that did the archive correctly and no edits where made to this page. So, my hope is that our problem identified a bug in the code that was fixed and we should be OK going forward. If this problem did affect other pages, it may be very difficult to identify them and cleanup. Let's just hope that this was the only page affected and we will not have problems going forward. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Without going into much detail, it was a configuration problem on this page ("malformed" use of archiving template). Миша13 06:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected change 1 seeking consensus

Remove tail numbers from the article per consensus on WP:AIRLINES and previous discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am in support of this completely!--Golich17 (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Opposed Mcarling (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected change 2 seeking consensus

Remove code shared flight numbers as not encyclopedic and per what Wikipedia is not. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another great resolution!--Golich17 (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image for addition

Yo, I found a sweet image Image:Singapore Airlines Hostess.jpg. Please stick it in the Labour section. Danke, Skomorokh 13:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dont think we need another image as one of three Singapore Girls is already in the article, it could be more suitable for the Singapore Girl article. Suggest ask at Talk:Singapore Girl. MilborneOne (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Oic. Skomorokh 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the beef?

Could someone provide me with a concise explanation of what the dispute is regarding this page? I am absoutely baffled as to what could be so serious a dispute as to have a total protection on a page about an airline. I can't figure it out from the talk page. Unschool (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

→ Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Singapore_Airlines
It's much more about the personalities involved than the actual issues though. What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? Jpatokal (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
"Immovable" sounds pretty flattering, but "irresistible"? The first thing which comes to mind was heavenly chocolate ice cream!--Huaiwei (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Try to keep that thought in mind next time you're about to edit war with Mr. Irresistible... Jpatokal (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Usually when I think of heavenly chocolate ice cream, I will imagine devouring it all immediately without a trace in sight. ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to add references to certain statements that have 'citation needed' tags after them. Is there no date for this page to be unblocked? Is it possible to allow it to be edited to other editors? This is ridiculous. NcSchu(Talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the fall out from the edit wars. Start a new section here and list the citations there using the tl template ({{cite news}} {I think that will work} filling in all of the information. Provide information on where that goes. If there are no objections, it will be added to the article by an admin. The earliest I see the article being unprotected is at the completion of the mediation. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

References that are needed and cannot be added due to childish bantering

Okay!

  • In Singapore Airlines#Modern history, the date should be changed to February 21, from February 22, and the two citation templates can be removed and replaced with this reference: Poljak, Vesna (2006-02-21). "Australia rebuffs bid by Singapore Airlines". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 2008-08-06. Name the reference what you will. Though the reference doesn't have Singapore airlines strictly claiming those things for their argument, they are reasons listed in the article for Singapore Airlines's anger at the block, and if you wish the wording of the second statement can reflect that. NcSchu(Talk) 20:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Though it may not satisfy WP:SOURCE, an airliners.net or similar aviation photograph database search yields multiple images that verify the aircraft nicknames that sources are required for in Singapore Airlines#Fleet. A few of the nicknames can be verified via Singapore Airline's history page.
  • I found information pertaining to the unreferenced statement in Singapore Airlines#Destinations. From [45] (requires subscription): "The largest market segment for SIA is East Asia (Hong Kong/China/Japan), which accounts for 29.3% of passenger traffic, followed by Europe with 20.9%, the Americas 19.8%, Australia and NZ 18.7% and West Asia and Africa 11.3%." It doesn't really address India and China in particular though, so I'd erase this information and put in what the references back up. NcSchu(Talk) 00:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Your childish heading doesn't help matters any NcSchu; you obviously have not been involved and likely do not know what kind of headaches it has caused. I suggest you change it. Now, in a totally non-childish, non-bantering way, Airliners.net, or any enthusiast photo database, is not a reliable source for information as there is no expectation for fact checking (and there isn't!). There are non-airline media sources out there (the article has enough of them already) which can be used to source this information. --Россавиа Диалог 00:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not interested in responses from people involved in the aforementioned dispute as you are clearly at the center of it. This article is blocked from any editing indefinitely, which hurts not only editors like me that are independent of the dispute and wish to correct other things but it hurts readers. This is probably the most irritating thing I've ever encountered on this website. And that's all I'm saying about that. Now, if you can explain to me how photographs are influenced by the enthusiast nature of the website then you have the right to contest its use as a reference in the subject, however your argument pertains to things like forum postings and written information. These photos are merely hosted on the database and it is an unfortunate coincidence that they are. For instance, this photograph proves that the 747-200Bs had nicknames of 'Super-B'. The validity of the photograph and hence the reference is independent of the forum that is not reliable. NcSchu(Talk) 02:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This photo proves that Drukair flies to Hamburg. Airliners.net is not a reliable source, nor are photos on their own. Try sources such as this instead. --Россавиа Диалог 03:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
A photograph showing an airline's aircraft in an particular airport need not be interpreted as the existence of a regular commercial flight having been operated there, given that we do have cases of aircraft on transit, which are diverted, or even enroute to being sold off, etc. But a photograph which shows a livery marking of the aircraft's nickname cannot be similarly dismissed, unless there is solid evidence that the photograph has been tempered with and that people routinely insert aircraft nicknames in all aircraft photographs of that make. As usual, simple common sense takes a backseat when Russavia deals with certain airlines he has grown to love intensely.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate your support of this photographic evidence that is pointlessly being discounted, I would appreciate this section not be used to continue the argument you two are having and instead be used to discuss ways of improving the references which I have provided for the administrator to add. Thank you. My argument for the inclusion of this and other photographs still stands, and there has been no effective discounting of the legitimacy of the photographs as evidence of the aircraft nicknames as written on the fuselage. NcSchu(Talk) 13:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
All it proves is that the aircraft has Super B written on it. Whether that was placed by Boeing or Singapore Airlines one doesn't know, because unfortunately a photo can't explicitly tell one that the airline nicknamed the aircraft "Super B"; that is the assertion being made, so only written sources can be used for that. But listen, do whatever the hell you all want ok. I'm just a fucktard with no common sense. --Россавиа Диалог 17:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Changi Airport Wiki Links

I have noticed that the Singapore Changi Airport Wiki links don't work and need fixing, but the page is protected. //\\ AirbusA346 //\\ (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

All six links to Singapore Changi Airport are working OK - can you be more specific. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh they are working now. They weren't before. //\\ AirbusA346 //\\ (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Flight 006 crash

The section in incidents and accidents implied that the crash happened because of a typhoon with no mention of other factors. The primary cause was that the pilot tried to take off on a closed runway and hit construction equipment parked there. It seems that this is too much detail (reverted by Planenut) so I rewrote it to remove the reference to the typhoon, now it only mentions the pilot error since that was the outcome of the investigation and Singapore airlines accepted responsibility for the crash. I hope that's concise enough for Planenut. 84.9.34.49 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Right or wrong it is only a summary of the related article and that says typhoon! so it was correct before your edit - so it should be changed back!. Perhaps you need to change the lead on the accident article first. MilborneOne (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. The article about SG006 says "attempted to take off from the wrong runway in Taipei during a typhoon". That is pretty much what I tried to add to the main article which previously only said "during heavy rain caused by Typhoon Xangsane". I tried to change this to something like "The accident occurred when the aircraft attempted to take off on the wrong runway and hit construction equipment during heavy rain caused by Typhoon Xangsane". Planenut reverted that saying "No need for additional info", so I rewrote it to only state the primary cause of the incident which was takeoff on the wrong runway. I think it's now a bit too short for such a serious incident, I'd be interested to hear what others think. 84.9.34.49 (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a main article for the facts and figures - Singapore Airlines Flight 006 - it's unnecessary to provide additional info apart form the tiny snippet that has existed in the main article for a long time. Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 00:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

It seems some of the regulars here on the article are quite 'protectionist' about the safety record of Singapore Airlines (brand image-wise) and revert any incident / accident record(s) made by other Wikipedia users. One user, User talk:RomanceOfTravel is telling me through the edit summary that my changes made are not 'notable'. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Notability, you may want to be advised that the A380 Paris engine failure incident is indeed notable because it is the first accident for the aircraft type, one of the criterias. Additionally, I feel that the training aircraft accident, which included the death of two people - a trainee pilot and instructor - is also notable enough to be added into the article. The tailstrike incident at Auckland Airport involving the Boeing 747-400 may be removed as necessary. Toyotaboy95 - Hong Kong ☺ 05:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of you, please stop edit warring.
My two cents: The training aircraft crash does not involve any passengers or even an aircraft type commercially operated by SQ, so it's not really relevant to SQ, any more than the crash of an SQ pilot flying his hobby plane outside working hours would be. The A380 engine failure incident may be mildly notable for the A380 (and is listed there), but turnarounds happen pretty regularly and being "routine, lead to no serious injuries and/or of which passengers are unaware", it hardly qualifies for listing beside terrorist attacks and severe crashes. Jpatokal (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • @Toyotaboy95, please do not assume anything (per WP:Don't assume) when you are dealing with other editors as I have not assume anything about you, protectionist or not being one, it is tantamount to name calling, which I'm sure that you understand is quite rude by any standard. As I've mentioned, per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I was hoping that you could present your point-of-view here so you can first discuss this with the other regular editors in a civil manner but I see that you have taken another potshot at the goodwill of others. If indeed we are perfectionist as you had claimed, SQ 6 would not have made it to the article in the first place, don't you think so? Furthermore, the condescending tone in one of your edit summary is not really nice, knock it off already~! And for the last time, stop your tendentious editing behaviour on this article page. This is not your first time having a go at it despite being told not to add in such non-notable incidents, a simple check of your contribution history says a lot of your failure to assume good faith (especially when you labelled RomanceOfTravel (talk · contribs)'s edit as vandalism, hardly confidence inspiring, wouldn't you agree?) towards other editors, mind you. FWIW, I don't wish to take you to WP:ANI for sanctioning measures but if this WP:Civil POV pushing behavioral pattern of yours would to persist any further, I will. So, consider this your final warning. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, first of all, I do apologise for my tone if you think its innappropriate, and I do admit that. Well, I just assumed that editors that are responsible for the SQ article are trying to keep it as 'clean' as possible by removing most negative traces of news. What made me think this is explained in my original message and backed by another source that I found when looking for news of SQ accidents/incidents, saying that the accident record by one user was deleted after posting. Besides, for the edit involving Dave1185 (372532809), I just said that because you really did not provide any edit summary, although you used rollback feature (designated as 'minor edit') where one of the regulations for using rollback feature "requires an appropriate explanatory edit summary". Jpatokal, about the A380 matter, I still think it is necessary to keep that piece of information because despite being relatively minor, it is the first malfunction of the type. Hope this will clarify my views a bit. Toyotaboy95 - Hong Kong ☺ 08:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes boy, we noted that you have been BOLD but there is no current consensus after WP:BRD to add (or re-add, if I might add) your piece in again, move on please (per WP:Get over it). (N.B.: You just won't give up, huh? Even though you have met your wall here, you still want to run half-way out to meet another wall at an Admin's talk page? Like I said, get over it boy~!) --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 01:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Codeshare agreements

To all the regular editors, I've been wanting to ask this and unless I read it wrongly why are there so many "other airlines" listed on Singapore Airlines#Codeshare agreements that which are not listed on the list from SQ's homepage? (last updated on 22 July 2010) Thoughts, anyone? --Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010, SIA & Singapore Girl

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Singapore Girl. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 06:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Singapore Girl - "copyedit" is for clarity, typo, grammar etc. Let me know which edited sentence you dispute? I see more edits will be needed - like a lot of spurious quotes in the refs.
SIA main article - most of my eidts are copyedits.. see above; plus 2 deletions -
1) stating SIA's HQ at Airline house is surely not needed - especially in the lead, see WP:Lead. Is it notable? which other airline states its HQ building? If you wish and it really troubles you, pls move it to the body
2) SIA no longer owns 49% of Tiger Airline - seems you are not as familiar with its subsidiaries than I do, so please do some research.
It is obvious that much of the article may need closer scrutiny - example of the silly "/Singapore Vaanvazhi)" inserted prominently in the lead and was missed by everyone - I hope you were not protecting that deliberately.
Dave, I see you are a regular editor and I appreciate that you spent time on SIA, but you are starting to lose my respect, especially by ignoring the additions as well - ie "most admired airline". What possible issue do you have with that? (other editors.. do comment, thx) - SleeplessinSg (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Newbie - I read somewhere you should not scare away newbies, so thats not a plus point for you
anyway, I may learn faster with some sparring.
I have read WP:Peacock + WP:NPOV before my adventure here - I fail to see any, so tell me which sentence contains one.
most admired airline - is that the peacock? it has a citation.. does it need 5-10 more to glue it for you?
Singapore Girl - "copyedit" is for clarity, typo, grammar etc. Which edited sentence do you dispute?
SIA main article - most of my eidts are copyedits - which edited sentence you dispute?
1) stating SIA's HQ at Airline house is surely not needed - especially in the lead, see WP:Lead. Is it notable? which other airline states its HQ building? If you wish and it really troubles you, pls move it to the body
2) SIA no longer owns 49% of Tiger Airline - seems you are not as familiar with its subsidiaries than I do, so please do some research.
It is obvious that much of the article may need closer scrutiny - example of the silly "/Singapore Vaanvazhi)" inserted prominently in the lead and was missed by everyone - I hope you were not protecting that deliberately.
HAHAHA this is too funny. It must be my indian friend posting his favourite music next to his fave airline. Now searching onthe word pops up billions of both. I checked the history going back to early this year. We must cane the vandal at changi *AND* to glorify him for fooling everyone for so long !! 218.186.12.248 (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Pls answer each point above, else conclusion will be you're avoiding discusssing altogether - SleeplessinSg (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I am now more motivated than ever to copyedit/revamp this SIA article - I have clicked on dozens of links and many are dead!! Makes me think no one is really interested in its quality, just jumping around fixing things where they can. - SleeplessinSg (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sleepless, I think you are going to be a Jedi soon, rest well. 218.186.12.248 (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Singapre Airlines to Sao Paulo

Singapore Airlines is going to serve Sao Paulo in March 28, 2010 via a stop over in Barcelona. [1] (User talk:Cardozo) 18:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.176.63 (talk)

Your source does not provide a date. Published schedules do not have this flight. On SQ website, GRU is not yet established as a choice in schedule lookup or booking. A new destination cannot be added until a firm date is provided, per WP:AIRPORT and WP:AIRLINE standards. HkCaGu (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
And you're discussing this in the wrong article. HkCaGu (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(?)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed per WP:FORUM & WP:SOAP.

Thanks for the partial correction. "TBA" under the passenger column is bizzare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.81.176 (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In the Singapore Airlines Fleet Table there is a column listing Engines. Was this Engine column added just because SIA predominately operate RR engines. Other airlines such as Air Canada which predominately use GE engines do not have an Engines column in their Fleet Table. Why oh why I ask?....... The pro Rolls Royce propaganda on Wikipedia must stop.

Singapore Airlines have not decided engine choice yet for their 787s, so the TBA and Rolls Royce Trent 1000 should be removed from the bottom of the Singapore Airlines Fleet table. They might choose the GEnx engines for their 787s since the Trent 1000 had a serious uncontained engine failure at the Derby test cell. Boeing have had many problems with engine change-outs with the T1000 including 4 engines with cracked compressor blades.

GEnx engines will be the dominant type on 787s just as the CF6-80 series was to the 767.

So please remove the TBA and the Rolls ROyce Trent 1000 from the bottom of the Singapore Airlines Fleet table.

Boeing 787–9 — 20/20 TBA Rolls Royce Trent 1000

I am now seeing a systemic pro RR trend here in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarsail (talk • contribs) 02:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Indeed, I see a weird trend now. Solarsail, go read back at what you just wrote and tell me if that isn't a pro-Trent agenda brewing. Wikipedia is just a free-to-edit online encyclopedia that anybody with a 'puter and an internet connection can log-in to edit; hence, no articles would exist without the editors/writers contributing, right? And there you go. Anyway, I'm closing this tread per WP:FORUM & WP:SOAP. Toodles~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Singapore Airlines Destinations

Singapore Airlines’ route network reaches out to over 63 destinations in 34 countries. That is from their own site. Please check and confirm facts on wikipedia. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.31.198 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Destinations

Hi,

The map under the Destinations section could do with a little update. Myself i am no good with this kind of thing. I was wondering if anyone else is good with photoshop please?

For example the new route the does via BCN isnt displayed. I think they go to São Paulo?

Thanks

--JetBlast (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Airliner vs Aircraft

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed per no consensus.

Why feel the need to revert my edit? there is nothing wrong with using the term aircraft. You will find in allot of countries including the United Kingdom that the word airliner is hardly ever used. Many people are not familiar with the term.

If you think its not an necessary edit why feel the name to change?

--JetBlast (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Listen, before i start, there is no need to take that attitude at all. I havent spoke to your scarasticaly so why do you feel the need? When you say it was fine until i came along, it still makes sense with the word replaced. The word aircraft is a term used more than the word airliner outside the USA. This is why i feel the need to use it here. Something to look at, the article in question uses the word aircraft 34 times and the word airliner is used twice. --JetBlast (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't play the victim with me here, this edit of yours on my talk page is hardly confidence inspiring when you say that you haven't been sarcastic to me in the first place. Secondly, I reverted you the first time round on the basis of WP:AGF and that is being said and done without any prejudice towards you but what about the explanation you gave in the revert edit summary to me the first time round? Seems to everybody here it is a tit-for-tat thing that you're doing, eh? Lastly, go click and read on Airliner and Aircraft, the reason why the former was chosen for that section is pretty much self-explanatory. Lastly, keep all your discussion here and stay off my talk page, you are not welcome because you have no respect for others when you don't read their notes first before you post there. Adieu~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 23:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
As a sanity check, this is an article about an airline, airliner seems more appropriate. I find the push to substitute the generic term aircraft bizarre. Why? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What a wrote on your talk page i stick by. I put that there to ask why i was being ignored. I had a genuine question, you deleted it and never got back. As for the reason for the edit i didn't intend to cause offence. The reason you give was "Not Necessary edit" so my thinking was if it wasn't necessary surely its not necessary to revert? maybe we just both have different ideas of the definition of necessary? Anyway i wish to apologize i didnt intend to cuase upset. --JetBlast (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fleet Figures?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

Hi,

I am just wondering where the fleet information figures should come from please? I nice that in the UK most pages get them from the UK Aircraft Register. I am just wondering if the same applies to SIA? The register is on this page

Thanks

--JetBlast (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a good reliable source. Go ahead and use it! :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Can somebody update the fleet of SQ? I know that they have 13 A380's (instead of 12) and still 6 orders (instead of 7), but I have no idea about the phase out of B747-400's and the B777-300's. Schalkcity (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ [46]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singapore_Airlines/Archive_2&oldid=1148853664"