Talk:Changi Airport/Archive 2

Names in multiple languages

Currently, Changi Airport's many names in many languages are listed both in the infobox and in the first sentence. Why is this necessary? Can't we just list them once in the infobox, where they don't disrupt the flow of the text?

(Please note that "some other articles do it this way too" is not a valid argument in my book; see also [1].) Jpatokal 04:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as folks in some wikiproject are concerned, however, consistency in presentation does preoccupy alot of their time. To dismiss the fact that other articles may also include an extensive list of names in the introduction (with each language clearly indicated) seems a little disjointed from the community direction here.--Huaiwei 13:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIRPORTS is neither here nor there with this issue, so lets not flog that horse again! The relevant guidelines are WP:LEAD and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Include alternatives. A useful quote from the former:

"If there is a significant number of alternative names or forms it may be helpful to keep only the most common two or three in the first paragraph and a list of them in a separate section or footnote to avoid cluttering the lead; see Freyr for an example of this."

I understand the intent of that policy. But mind tell us which name is "most common" in this context then?--Huaiwei 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, English? Jpatokal 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? So are you suggesting English is the "most common" language used in Singapore?--Huaiwei 15:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This would seem to be pointing out the obvious, but yes?

Please provide any statistical evidence stating that English is the "most common" language used in Singapore.--Huaiwei 15:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I can only presume you think this is funny. You will note that, for example, Languages of Singapore notes that English is "the business and working language" and is "used to teach all academic subjects in primary schools". SingStat [2] notes that 71% of Singaporeans are literate in English (meaning that an even higher percentage can speak it!), as opposed to 65% for Chinese. Happy now? Jpatokal 06:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why you should find humour in a serious topic as this is beyond me. Let me stress, that the "most common" language used in Singapore is not neccesarily correlated with literacy. I may understand English, but that dosent mean I want to use it. Census statistics from the same source clearly shows that "Vernacular languages continue to be the most common languages spoken at home by the three main ethnic groups", and not English. Wikipedia is based on common usage, and not literacy.--Huaiwei 17:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Naturally each ethnic group has its own mother tongue, but what's the one language that binds them all together? English. What language would a Chinese person speak to an Indian? English. If signs or literature are written in only one language in Singapore, what language is used? English. Therefore, English is the most common language in Singapore. I've given my arguments and presented the facts, now it's your turn: if it's not English, then what language is more common? Jpatokal 10:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be greatly amused if National Education worms its way into wikpiedia in this manner! ;) A "binding language" is not neccesarily the most "common language". What you just wrote is only what you assume is correct hypethetically. Do you have statistical data to support your claim, which I have, and which already answers your last question? Meanwhile, may I just point out, that the "binding language" for Singaporeans is not just English. Malay (or more specifically, Baba Malay) happens to be the lingua-franca for Singaporeans for centuries, and remains so for most Singaporeans in their 40s onwards. I am beginning to wonder just how familiar are you with Singapore not to be aware of this basic fact?--Huaiwei 10:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's stick to the facts instead of going into ad hominem, and I'll stay quiet about your spelling and grammar mistakes. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, so the target audience is literate readers, and the stats above are perfectly clear on the point that the language Singaporeans are most likely to be literate in is English. Do you dispute this? If yes, where is your evidence? Jpatokal 04:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I draw my comments from the same facts you tried to use, and which you obviously cannot utilise properly. This is Singapore, and if you want to use Singaporean statistics, you have to apply it in the Singapore context. You basically ripped out information from one section on literacy, and proclaims that language as the most commonly used language. The exact same source counters this assumption with statistical facts. You also fail to notice, that in subsequent statistics, there is higher literacy in Chinese and Malay for their respective ethnic groups by significant amounts, both of which also make up a far larger proportion of Singapore's total population. So I throw the question back at you. Are you ignoring certain sections of that same source in order to fit your agenda?--Huaiwei 11:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That was a yes or no question. "The language Singaporeans are most likely to be literate in is English. Do you dispute this?" Yes or no? Jpatokal 14:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I dispute your understanding of the relationship between literacy and common usage. I am not compelled to answer a question I deem inappriopriate in this regard.--Huaiwei 16:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to make this crystal clear: I'm fine with keeping the other official languages in the infobox, but this is the English Wikipedia for an English-speaking country and there is no point in cluttering the first paragraph with the rest. Tell me which is more important for the average Wikipedia reader: the fact that Changi is "a major aviation hub" (now on the third line in my browser), or that the Mandarin pinyin reading of its hanzi is "Xīnjiāpō Zhāngyí Jīchǎng" (now on the first)? Jpatokal 08:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Relative importance is but a matter of personal tastes. I personally consider the name of an entity the most important element over its quality and characteristics. And here in Singapore, where there are four official languages, it is only proper that all four names should be included as local languages in the introduction. It may add clutter for the unitiated, but is vital in multi-cultural Singapore.--Huaiwei 15:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So should we also list the names of Changi Airport in Icelandic, Telugu and Proto-Quechua? This is an article about an airport, not multi-culturalism, and its audience is not just four million Singaporeans with axes to grind, but eight billion people in the entire world. Again, what is wrong with listing the languages only in the infobox? Jpatokal 06:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Are Icelandic, Telugu and Proto-Quechua official languages in Singapore? I can only presume you think this is funny. That official languages are added to an article related to that political entity is not confined to Singapore-related articles. Would you like to propose removing all non-English titles in all articles across wikipedia, instead of choosing to nitpick on this one? I have already stated why I object to using an infobox compared to inline-texts. You only need to open your eyes and read and type less often.--Huaiwei 17:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The only argument I see from you is that it's "only proper" to keep the names in the lead, which is a non-sequitur. (In my opinion, it's "only proper" to keep them out!). Again, I have nothing against listing the official languages in the infobox, but they are not of primary importance for this English-language article.

Incidentally, would you be in favor of listing the names of Delhi Airport in India's official languages in the first paragraph -- all 22 of them? Or you would find that kind of silly? Jpatokal 10:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

India has 23 official languages, but only Hindi and English are stipulated for official usage by the Central government. In Singapore, however, all four languages enjoy the same privileges in official capacity. While I explained why it is "proper" to add all four official languages, your only reasoning for their removal is nothing more than "removing clutter". NPOV vs presentation. Who prevails? The answer is obvious.--Huaiwei 10:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I agree that it's obvious, and have solicited third opinions from Wikipedia talk:Lead section in the hope that they'll enlighten you too. Jpatokal 04:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

When we have someone who actually thinks Singapore is in China, I suppose that's third opinions for you. Perhaps the path of enlightenment goes the opposite way than what you intend.--Huaiwei 11:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Resetting indentation... I agree that the alternate names should only be in the infobox. English and maybe one other should be in the first paragraph. This is the English language WP, so English should be the first thing listed in every article. In the Chinese WP, Chinese should be listed first, and English can go in the infobox if that's what the editors decide. Having too many languages clutters up the paragraph, and if they're in the infobox, they are still prominent and at the top of the page. A better example than India is South Africa, with 10 or so official languages, all of which actually are "official". Should Johannesburg Int'l have all of them in the first paragraph? DB (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the English name does lead this article, so I do not see it contravening your first assertion, and your comparision with non-English sites. What constitutes "clutter" is but a matter of astetics and personal preferences. You need not compare Singapore's case with extreme examples such as India or South Africa, because Singapore-related articles arent bounded by naming conventions for their respective articles. Could you show any wikipedia-wide convention directly ruling out the possibility of having multiple official language names in the introduction?

After so long, this has been the first time any wikipedian has attempted to argue against the Singaporean practise of displaying all four languages. Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) went through countless reviews and reached FA status, but no one complained about its multi-lingual introduction. Some other airport pages, including Hong Kong International Airport, have an even more unweldy introduction (and Hong Kong, an FA, has almost the entire first paragraph to itself just on various versions of its name alone), yet I dont see either editor here complaining. So care to explain the sudden keen interest in this and other Singapore-related articles?--Huaiwei 16:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I never really thought about it until this discussion came up. Now that I look at it, the Hong Kong one looks crappy too. DB (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And why arent we surprised by that comment? ;) It would be interesting to observe how a tiny number of individuals are going to go round telling others how to present their articles over and beyond the MoS...with "looks crappy" being the main source of contention.--Huaiwei 17:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Daddy mack, the reason I've editing on Wikipedia for three years and counting is to make this a better, more informative and more readable encyclopedia — and I presume this drives you too? I think the current opening sentence with its slew of names violates WP:LEAD, and so far the numbers are four in favor (me, DB, Circeus, Sebastian) and two against (you and wangi). Jpatokal 02:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lord justice, since you are so inclined to WikiLawyering, may I seek your enlightenment on just how the current opening sentence violates WP:LEAD? The closest I could find were the words "clear and accessible style", which is, of coz, purely subjective. The same guideline specifies that the lead "may include variations," which aptly descripes what this article does. If these articles are indeed a violation of WP:LEAD, then care to explain how they could reach FA status, and how this could become a GA? And you can spare your effort finding "concensus" through numbers. Is Wikipedia an experiement in democracy? yes? no?. You go check it up yourself.--Huaiwei 12:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, I really haven't been argumentative here, and the admins are already annoyed with you for picking fights with people. You might want to watch how you phrase your replies. Any time someone points out something that should be changed in a Singapore-related article, you seem to take it as an attack on the entire country. DB (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a distinctive difference between disagreeing over facts/presentation and picking a fight. Would you mind showing evidence for this accusation, and could you please list me the specific admins who were annoyed at this? It appears that I arent the only one who needs to "watch my phrasing", because "picking a fight" certainly does not sound very cordial. If you think I take your actions as being targetted against an entire country, then that is merely your deduction. I do, however, have an issue with individuals who choose not to appreciate the fact that there ARE location-specific articles who attempt to keep to a certain standardised presentation format (as is the case for sg-related and hk-related articles), just as you insist on keeping all aviation-related articles to another format. So in what way do your "standardisation rules" overide that of other "standardisation guidelines"? What utter hypocrisy.--Huaiwei 12:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Skimming your talk page for block notices, I found that Joelito, WinHunter, William M. Connolley, and novacatz all blocked and/or chastised you for fighting or edit-warring. And yes, whenever someone starts pointing out parts of a Singapore-related article that should be changed, you immediately respond very defensively by asking why they are trying to invade Singapore-related articles. It's not all articles about Singapore; it's this one. Furthermore, overarching WP-wide guidelines (such as how to format the lead paragraph) do override specific content guidelines on articles for individual countries. In case you didn't notice, no one has just gone through and removed the text in question. We are trying to say why it should be removed, though. These aren't my guidelines. The paragaph was tagged for fixing by someone else. DB (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lets put things in perspective here. Are each of these admins "annoyed with me for picking fights with people"? Did you solicite their opinions? These admins were trying their best to contain a long-drawn political dispute I have with another specific individual, so in what way does that amount to holding a personal annoyance against me as a person? Seriously, if you are just trying to say you are the one feeling annoyed, just say so. There is no need to implicate others. And of course. In what way is that dispute related to this dispute over here?

You comment that "whenever someone starts pointing out parts of a Singapore-related article that should be changed, you immediately respond very defensively by asking why they are trying to invade Singapore-related articles" followed by "It's not all articles about Singapore; it's this one." Very interesting and amusing. I would certainly love to see you justifying that statement above with all relevant diffs. And yes, I would safely assume "whenever" equates to "every single time". Show it. Oh, and care to comment why this seems to happen only in this article?

You comment, that "overarching WP-wide guidelines (such as how to format the lead paragraph) do override specific content guidelines on articles for individual countries." Is this an assumption, or is this based on relevant guidelines? Show it.

As for the final statements, what makes you feel they are neccesary? Are wikipedians not entitled to comment on a proposal until they have come into effect? Is there a need to remind that this is merely a proposal, as thou others are censored from commenting until it is too late? As for what constitutes "your" guidelines, I dont suppose its an entirely alien concept for you to assume "ownership" of wikipedia's assets? I am still amused by your comments on the order of continents in Airline destinations, for some reason. ;)--Huaiwei 16:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting you bring that article up, since your reply to my comments on the Continental Airlines destinations article got you blocked for a week. DB (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Resetting indentation...

And I tought I brought up Airline destinations, not Continental Airlines destinations. But since we are at it, are you suggesting the said admin blocked me for a week because he was "annoyed with me"?--Huaiwei 07:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd been very careful not to state anything here until there was a greater consensus and the hostilities had ended, but apparently that's not going to happen. I suppose it's time to the throw the proverbial hat into the ring. While I do see the importance of having the name in multiple languages, namely the locally important ones, I have to say that having them in the infobox serves the exact same purpose just as well. The only thing that's different is the name of the language which it is in does not show up in the infobox. However, if you don't understand Pinyin, for example, it does no good to be told that the name is in fact in Pinyin. Almost everybody skips over the names in languages they are unfamiliar with anyway and Singaporeans are no different. If we were to add the name in Spanish, French, German, etc. we'd see them speedily removed. On a side note, I was the one that put it in the To-do list to trim down the lead paragraphs. They are fairly choppy to read and even I could not make out all of what it says in the first reading. As per WP:LEAD:

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.

Do the lead paragraphs in this article meet that? Not that I can see. I'll be soliciting the opinions of other editors who have contributed to this article in order to get their feedback here, and possibly a few admins as well. The only thing I can say is that this sounds like a violation of WP:POINT. thadius856_talk 16:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think we should only have the alt names in the infobox. Thanks/wangi 13:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain your reasoning? Jpatokal 16:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

--- observations by an Admin there is a consensus to remove some of the titles in other languages. As a lot of uses do not have east Asian character support most people see the Chinese and Tamil versions would appear as ???? to most users. As per wikipedia standards wikipedia should not be browser or extension specific it should be readable to every one. And as such I am going to remove the said material. please do not go against wikipedia standards and consensus and re add them Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that Huaiwei may be somewhat confrontational. That's not a good thing. I also note that there are about 3 or 4 editors who have voiced their rather strong opinions about the other languages. I personally don't think the other languages should be in the text if another place could be found to put them. However, it is important to note that most articles tended by SGpedians consistently have the names in the other languages. This issue should not be discussed alone in this article; it should be discussed as a whole. Until the issue can be resolved, and unless the presence of the other names explicitly violates rules, the status quo which has existed for several reviews should remain. --Rifleman 82 17:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no concensus to remove only Asian-script text in this article, and is it not a wikiwide-concensus to do so too. Removing them at this time by claiming "standards and concensus" when they do not exist goes against wikipedian guidelines.--Huaiwei 02:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I came across this article as I noticed the reversion and have some thoughts. What is the airport called on the road signs to the airport ? - Do the various different languages exist on all the roadsigns and on the terminal building. If so, then leave the article as is, but if not, then simply display the name displayed and any English translation as necessary. London Heathrow Airport has potentially dozens of different names around the world, including at least 4 additional different names in Britain & Ireland alone (the Scots, Gaelic, Welsh and Irish). Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 18:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I am not a native Singaporean, can I add that Singapore holds all 4 languages as her official languages, and this itself is a good enough reason to have the name of the airport in its four different languages listed here. On another note, for naming problems, wouldn't it be better for the locals to hold a general concensus on what is best for the page; after all, it is a reflection of Singapore and her image. le petit vagabond 18:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to User:Heligoland: I cannot recall what *exactly* is written at Changi Airport. However, to my knowledge, all government-owned buildings (schools, community centers, ministries, police stations) have their names written outside in all four languages. English is the most prominent, but I must emphasize that all four languages are included. On the streets, only English is used, with certain exceptions such as Chinatown, and more touristy spots where Japanese may occur. --Rifleman 82 19:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sg-related articles are actually working towards a presentation style which mimics that of some government buildings: Four official names proudly displayed at or near the entrance, but the main building name in English for all to see from afar. Thus, wikipedian articles have their article names in English where appriopriate, but show the other official languages in the leading sentence. Wikipedia is not a road signboard, and is not restricted by the amount of metal space, just as it is not paper and is not restricted by a physical page.--Huaiwei 02:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." -William Shakespeare

As I see it, the fact that government buildings in Singapore have multiple languages on them is unimportant. Where I live, in San Jose, California, the demographics show a very broad racial makeup. Many of our restaurants and businesses have names in English, Spanish, and at least 2 Asian languages (Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Cantonese, Tagalog, Mandarin, etc etc!). Even more impressive is that you'll very rarely find a car dealership in the region that deals in less than 15 languages/dialects or doesn't advertise this. Does that mean an article on one of them should include all of the names? No! Perhaps they might be useful in an infobox, but the names in other languages are largely unimportant and are definitely undeserving of being placed in the lead itself as implied in WP:LEAD and complicates matters regarding WP:0.5. While Singapore and the United States may have different official languages, common usage is more important than what is and isn't officially recognized. Open the article I linked above and you'll notice that the proper name of my city is The City of San Jose, though it's rarely spoken or written; the title reflects this and it's only mentioned as a blurb at the end of the lead. thadius856_talk 22:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

But the difference is we are not asking to list 15 languages, nor are we listing every language which appears in roadsigns anywhere in Singapore. We are listing names only in the four official languages. Yes, common usage is important, but that is precisely why the article name itself conforms to this standard. Are there any wikipedian guidelines which specify less common names must be removed from the leading paragraphs?--Huaiwei 02:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

From WP:LEAD:

"The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article."

"A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead."

From WP:PERFECT:

"A perfect Wikipedia article...

..."starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail."

..."is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone."

In WP:1.0, it has been proposed that only the lead section of most articles be included, unless they are of higher importance, which this airport is not in the grand scheme of things. Do you not agree that if this were to happen, the current lead would be a disservice to most readers? thadius856_talk 05:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

All relevant points you sourced from the above two are once again a matter of personal tastes, and does not directly rule out current practises in this article. What you pointed out from WP:LEAD refers to what factual points or argument should be discussed in the leading paragraphs. The various names of a specific entity hardly amount to being a "factual point" or "argument" in my book, even if you consider them as such. WP:PERFECT talks about being informative "without going into excessive detail". What you consider as being "excessive" may be considered "informative" for another reader (and I do notice folks who usually consider it "excessive" are North American individuals who also happen to find no reason to install any language reader for any language outside the Euro-American sphere. WP:BIAS seems relevant here as well). But how is WP:1.0 relevant to this discussion, anyhow?--Huaiwei 07:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the English and Chinese names should be in the lead, with the other official names as a footnote (compare with SIN's offical website which only has those languages available). However I don't really think there's anything wrong with having all the official names in the lead... /wangi 23:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you, Wangi, that Chinese should remain—I'm not sure that was ever contested by anybody. But pinyin, Tamil and Malay are not needed. thadius856_talk 05:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Why should Chinese be included, but not the other two? As Vision says, doing so introduces a grave bias as far as local context is concerned. In fact, I have to point out ethnic Malays did express unhappiness over the sole inclusion of Chinese translations in some sg-related articles early on in the project, and went about adding Malay names. This is only understandable, and the subsequent practise of having all four names included should be sustained.--Huaiwei 07:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, I've no problem with keeping all four (hang me now, "WP:AIRPORTS" and on the same "side" as Huaiwei! ;). However the airport's website itself only has options for English and Chinese - do they devalue the other official languages of Singapore? BTW, what's shown in the airport on signs, all four/five languages? Thanks/wangi 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep all 4. It only takes 150 Bytes, no big deal. All four are official names, and removing any one (or two) constitutes systemic bias. Bear in mind that these are useful information, especially to non-native-english and multilingual readers. I personally find the inclusion of Chinese name very helpful. And since it has an official chinese name, it should be presented upfront, following the english name; same for Malay and Tamil. It may not be useful to all of you, but please be considerate to other readers and fellow contributors. Again, it only takes 150 bytes; after all, we presented the entire La Marseillaise in French without any complaints. --Vsion 06:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

While this page only has 4 languages and may or may not look cluttered (personally, I think it does), there are other countries with even more - such as South Africa, which I mentioned - so the question is where to draw the line. I don't think the people here support listing all 10 of South Africa's official languages on all the articles, so how many is too many? DB (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless you (or anybody) wishes to go on a crusade to purge wikipedia of undesirable alternate language names, and unless there are wikipedia-wide rules which specifically prohibit these names, I think that the presence/absence/line drawn should be dictated by a consensus of the people in those wikiprojects tending to the articles. Uniformity and consistency is definitely a good thing but these policy issues really shouldn't be discussed in this page: Talk:Singapore Changi Airport, with this limited number of respondents. Side note: I think the pinyin should go because pinyin isn't one of the 4 languages in Singapore. Merely a representation. --Rifleman 82 20:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Not particularly. I was also under the impression that WP:LEAD dictated that multiple languages shouldn't be listed. It looks like there's a proposal for that on the talk page, but until that's officially added to the Manual of Style, I guess it makes sense to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. I agree that Pinyin should be dropped though. Maybe a compromise here? DB (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I was also under the impression that WP:LEAD dictated that multiple languages shouldn't be listed. I challenge you to quote the specific guideline which specifically rules against the inclusion of multiple languages as alternative names in the lead sentence/paragraphs.--Huaiwei 23:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"I think that the presence/absence/line drawn should be dictated by a consensus of the people in those wikiprojects tending to the articles."

The only objections here to removing the names, so far as I can tell, are not members of WP:AIRPORTS. Huaiwei has openly and publicly stated that he has no desire to ever join the project, on the project's talk page no less. Have you conceeded mistakenly, or are we finally coming to somewhat of a close? By the way, the proposal was never to rid the article of the alternate names anyway, but simply to have them in the infobox only, at least as far as I see. thadius856_talk 22:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither. While WP:AIRPORTS tends this page, so does SGpedians, and the Architecture group as well, from the banner. I don't know why the SGpedians haven't placed their banner here, but the presence/absence of a banner is not definitive. What I can note is that looking at the article's revisions, prominent members of SGpedians such as User:Mailer Diablo, User:Sengkang, User:Terence Ong, and User:Vsion have made contributions. Think about it this way. It would be rather upsetting if people belonging to the Singapore group not to have a say in how the article of a Singapore airport works. --Rifleman 82 22:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently we had a misunderstanding on that one. I was trying to communicate how I find it ironic that you say it should be handled by the WikiProject with jurisdiction, yet then move it yourself to SGpedians instead, which is not a WikiProject. I wasn't saying that SGpedians should have no say in this. Are we clear(er) now, Rifleman? thadius856_talk 23:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am clear now, that you find it ironic because SGpedians is not a wikiproject, while Airports is. That's my mistake for not knowing the difference. (I still don't know the difference beyond the semantics.) That said, my whole point was that the inclusion/deletion/modification of the names in other language in the lead paragraph should be synchronized with all the other Singapore articles, hence this is not the right place for discussion. --Rifleman 82 23:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, it should be at the center of a discussion for a policy on this across all of en.wiki. But since we know that probably won't happen any time soon, I agree that SGpedians is probably the best place for the time being.

I've raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board; if you or any other interested party is interested in a productive discussion, do drop by there. --Rifleman 82 22:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As per my post over in Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board: I find it nonsensical that jurisdiction over articles is now being fought over based on nothing but project banners. I remember there was a time disagreements were so heated over the content of the article that the Singapore Changi page was even removed from the Airport project. Would you like us to go down this path once again? We very well might if this kind of provincial thinking persists. Wikipedia is a SHARED project. Try arguing against that.--Huaiwei 23:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see how a trivial matter has turned into a hairsplitting issue. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Huaiwei has openly and publicly stated that he has no desire to ever join the project, on the project's talk page no less. Could you find the relevant quotes stating that I wont ever join that project? I hope you arent making such definitive decisions on my behalf, but without my consent.--Huaiwei 23:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How am I making any "decisions" on your behalf, Huaiwei? You posted it yourself, reading: "On the other hand, I do not feel welcome here, and chose not to be part of this project despite my long extensive study and keen interest in aviation-related topics." in this [3] edit.

This is my take on the issue: WP:AIRPORTS deals only with the structure of airport articles, and hence the article should reflect that. But the language and text of the article, including the inclusion or noninclusion of the multiple names, is the decision of the SGpedians, and the article should reflect that. My real opinion is that there would be middle ground on this issue (I see no American airports running into issues with WP:USA), but if we have to split jurisdiction (and I do NOT want to see this happen), here is my proposal. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any arguments that WP:AIRPORTS should have jurisdiction here, so I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. DB (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is extremely divisive, I admit that. I don't want to go down that road. It is only a proposal of last resort, when this dispute becomes so heated it becomes an ultimate joke. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the word "jurisdiction" has some sort of WikiConnotation I'm unfamiliar with? Let me try to explain what I was intending to mean. For example, William III of England would fall under WP:BIO, WP:UK and WP:MILHIST. Is there something I haven't been told here? :\ thadius856_talk 00:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope WP:AIRPORTS is not forming the dogma that it can dictate the editorial decision of other contributors. The aim of Wikiproject is to establish guidelines, not rules and regulations. --Vsion 02:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You're entirely correct, Vsion. However, just because some of us who have chipped into the discussion are participants in the project does not mean that we are speaking in an official capacity or that our opinions reflect concensus on the part of the project. I know I'm not speaking for anybody else. thadius856_talk 05:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A mediation cabal case has been opened, could involved parties please state their stand regarding the dispute, and why you think the names should stay/go? Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport#Discussion, please. Thanks. – Chacor 02:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

I requested a peer review yesterday and was glad to see that an automated bot trolled the article and gave some general comments on the subject. I not only proofread and copyedited the article through the Ground Handling section (too long for one sitting), I also corrected its suggestions throughout the entire article.

Criteria of the automated review I have addressed include:

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently and previous [day/week/month/year] might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]

If anybody else would like to pitch in, there are more issues to be addressed. Please see Wikipedia peer review or the WikiProject Airports Peer review department for more information. thadius856_talk 06:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Air Traffic for 3 runway configuration?

for 2 runway planes for each runway can turn in opposition direction to from a ciruit. how would it work for 3 runway, does the center runway fly straight until it is clear of the traffic on both sides? ;P Akinkhoo 14:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the center runway (02C/20C in this case) is only for straight-in approaches. You can't run traffic patterns on a center runway unless one of the others is closed. thadius856_talk 18:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review

Reasons I passed this article:

• The article contains a lot of high quality information, which is written in a simple enough form.
• The article covers a large scope of information.
• The article is well referenced and sources are used throughout.
• There are numerous images and photographs which compliment the article well.
• The quality of the article more than justifies its length and size.

The article can be improved further by finishing off the 'To-do' list at the top of this page - it covers several minor things. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 22:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Names in multiple languages (Reprise)

OK, as per this mediation cabal _{(There is no Cabal)} case, can someone please leave only the English name of the airport in the lead, moving the other names into the infobox? (I'm assuming that the case is closed as no one has posted there for a while, and several people have agreed to this idea. Of course, if you wish to dispute this, just leave a message below this one saying that you wish to dispute, and then actually dispute it in the Mediation Cabal case page). I'd do it myself but I don't want to start another edit war... Thanks. The Duke of Singapore Changi Airport 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the dicussion there has been pretty one sided. I, of course, object to the above initiative as per reasons already detailed above.--Huaiwei 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You were notified of the MedCab case on your talk page, as you were listed as one of the parties involved. Given that you declined to comment for the length of the case, which was left open for well over 4 weeks, should it not be seen that you abstained from participating? thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 02:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

For your information, the notice was dropped in my talk page on 1 December 2006 [4], which by my calculations hardly amount to a month (why it takes 13 days before a notice appears in my talk page...I have no idea).--Huaiwei 12:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the day the case opened, I suppose, though it was created about 4 weeks ago. We all received the notice on the same day, within minutes of each other. Regardless of my math error, all parties were notified and the case was left open until no comment had been left for a substantial amount of time. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 06:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you for at least admitting that mathematical error. I am very disturbed when I am being portrayed as having happily ignored a MedCab for an entire month when the duration was merely half of that.--Huaiwei 17:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Huaiwei: please post at the case page; comments left here will not be taken into account by the Mediation Cabal as an article's talk page is not a part of the Mediation Cabal jurisdiction. Thanks.

The Duke of Singapore Changi Airport 12:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, the article has been changed in accordance with the Cabal case, and no one has officially argued against the ruling... therefore the case is closed. The Duke of Singapore Changi Airport 10:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the move. I was personally opposed to the way the MedCab process was conducted, hence my decision to abstain from it. And is it the business of the Mediation Cabal to effect a change when it is obvious that the involved parties are not representative, and that no "compromise" has actually been put into effect?--Huaiwei 12:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not the fault of the MedCab if you abstained from the case. Since you did indeed do so, you don't have the right to tell us that we're wrong/ You had a chance to express your thoughts, and you didn't. – Chacor 12:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate on my rights, for as far as I can tell, no one has ever told me just what my rights are pretaining to the MedCab. Please also show me the relevant guidelines or legislature which governs these rights.--Huaiwei 13:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at your own talk page: [5]. Or if that's too much work, click on WP:MEDCAB, which is the first link in the message above.

Incidentally, Huaiwei, a genuine question: what would it take to make you change your mind? What parties are in your opinion "representative" and what forum would be the correct place to address this dispute? Jpatokal 06:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Did anyone inform me about the medcab? I had no idea the discussion have migrated to another page. I had stated my opinion earlier; use of alternative official names in other languages is common across wikipedia, if the main contributors of this article wish to keep them, so be it. Why introduce and impose such a trivial "rule"? That would violate Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. --Vsion 06:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWN is more important than WP:IAR, no-one owns the article. The "main contributors" don't get to decide if they stay or go, consensus does, and since the "main contributors" did not voice their opinion when asked for it, consensus amongst those who did voice an opinion has already decided the outcome. As for whether you were informed, you were not listed as a party to the MedCab case, please take that up with the user who filed it. – Chacor 09:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I expressed my opinion against removing the alternative names before the Medcab was filed, as did several other users. There is obviously no consensus on this, contrary to what you suggest. --Vsion 14:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus was reached at the MedCab case. The fact that you - and others - chose not to participate in it (I also left a message about it on this talk page, so if you had wanted to join you would have). That is not the fault of the MedCab, it's your own. – Chacor 14:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Still, there is no consensus, don't you think? ;) --Vsion 14:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In otherwords, Chacor is suggesting it is perfectly alright for one faction to initiate a MedCab, list a majority of members who are sympathetic to their opinions as "involved parties", hope the "rivals" members fail to notice the existance of the MedCab, then happily declare its results binding without a chance for the other party to make a whimper of protest. If this is the true intent of the MedCab process, then I must say it plays a really bad job to build concensus in a "relaxed, informal" manner. I am pretty sure my sense of "hostility" (maybe too strong a word, but you get my point) just rose one more notch as a result of this little "mediation" exercise of sorts.--Huaiwei 17:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Do NOT put words in my mouth. I won't hesitate to take you to task. Furthermore, the same message was posted right here on this very talk page notifying everyone about the case. – Chacor 17:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

By insisting a "concensus" has been reached when there are obvious flaws in the Medcab process as I pointed out above, and basically refusing to acknowledge opposition to that process, you are indeed seemingly vindicating the flaws I mention above. I said you were suggesting something; I didnt claim you said anything. By the above, I suppose I should take it as a personal threat against me?--Huaiwei 17:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Refusing to participate in a medium of dispute resolution, then complaining about the results of said mediation, is a flaw in itself. Don't expect to boycott something and then start going off about its results. If you want a peaceful resolution, then participate in the means of resolution provided, not insist on flaws, keep silent, and then bitch about the aftereffects. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I seriously don't care which way the resolution goes, as long as it ends peacefully. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

</indent> First off, allow me to apologize for Vsion not receiving a notice. However, it was posted here the entire time. I had tried listed every person who had commented above, regardless of their opinion on the matter, but apparently I missed Vsion. If you look at the parties involved in the case, you'll find that I think he's the only person not listed thats said anything here.

It was a true attempt to try and reach an agreement between all parties with a neutral third-party mediator (two in this case). But since mediation is by nature voluntary, all it takes to throw a wrench into the gears is for involved parties to not participate. Abstaining from discussion in such a situation could indicate that a party no longer has a strong opinion on the matter, would you not agree? In order words, if you didn't voice your opinion in the case, how were we to know you still had one either way? thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. please don't apologize, it's not your fault, next time I will be verbose to get myself notice (just kidding). As a compromise, I would suggest remove the pinyin, and keep the four official names. I would rather remove the alternative names in the infobox; the reasons are:

1. the lead sentence also lists the languages but the infobox currently does not.
2. Listing the alternative names in the lead sentence is still the most common practice across wikipedia.
3. The text in the lead sentence is also more portable and easiler to parse automatically, without the table format markup.

The article Switzerland also has four alternative names, since the objections are against having four or more alternative names, these objections should apply to Switzerland as well. I strongly urge, as a matter of good faith, to bring Switzerland into the discussion as well, so as to avoid inherent systemic bias against Asian Langauges. --Vsion 23:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Since Singapore has four official languages, why not use those? (Beautful country, by the way. I fell in love with it and hope to visit again). Durova^Charge! 23:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is the locus of the current (or now happily forgotten?) dispute. Some believe that the inclusion of the names in the four languages cluttered the lead paragraph. I myself hold no opinion, and I have nothing against this particular proposal, but urge a consensual and peaceful resolution. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The four languages are and will stay in the article: the question is whether they should be in the infobox or the lead. Jpatokal 10:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. I ended up getting pretty burned out when I took it to RfA and it was majorly shadowed by the Husnock case. I somewhat gave up trying at that point, and it seems the discussion has gone pretty much dead since. If anybody wanted to file a RfC and post it at the Village pump, that'd most likely get the ball rolling again constructively. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 22:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am horrified to look at your LEAD again. What an unreadable mess. I thought it had all been reasonably resolved by the RfC, and now I come and see THIS dog's breakfast. Please do something about it. You have a beautiful infobox. Use the infobox. It is not like the names in other languages and scripts will not exist. They will be right there, beautifully displayed. And this is ENGLISH Wikipedia. We do not need to turn every article into an unreadable mess. We are here to learn something. Not to have to fight through the text to extract some information. Please do something about this!!!--Filll 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What looks like an unreadable mess to you may look beautiful to others. I fail to see any new, valid points raised by your comment pertaining to this issue.--Huaiwei 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we must perennially fight over such a trivial issue, with the same results each time (namely, four languages in the lead and bad feelings spread amongst the editors)? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I will not attempt to do anything about it. I just will shake my head in amazement at what looks like a very bad choice for an English encyclopedia. --Filll 01:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Tiger flies to Manila, not "Angeles City"

From a comment on the main page: Tiger Airways doesn't fly to Manila, they only fly to Angeles City. Clark and Angeles City is the same, but Diosdado Macapagal International Aiport is located in Angeles City. Therefore, we should state Angeles City as the destination. We should not state Manila or Clark as the destination. Thank you for understanding.

That's ridiculous tosh: lots of airports are located in neighboring cities. Should we list that Finnair flies to Vantaa, JAL/ANA to Chiba and that Air Asia X will be flying to Uttlesford? No, they fly to Helsinki-Vantaa, Tokyo-Narita and London-Stansted respectively. Jpatokal 10:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It was noted that the above comment was most probably inputted by a local Filipino bent on "administrative correctness" across wikipedia when it comes to this, and has made similar amendments across the site. While I do find this a little overdone as well, I do note that some sources also emphasizes this distinction between the two cities, particularly local airlines flying to both airports. We may have to evaluate this one a case by case basis.--Huaiwei 11:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainly, airlines fly to the city that is serving not to that exact location (like Narita is stated as Tokyo-Narita despite being very far away from Tokyo). I think this should not be the case as this make things complicated for some readers who don't know that Narita is in Chiba and BKK is in Samut Prakan so the destination will be called "Samut Prakan" that is dumb imo. Its just ridiculous to have the destinations named according to the administrative areas rather than the place is primarily serving. I think they put Clark as Manila-Clark. Forgotten already, will check if I visit again. Terence Ong 11:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Manila airports. -chris^_^ 23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Result of Mediation on name in multiple languages

Here is the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport

Case outcome As per User:Hunterd's suggestion:

• "I think option three is fair, as this is the English Wikipedia, not the Chinese, Malay, etc. etc. version of WP. Keep the alternatives in the infobox. Another reason for this is that, as was stated by someone else, the alternate language versions are merely translated versions of the English name, and therefore do not provide any extra information to the non-traveling reader. However, for the reader who is traveling, then the translations are in the infobox. The Duke of Mediation Cabal/Cases 10:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Case closed by The Duke of Mediation Cabal/Cases 10:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not re-add the Airport's name in multiple languages in the Lead paragraph. Blueboar 01:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Kindly read Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, and tell us if the Cabal can unilaterally impose an "outcome" without inputs from all relevant parties, in particular the primary opponents to this move?--Huaiwei 01:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're the only "primary opponent", and your input was requested, repeatedly. You refused to give it and only started whinging (and reverting) after the mediation process was over. Jpatokal 04:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Entirely false.

Your input was requested, true or false? Repeatedly, true or false? You refused to give any input on the mediation page, true or false? You did not object to the mediation process while it was going on, true or false? Jpatokal 12:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

lol. My comment was in response to your first sentence. Duh.--Huaiwei 12:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it wasn't entirely false, now was it? "Duh." Jpatokal 03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How so? ;)--Huaiwei 14:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed certain members are consistently being kept out of discussions, in particular User:Vsion. This has been the primary reason why I dispute the conduct of the "mediation" process, while you pretend all is well, and attempt to counter-accuse me of "whinging". Could you explain your failure to allow a fair representation in the mediation process? Could you explain your "involved members" selection criteria?--Huaiwei 11:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

'Tain't mine, thadius856 and Hunterd ran the process. thadius856 already duly apologized to Vsion for not notifying her directly, and she accepted the apology.

But I'll repeat my earlier, genuine, unanswered question: what would it take to make you, Huaiwei, change your mind? What parties are in your opinion "representative" and what forum would be the correct place to address this dispute? Jpatokal 12:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So we are to assume that an "accepted apology" for a obvious "oversight" means the mediation outcome is acceptable to him as well? If you are clearly aware of this oversight, why do you refuse to acknowledge this, and instead, attempt to single me out as the "primary opponent"?

As for that odd question of yours, if I were to put it back to you, what would make you change your mind? I find your question extremely insulting, in that you are suggesting I am opposing your views for the sake of it. If this is where you are coming from, then you can forget about "dispute resolution".--Huaiwei 12:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're still not answering me, but I'll humor you: if the Mediation Cabal exercise had concluded that the majority supports keeping the names in the lede, then I would have shut up and moved on. You obviously have not done the same. So for the third time: What parties are in your opinion "representative" and what forum would be the correct place to address this dispute? Jpatokal 03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I do not need to answer that question, and I have already explained why. But of course, you just wont acknowledge that, because you arent getting the "answer" you are trying to squeeze out of me. I need not utilise mediation vehicles such as the Mediation Cabal just to prove a point. And the fact that you arent even telling us just why this article should be bounded by the "recommendations" of the Mediation Cabal just tells me that a restoration is in order very soon.--Huaiwei 14:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure Haiwei, you are free to dispute the mechanisms for dispute resolution here on Wikipedia, and the mechanisms for determining concensus. You are free to go against them, but there are of course consequences for this kind of action. If you go out of your way to create acrimony and dissension on WP in the face of community consensus, the community has many options for dealing with this. For example, you might get banned from editing this article, either temporarily or permanently. You might get banned from WP, either temporarily or permanently. You might get your whole range of IP addresses a nice IP block, either temporarily or permanently. If you create sock puppets to try to circumvent the ban, your sock puppets can be hunted and banned and blocked. So there are many options should you choose to continue down this road. However, you are free to choose them. I would think that an editor interested in consensus and accommodation would rather choose the more productive options, instead of forcing the community's hand. --Filll 14:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You are completely off-tangent. Could you quote me any of my comments which indicates I am actually disputing the dispute resolution's mechanisms?--Huaiwei 15:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>Huaiwei, obviously in a fit of pique, you decided to boycott the Mediation. Now you are not happy with the results. And threatening to aggressively act in direct opposition to the results of the Mediation. Direct contravention. So, this behavior would show complete disregard for the community and its mechanisms. Clear enough?--Filll 15:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is an assumption, not a fact. I elected to ignore the mediation page, and I elected to also ignore its recommendations, for reasons I have already stated. I have indicated why the so-called "community concensus" is not representative, and I have indicated that the "dispute mechanism's" result is non-binding. It does seem to me that I arent the one who needs a reality check, while someone else here needs to go back and read up more instead on the "mechanisms" he intend to abuse.--Huaiwei 12:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>From my viewpoint as an outsider, what might change my mind is something like:

• A government entity in Singapore bought WikiMedia and changed the rules of English Wikipedia that it had to feature the official languages of Singapore in all articles on English Wikipedia, and every other Wikipedia in every other language.
• If the laws were changed in the US to require that all articles on the internet that originate in the US have to feature the official native languages and foreign scripts in articles about foreign countries
• If Singapore defeated the USA in a war, and imposed its laws on the USA.
• If the WikiMedia foundation made it a policy to try to discourage the use of WP by creating very impenetrable leads to all WP articles.

I am sure if you are imaginative, you can think of other scenarios under which your suggestion might make sense. However, baring those, I am afraid most people do not seem to agree with you. Is there a Singapore Wiki? If there is, you are free to argue your POV there.--Filll 15:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignorance can be embarrassing, there are alternative names all over wikipedia: see Switzerland, Delhi, the Sheremetyevo International Airport in Moscow, and the airports articles listed under List of airports in the People's Republic of China. Are you going to recommend all these countries to declare war against USA? --Vsion 17:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I find this commentary shocking. I suppose you are suggesting that this site is owned by the United States government, that this site is manipulated by American law, and that America occupies Singapore and is imposing its laws there, since we are currently not in any of those scenarios you suggested?--Huaiwei 14:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Shocking? I was asked under what potential scenarios I would support having a completely unreadable lead sentence. I gave you some. I did not claim that this site is owned by the US government, although it is under the jurisdiction of US law. Definitely. All internet sites hosted from the US are subject to US law. Or did you not know that? My my. For example, you know we have a war on terror going on. Do you think that the US government does not use its powers to fight terrorists using US internet sites? I never claimed that the US occupies Singapore. That makes no sense. I do not understand where you are going. I am showing under which scenarios I would agree with you. And as you so correctly point out, we are not under those scenarios. Therefore, I do not agree with you.--Filll 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Those questions arent directed at you, so I am kinda wondering from where you got that idea. Now of course part of this site is hosted in the US, and is subject to certain jurisdictions (while i suppose you are suggesting Dutch and Korean law somehow dosent apply?). But since you feel it fit to mention it, are you suggesting Wikipolicies are regulated by US law regulations? How does that happen? Merely by the fact that Wikipedia is partly hosted in the US, or because the US government owns this site? Gosh. So by the fact that we have to remove all non-English words in the lead of every article across the English wikipedia, I recon we are now acting fully within the law as far as American legislators are concerned? Im blown over by this revelation!

Meanwhile, what you consider as "unreadable" can be very much readable to someone else.--Huaiwei 15:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely that ignorance is embarassing. I think that the leads of any of those articles that is cluttered and also have a nice infobox available, should declutter their leads and make use of the infobox to feature the alternate names, pronunciations, scripts, languages etc all very prominently. So I would change Switzerland, Delhi, and the top 4 or 5 articles I looked at at List of airports in the People's Republic of China. I did not see a problem at Sheremetyevo International Airport but I have to look again. I brought this up in the WP:LEAD and Policy discussions at the Village Pump and it was agreed that this approach was the best for readability while displaying the alternate information very prominent at the top of the article. It strikes me as a reasonable compromise and very informative. Suppose we follow the logic to its illogical conclusion: For this article we could have:

• 2 different names
• each in 4 different languages
• each having a pronunciation guide
• each having an audio link
• each in a different script
• the 3 nonenglish scripts being transliterated (possibly in more than one way)
• abbreviations in each language
• IATA and ICAO codes
• dates

All shoved into the first sentence, in a bit unreadable list of maybe 8+8+8+6+4+4+2+1=41 or more separate bits of information, all strung together in a meaningless mass. On the other hand, we could typset them all, offset, beautifully listed in a nice list, in an infobox; accessible, prominent, attractive and useful to the reader. And leave the text readable in English (or mostly in English). Sure is not a difficult decision to make.--Filll 17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is all agreed and applied consistently across wikipedia, I don't see any reason why this article should not follow suit. There is no need to spend time arguing this specific case, please provide the link to where this issue have been discussed and the solution "agreed" upon. --Vsion 17:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this should be a policy applied across WP. I think that the discussion on the Village Pump might have been erased but I will keep looking for it. I also think that the word "agree" is not correct; there is no policy agreement across WP at this point. It is more of a case by case basis, which I agree is ridiculous. Here is some very limited discussion at the WP:LEAD talk page:[6] and at WP:MOSBIO: [7]--Filll and here is some from the archived Village pump discussion (there is a lot more but it is hard to get at):[8] --Filll 18:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been a week, and I am still awaiting an appriopriate response from Jpatokal to my enquiries above, particularly those pertaining to the conduct of the Mediation Cabal, and the enforcement of the Mediation Cabal's recommendations. If there are no further inputs, I take it that the disputed text may be restored at will.--Huaiwei 12:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, you're barking up the wrong tree: as I already said earlier, I'm not a member of the Mediation Cabal, so I can't speak on their behalf. And on a personal level, as you keep refusing my (IMHO) rather reasonable request to tell me what you would consider an appropriate, representative forum to settle this dispute, it seems a little odd to demand "an appropriate response" from me. Jpatokal 13:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am posing these questions to you, because I would think it reasonable that those who constitutes "community concensus" are like-minded in this regard. I do not see you dismissing the Cabal's outcome and I do not see you disputing the enforcement of the Cabal's recommendation here despite obvious opposition. Or was I wrong in this?

Second, I believe I have stated repeatedly on why I do not deem it appriopriate to respond to your "request". My views on a proper conduct of the Cabal and any other mediation process has already been pointed out repeatedly. Your question will not invoke an answer too different from the above.--Huaiwei 14:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the Cabal's conclusion based on the factual grounds laid out in the resolution. Your current stance boils down to saying that the previous process was unacceptable, but refusing to say what you think is acceptable. There is thus no way to resolve the issue in such a way that all parties will accept it. Jpatokal 02:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You sound very sure that I have not indicated the reasons for my objections. I arent sure what is the cause of it, but what if I could find the relevant quotes?--Huaiwei 12:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So Huaiwei, do you really think that going against the community's wishes is a good course of action? And will have positive results for you and the article and everyone else?--Filll 13:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell us just who constitutes this "community" you speak of, and just how representative are they in this regard?--Huaiwei 14:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You know very well who is the "community". I am highly recommending that you do not persist in carrying out your threats. Who needs the trouble and potential rancor that will result? And there are consequences for needlessly and unproductively stirring up trouble and refusing to abide by the standards of WP. Please please do not push it in this direction.--Filll 15:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes I know full well. The so-called "community" was a select number of individuals in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport. Do they alone dictate the direction that the entire wikipedia community should take with regards to such a visible aspect of this website? If there was indeed "community concensus" in this regard, could you care explain why numerous articles have come to reach Featured article status, while containing the very bunch of codes you consider offensive? May I just point out that the "direction" this conversation takes isnt determined by one player alone. Your persistent use of strong words, including "threats", "stirring up trouble", etc, do contribute a part in blowing this issue way beyond proportion. Your attempts to silence me via threats to barnish me from this site certainly arent that cordial either.--Huaiwei 15:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to be cordial. I am pleading with you to not escalate this situation. And if other articles have reached FA status with a huge clump of information clogging up the first line, then I disagree with that judgement. However, I would be glad to look at any such examples of articles with FA status that have a similar situation to this article. The local community tried to engage you, apparently, and you rejected it. Now you are unhappy with the result and making very bold statements about how you do not recognize the authority of the community and want to go against what was decided. I am begging you NOT to continue down this avenue. You can be tough all you want, but then actions might be taken in response. And this is not a path anyone should want to follow. It will just end up with a very ugly unpleasant mess, and I am sure no one here wants that.--Filll 20:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is good to hear. So here we have someone who thinks it appriopriate to handle another aggresively, and yet expect him to kowtow to his demands? Just what gives you this right to handle another wikipedian in this manner? Sure, we all know you disagree with that offensive bunch of codes, but I am sure you know I disagree with you. Does this give you any legitimacy to issue treats and intimidate another to accept your views?

The statements that the "local community tried to engage me" is complete bull, and you jolly well know it. Read the conversation above. Here you are having obviously two major opposing views, and several falling in between, and I am pretty sure I was not alone in having my particular viewpoint. So just what "local community" do you refer to, and is the engagements of my views alone supposed to be sufficient for a fair discussion? By your bold statements above, you dismiss all opposing views except mine, and attempt to single me out as the sole stubbling block in an attempt to portray supposed "community concensus" against my views. That was a very jovial and wildly successful attempt in "preventing an escalation of the situation" indeed.

As for examples, it isnt very hard to find amongst the articles in Wikipedia:Featured articles. Do abit of homework, and prod the ground for yourself, before assuming you have the entire community behind your back.--Huaiwei 12:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?

As a neutral party who pretty much doesn't give a crap about which way the names go, has anyone cared about following dispute resolution, namely, file a request for mediation, since the MedCab resolution has been rejected (though by a few, but nevertheless rejected)? Frankly, I find this fracas utterly ridiculous, but if things have come to this point, I suggest a dose of outside help and some reality. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If there is no resolution to this here on the local level. I would support bringing in outside assistance. However, what has happened in the past apparently has been that some members seem to reject the validity of these venues. However, I would caution everyone that rejecting the mechanisms built into WP cannot be done with impunity forever; there eventually are consequences to recalcitrance and willfull obstruction of community will and community principles.--Filll 20:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remember: Mediation does not produce a binding result; it is a voluntary process by which parties attempt to craft a solution that is agreeable to all parties. Any resolution reached through mediation is only binding as long as the parties continue to abide by it of their own free will. (WP:RFM)

So Huaiwei, would you accept the judgement of a request for mediation? If yes, can you please list the "Involved parties" required by the template that you think should be notified? Jpatokal 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to someone has finally seen the light and realise what I have been getting at. "Recalcitrance and willfull obstruction of community will and community principles" indeed, when the very mechanism clearly permits it.

Jpatokal, I am amicable to any step towards dispute resolution, so long that it is done in a fair, representative manner. Key stakeholders from all viewpoints should and must be represented. And in this regard, I must caution that this issue should not be seen as one relevant to this article alone. It affects thousands upon thousands of articles all around wikipedia, so I am not sure how you are going to involve editors responsable for them. If the outcome of this discussion is going to affect articles like MTR, People's Republic of China, South Africa, Germany, Căile Ferate Române, etc, etc, etc, surely it is only fair to include stakeholders in those articles and more as well? Do we have a proper avenue to invite wider concensus on this?--Huaiwei 13:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read your statements where you dismissed the authority of the Mediation. I have read statements that you were invited to participate and refused in some fit of pique. I am not threatening you. I am begging you to not let your pride and conceit take you down a negative path with potential unpleasant consequences. I have seen negative things transpire on WP for those very reasons. I do not want to see you as another victim. I do not assume that the community agrees with me. The community might very well decide that it is preferable to construct a lead that is unreadable with a mass of incoherent statements strung together as a list. However, I believe that has to be determined. And I would welcome an effort to decide which path should be taken:

1. placing long incoherent lists of facts and details and synonyms etc in a list in the lead, producing inaccessible unreadable text, or
2. placing those lists, or some large fraction of the information in those lists, in an infobox, where available.

--Filll 13:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Placing the names in the lead sentence under parenthesis may be unreadable to some, but at least everyone knows they are official names in Chinese, Tamil, Malay etc. Placing them in the infobox, they become inaccessible, unreadable, and unexplained mess. Some names split into two lines, some remain on one line, there is no clear indication where each name starts and ends, how many languages are listed, and what languages they belong. To me, this is really a worse arrangement. Why don't you (or anyone) design a better solution? --Vsion 07:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm under the assumption here that the name in another language is only practically useful if you speak that language or have at least a basic working knowledge of it. If one is unable to identify which languages are in the infobox, then they're likely to not have a use for them anyhow. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 18:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is compromising editorial standards. Readers have different levels of proficiency in multiple languages; and some languages have similar scripts. We can't leave readers guessing. --Vsion 20:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit disturbing. What type of browser are you using, and what resolution? If you change the resolution do you still have a problem?--Filll 18:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Firefox, 1024 width. If I want to avoid spliting each name into two lines, the font size has to be reduced so much that "wikipedia" appears as "wkpeda". Basically, the punctuations (commas, parenthesis, etc.) are not available to indicate boundaries, unlike previously in the lead sentence. As you call for putting alternative names into infobox, I hope you are aware of these limitations with the current airport-infobox. --Vsion 20:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am now. I am asking for some technical assistance with this. I use firefox and I have never seen this.--Filll 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Destination dispute

Several members [9], [10], [11], [12] have attempted to add a supposed direct flight ny Thai Airways International from Singapore to Jakarta, based on nothing but the airport website's passenger planning feature. A check with Thai's official site shows the said flight number being flown only from Bangkok to Singapore, and no where else. For all of these members to insist on adding that information, I presume they have grounds to show the airport website is mroe accurate than the airline website? Could any of these members book a ticket on that flight as proof?

I also find it appaling that User:Chacor [13] finds it reasonable behavior to revert an edit in an obviously tense situation, yet demand others to discuss before they can do the same at the same instance.--Huaiwei 15:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Independent sources such as OAG.com and Amadeus.net both show that there exists Thai Airways flight 401 that runs between Singapore and Jakarta. Even the Thai Airways website shows this; if one clicks on the Flight Info tab on the homepage, and do all possible permutations of Bangkok-Singapore, Bangkok-Jakarta, and Singapore-Jakarta and input 401 as the flight number, a flight information will appear. Cheers. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 16:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right. I just tried searching for the flight using the "Flight info" tab for TG401, and the Singapore-Jakarta flight appears. I am left wondering why it fails to appear when I attempt to book a flight on that sector, thou?--Huaiwei 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I just confirmed the existance of the route in [14]. My deep apologies to all for my oversight and over-zealousness.--Huaiwei 17:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have trouble seeing the text in the infobox?

Do you have trouble seeing the text in different scripts in the infobox? What browser do you use and what resolution?--Filll 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• No trouble using both Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 and Firefox 1.5.09 at all resolutions--Filll 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• No trouble on Seamonkey 1.0.5. However, the alternate scripts should not be bolded, because this impairs readability at small sizes. Jpatokal 03:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• No trouble on Firefox 2.0 and Windows IE 7 at a standard resolution. Terence Ong 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• No trouble any sizes in Maxthon 1.5.8, Firefox 2.0 and 1.5.0.9, IE 7.0.5730.11 and Netscape Communicator 4.8 and 8.1.2. On the other hand the entire page looks like crap in 4.8 as the infobox is on the top right, you can edit each section but there are no tabs across the top. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• No trouble using firefox 1.5.09 and 2.0, Netscape 8, Opera 7.54 on WINXP, Safari 1.3 on OSX 10.3 Panther. -Advanced 03:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• No trouble using Firefox 3.0pre - Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9pre) Gecko/2008040204 Minefield/3.0pre

ATL on UA and leaving Bangkok not disam

One user keeps constituting readding Atlanta to the list of UA destinations suppossedly that UA flies there with no plane change. Tell that user to shut up and leave me alone!!! Bucs2004 19:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That same user also deletes the word Taiwan from Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport even though that is the official name!!!!! Talk about being too politically correct. - 218.186.9.5 11:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Same happened to you?? That user wants us to "stop meddling into Singapore's business!" Bucs2004 18:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a Singaporean IP address (218.186.9.5), so it's our business, not that any other nationals can't change it. It is Wikipedia after all. - 218.186.9.5

Atlanta has been added once again to United Airlines. I removed it from the list...it may operates with one flight number (UA895/896) but a change of aircraft is required (both ways). According to united.com schedule it shows SIN-ORD UA 896 operated by a Boeing 747-400 and the final leg from ORD to ATL is operated by a Boeing 737-500. Please research schedules before inserting destinations. Bucs2004 00:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy International

If you can name Charles De Gaulle Airport in full, then you should name John F. Kennedy International Airport in full too. Give that guy some respect.

http://www.kennedyairport.com/CommutingTravel/airports/html/ken_facts.html Official site states the full name. - 218.186.9.1 13:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Charles De Gaulle has been abbreviated to CDG. - ChangMay 11:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?

For Singapore Changi Airport, a user keeps removing "Taiwan" from one of the names of it's international airports. And he said "the majority of singaporeans editors have agreed upon this and if you are unhappy about it...it is just too bad". I want to clarify, is there a consensus at all in the first place? - 218.186.9.4 14:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I added a Trivia section, to liven up the article. I bet no one knew about the second point in the Trivia section! - 218.186.9.4 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to Popular Culture. - ChangMay 11:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted some edits by an anon user. The formatting for disambiguation has been standardized across airport articles. Only cities with multiple major airports should be disambiguated (not Jakarta); also there shouldn't be all the extra spaces. I removed the trivia section as well. While those items could be put elsewhere in the article, trivia sections are undesirable. In fact, there's a template to tag trivia sections for removal, {{trivia}}:

Finally, regarding the Taipei airport controversy (I would think people could find better things to argue about), I removed Taiwan. While I couldn't care less about the political correctness argument that one user makes (as well as claiming ownership of the article, which is not allowed), we've tried to make airport disambiguations as concise as possible. When possible, only one word should be used. Since Taipei-Taoyuan clarifies without any doubt which airport it is referring to, there's no need to add "Taiwan". JFK airport is done the same way (JFK or Kennedy instead of John F. Kennedy). DB (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Even the Beijing Capital International Airport and Shanghai Pudong International Airport have the name of Taiwan in their articles. Also, all other airport articles I've come across name Taipei's airport in full, so to be the same across the board the name should be in full. - ParlerToutBas 06:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The disambiguation naming system for Airports should just be generally concise imo. If we were to be consistent with naming, this should be applied to all airports in all articles (eg change 'New York-JFK' to 'New York-John F Kennedy'), and not apply to just Taiwan Taoyuan Airport.

For example, New York-John F Kennedy Airport is the official name, but we just refer to it as New York-JFK. Most airport articles I came across regarding Paris-Charles De Gaulle Airport has the full name of Paris Airport in full, yet some articles simply has Paris as 'Paris-CDG'. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 09:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Emirates?

Is Singapore a hub for Emirates? Nothing on the airline's website lists SIN as their hub. Bucs2004 18:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Runway Numbering?

The current article says : Changi Airport has two parallel runways, 02L/20R and 02C/20C <snip> 02C/20C, formerly 02R/20L, was built completely on reclaimed land and opened with phase 2, 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mi) apart from 02L/20R. If you take a look at Google Earth, you'll see that the runways are 02L/20R and 02R/20L and no sign of C. Of course, it could be possible that the pics are old, but just wanted to confirm. Fox3mike 06:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you observe google earth carefully, 02L/20R and 02C/20C are the two main runways running to either side of the passenger terminal buildings. 02R/20L is that short parralel runway at about the same distance apart as that between the first two runways to the right. Hope this helps!--Huaiwei 15:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but looking at both Google Earth and Google maps, I see 02L/20R to the left side and 02R/20L to the right side of the terminal buildings. The runway to the far right is the Air Force base IIRC and has only one side numbered in the maps, and that is 19. Here are links - 20R, 02L, 02R and 20L. Finally, the runway to the right of these two, 19. Would be nice if you could provide links showing 02C/20C, thanks! Fox3mike 18:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

For the first two pictures, you will have to squint to look at the letter C: Runway 02C from air Runway 20C from air

For the next two pictures, it is pretty obvious: Runway 02C Closeup 1 Runway 02C Closeup 2 - 222.164.87.178 08:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pictures. This confirms that the satellite picture in google earth is outdated.--Huaiwei 12:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the google map is outdated, although the current Runway 02R/20L was indeed known transiently as 01/19 when it was first opened in 2004, but subsequently changed to the L/C/R format (thus conforming with international standards for 3 parallel runway numbering). Further details can be found in the NOTAMs provided by CAAS.(As an aside, 01/19 may be reborn if we ever build a 4th runway) Gerald Tan 04:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Prospective users and crystal balls

I think the "Prospective users" section violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). If the flight is confirmed by a press release from the airline, it can be placed in the main sections. Otherwise, it's just nonencyclopedic speculation. Jpatokal 09:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• I read up on WP:NOT, and I do not see any violation here. The flights are notable, and are almost certain to take place. Please kindly be more specific as in where and how the section violates Wikipedia rules. In addition, I think there should be a general consensus before removing any huge sections off this article. (where Malaysian Wikipedians would always try to undermine this rule) - le petit vagabond 10:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "Almost certain" means, IMHO, that the airline/Changi Airport has announced that flights will start on such and such date, but are not flying yet. In this case they can be listed in the main section with a "from xxx" notation, and eg. Air-India Express's upcoming flights are listed as such. However, news like [15], which says "Delta will seek routes to Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney and another frequency to Japan", is very far from certain to ever happen. Calling an airline a "prospective user" just because they have done charter flights is also highly speculative. Jpatokal 12:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If you can read basic English, WP:CRYSTAL clearly indicates that Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Media articles, even if they are themselves speculative, are verifiable information, in that they are verifiable speculation. Kindly be less selective in your reading, and get a firm grasp on wikipolicies before attempting to interpret them in a spectacularly inaccurate fashion to suit your own agendas. What's your nationality, btw? Interesting comment I see above.--Huaiwei 14:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Please refrain from ad hominem attacks and discuss this on WP:AIRPORTS. Jpatokal 16:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Hypocrisy at its finest, no less. I still expect those questions to be answered, unless you arent expecting answers to your own.--Huaiwei 16:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
          • You can tone that down please. And nationality has nothing to do with the article. —Kurykh 17:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Sure. It was just a question which has little potential relationship to this article, although the answer may very well be.--Huaiwei 18:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Flights to Christmas Island

The flights to Christmas Island are run by AustAsia using a plane chartered from SilkAir. While the flight uses an MI code, you can't book the flights on silkair.com, nor is CX listed as a destination on their map, so it shouldn't be listed as a SilkAir destination. Maybe a separate bullet point, eg. "AustAsia Airlines operated by Silkair"? Jpatokal 11:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a chartered flight as far as SilkAir is concerned[16], and should be treated accordingly as per other chartered flights.--Huaiwei 18:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should still be listed as the flight is actually scheduled to fly every Thursday, using the same flight number. A charter flight is usually one that only leaves once or a few times a year, like flights to Rockhampton, Australia which are chartered by the Singapore military. And as a side note, "scheduled charter" flights are listed under other airports like Tokyo-Haneda, Seoul-Gimpo and Shanghai-Hongqiao. However, I will reflect the status accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The dog2 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

Those "popular culture" sections are supposed to be about places or concepts playing major roles in art — for example, in Oscar nominee Nobody Knows (film), Haneda Airport represented escape/heaven for the abandoned children and one of them is eventually buried there. Having teams rush through Changi during reality TV game show, in exactly the same way that they rushed through dozens of other airports, doesn't mean they were "featured" in any meaningful sense. Jpatokal (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Alice^✉ 19:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Budget Terminal

On what basis would Air Asia use the BT for its KL flights, when Thai Air Asia is currently flying into T1? Malaysia hasn't even officially announced that AK will get the two flights. Jpatokal (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The supposed "source", [17], does not say a word about the terminal to be used. Jpatokal (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

On this issue, I think the best is to keep our fingers crossed. No one knows yet. Terence (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

For the Accidents and incidents section, not all the accidents and incidents written there are taken from the Aviation Safety Network's site. Those that are not from the site should have their references and sources. - 222.164.81.26 (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Airport naming, yet again

Huaiwei has now decided that non-English airport names should be removed from the infobox and inserted into the lead. I continue to object to this, but in the interest of preventing another edit war, I suggest we move this discussion to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Singapore-related articles) and hammer out a solution for all Sg-related articles. Comments very welcome. Jpatokal (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The said entries in the infobox are for native names. Singapore's linguistic setup means "native languages" are not automatically non-English names. In fact, the airport is known primarily in English, with names in the other three languages mere translations. This is as opposed to, say, a Chinese airport which is known primarily in Chinese with a translated name in English. Your objections are long-standing, as are mine, but your attempt to start Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Singapore-related articles) without prior consultation with the community on several key issues, followed by an application of your proposed guidelines in this article is highly disturbing.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

→ Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Singapore Manual of Style?. Jpatokal (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And what does that section say? You are most welcome to be bold and create the article (which was ironically suggested by me anyway), but what I am highlighting here is your inclusion of several key issues in those "guidelines", followed by an application of those "guidelines" in this article concurrently without even getting any response from the community first. I do not think this is considered acceptable.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to this edit of mine, my edit summary was given as names in all languages already listed in infobox, which does not mention the draft policy in any way, shape or form, but is in accordance with the previous mediation cabal decision on this topic. Jpatokal (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And with that edit coming hot on the heals of the creation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Singapore-related articles) (within the same minute even) which includes a "draft guideline" that supports what you have tried to implement in this article, you must be assuming the community is pretty unintelligent not to spot the correlation? I have said it before, and I shall say it again. The Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal do not impose sanctions or make judgements. It is not in the interests of the Cabal to insist on enforcing any decision made through the Cabal. Your insistence on enforcement through the Cabal will be overturned each and every time because of this basic principle. Unfortunately for you, there are no shortcuts in obtaining community consensus, which you clearly could not obtain once the debate is brought forth to the international community.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm attempting to obtain community consensus through the proposed Manual of Style and have ceased editing the Changi Airport article in the meantime. What more do you want me to do? Jpatokal (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely outrageous and shameful. Why do you want to create an unreadable mess for your LEAD? This is English Wikipedia, after all, and the text should at least be readable in English, to a certain extent.--Filll (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing outrageous or shameful about living in a multicultural society where racial equality is of utmost importance. Kindly elaborate on just what is "unreadable". Does the script not show up correctly, or you just simply cannot understand the foreign script?--Huaiwei (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsensical objection (the part about absolute outrage and shame, that is). Chensiyuan (talk) 09:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, let's hear the argument for including the four languages in the lead. The point that this is already covered in the infobox for this particular article is not without weight. Chensiyuan (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This topic has already been discussed extensively, including a Mediation Cabal case that concluded in favor of omitting the names from the lead, but which was bitterly disputed by the losing side and was thus never successfully implemented. A few pointers to previous discussion on this topic:

• Talk:Singapore Changi Airport#Names in multiple languages (yes, on this very page)
• Talk:Singapore Changi Airport#Result of Mediation on name in multiple languages
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport
• Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board/Archive 5#Infobox for names?
• Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board/Archive 5#Languages and Singapore Changi Airport

Hence, I think the only way out is to establish a Singapore-wide written policy for names, with enough people accepting it to represent consensus. So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, if you care about this issue, continue this discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Singapore-related articles). Jpatokal (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What is shameful is that this issue should be brought up over and over and over as willfull disruption and tendentious editing, in an effort to enforce one's own view over consensus, violating the principles of Wikipedia. It is an embarassment and speaks very negatively, of the greed and selfishness and self-centeredness of those individuals who engage in this behavior. This is just plain dishonest. Why are you so anxious to produce an unreadable inaccessible article? In a foreign language? --Filll (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick survey of all the other articles written about this airport in other languages reveals that only a couple of the 16 articles in other languages have all of the airport names in the official languages of Singapore in the LEAD. Surely this is indicative of something. I think that if you want to honor these other languages of Singapore, your energies would be better spent in writing a version of this article in each of the Singapore official languages instead of warring about whether the different versions appear in the LEAD or the infobox.--Filll (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Filll, your portrayal of "willfull disruption and tendentious editing" on certain individuals is but extreme, unaccounted for, and heavily self-centred. Arguments put forth to remove the said text was agreed on by a handful of individuals who were subsequently unable to push it through as a guideline in the Manual of Style. Stripping one article of a key element, whilst similar elements exist in numerous articles, including even WP:Featured Articles, says alot on this supposed "consensus-building".--Huaiwei (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not take out "(IATA: SIN, ICAO: WSSS)" from the lead? It's industry lingo, abbreviated, and already in the infobox. --Vsion (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that is also a good idea.--Filll (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

On style grounds and for reasons of readability, this is the elegant solution. However, this does conflict, to a degree with the maxim that infoboxes should reflect and summarise the articles contents. The conflict is resolved if the "industry lingo" is relegated from the lead to subsidiary sections. Alice^✉ 19:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not take out the content box? It clutters up the page, and repeats headings which are already in the article.--Huaiwei (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the infobox, expect howls and shrieks from the infobox lovers; if you mean the Table of Contents (ToC) then I would counsel against it - although you could position it better using {{TOCleft}} for example... Alice^✉ 04:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not take out the content box? I hardly know what to respond to this. I guess this situation is more serious than I thought. I think this requires a substantial response. I am very sorry that this does not look like it is heading in a reasonable direction.--Filll (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and since we are at it, why not take out the lead? They only summarise what will be repeated in the main body of the text anyway.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are violating WP:POINT. If you want to continue editing Wikipedia, please reconsider your attitude and behavior.--Filll (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Kindly show relevant evidence that I have violated the said policy, failing which I demand an immediate apology.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if you are offended, but I think you are being unnecessarily provocative and offensive and frankly a bully and a jerk to suggest removing the LEAD, the infobox or the table of contents. Do you really want to destroy this article? Then you have no business being on Wikipedia. And I am sorry if that offends you. So be it.--Filll (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To be brutally honest, I was not offended one bit by the above comment, for I know full well that your accusation was completely unjustified, and that it is you who is "unnecessarily provocative, offensive and frankly a bully". All these, because you failed spectacularly in getting community consensus to agree to your view. I would just like to point out, thou, that labelling anyone a jerk is clearly uncivil by any definition and in any circumstance and I will indeed demand an apology in this regard also, irrespective of whether I am offended or not. Ultimately, you have no right to be plain rude, claim infringement of any policy or guideline without merit, accuse anyone of "destroying an article", and the like, because it is you who should be leaving the grand Wikipedian project alone if you choose to continue to do so.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if the truth hurts. I hereby formally invite and challenge you to remove the infobox, the table of contents and the LEAD from the article. If you do not do so in the next few edits, you will reveal your dishonesty and bad faith to everyone.--Filll (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The truth is not defined by one man, and a lesser one at that in this regard in terms of honesty and civility. You are most welcome to exercise your threats, Filll, for my conscience is clear. I only fear God. Not you. May your threats and insults against another wikipedian be known to the community, and may judgement be fair and just.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the matter? Why didn't you act yet?--Filll (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Only a fool will take your bait, dear Filll. Just how often have you even bothered to respond to the many queries I have for you thus far, btw?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, what is the hurry, Filll? It is close to 3AM over here in Singapore, and I think I need to retire for the night (or morning). Perhaps you may wish to "exercise your threats" for the next few hours without any intervention from me. Good luck!--Huaiwei (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I will point out that editing my comments as you did is grounds for being blocked immediately from editing Wikipedia. I will thank you not to edit my comments again. Also, you claimed you wanted to remove the LEAD, the infobox and the table of contents completely. Why do you not do so, since you clearly WP:OWN this article? After all, the opinions of all others clearly do not count. --Filll (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the charge of me editing your comments, I wonder if you have visual problems. Look again at the edit history. I seem to have plenty of grounds to demand yet another apology from you, Filll. As for the second comment, dosen't that sound like you are calling an innocent person a murderer, then insisting that he take a knife to kill someone? Sorry, but what is your level of IQ?--Huaiwei (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This section thread started reasonably as a rational discussion about element placement and the lead but is in danger of descending into too much analysis of editors' motivations and rationales. Please cool it, guys. Alice^✉

Why should dates not be Wikified?

My edit has been reverted with an edit summary of "Undid revision 181563973 by Alice (talk) nope (see WP:Airports) but that page gives me no clue why (or even that) WP:Date#Autoformatting_and_linking does not apply to airport articles. Does someone know a better page to explain this revert, please? Alice^✉ 09:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see it now at that page: "For future destinations and destinations with announced termination dates (except seasonal flights), add [begins <month, day>] or [ends <month, day>], respectively. Do not link the dates. ex: [begins April 23] or [ends April 23]." How bizarre! Alice^✉ 09:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Precision of passenger figures

Huaiwei, you might want to brush up on your significance arithmetic a little:

1 + 1.1 = 2: 1 is significant to the ones place, 1.1 is significant to the tenths place. Of the two, the least accurate is the ones place. The answer cannot have any significant figures past the ones place.

The published capacities of T1, T2 and T3 are 21, 23, and 22 million passengers, with two significant digits, not 21.0, 23.0, and 22.0 million. Their sum total with the BT is thus not 66.0+2.7=68.7 million, but instead could be anything in the range of 20.6+22.6+21.6+2.7=67.5 to 21.4+23.4+22.4+2.7=69.9 million. Using the average and rounding up, the correct answer is 69 million.

Better yet, though, is to use a verifiable source and the usual number of 70 million, as used in this news article and many others. Jpatokal (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the arithmetic lesson, but until you can actually find sources showing more precise areas for the three main terminals, I am going to assume that each of those figures has been rounded to one decimal space, and for publication reasons, it only makes asthetic sense to remove the .0s. It makes little sense for the total terminal figures to show 70 million when the total of four terminals do not add up to that number, even if one were to round the figures off (which still reaches 69 million, a whole million short of the published 70 miilion figure).--Huaiwei (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a spoke in your wheel: the 69 million doesn't include the CIP terminal. However, Wikipedia practice would generally prefer a verifiable source stating "70" over a number like "69" arrived at through original research. Jpatokal (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The CIP Terminal is not your typical "terminal", but a conversation of an existing VIP lounge. Would you add passenger figures for a new airline lounge, for example? It is also ridiculous to assume that this highly exclusive terminal can handle a million passengers. It is either publishing a total (referenced) 70 million figure along with the breakdown of (referenced) figures by terminal which don't add up, or publishing a summation of (referenced) terminal figures, which is not a case of original research.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the numbers do add up if you take into account the significant figures. It's not "a whole million" difference between 69.0 and 70.0, it might be the difference between 69.4 and 69.5, which round to 69 and 70 respectively. (You'll note that 69.4 and 69.5 are both well within the precision margin of 67.5<x<69.9.) But we don't know, which is why they've invented significant figures, and that's why 70m is accurate enough.

As for the CIP, the difference between a JetQuay passenger and little old me sipping champagne in the T3 SilverKris lounge is that I pass through T3 and am hence counted into T3's capacity, while JetQuay pax never enter the main terminals. AFAIK they don't publish any passenger numbers, but 300 passengers a day would suffice to add 100,000 to the yearly totals. Jpatokal (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Without any references to support your hypothesis, I believe it is still within reason to reject it. If this article states that the total passenger figure is 70 million, and the individual terminal figures are 21, 23, 22 and 2.7 respectively, people are going to ask why the figures do not add up, as I did. 68.7 and 70 million amounts to a missing 1.3 million figure, which unless you can show the difference was contributed by JetQuay, is but pure speculation on your part on whether it is merely all due to significant figures (try telling that to every visitor of this article). JetQuay pax never enter the main terminals? Do you have data to show that all JetQuay users have chosen the Jetside service?--Huaiwei (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight here: the official Changi Airport About Us page states When Terminal 3 begins operations in 2008, Changi Airport will have an annual handling capacity of more than 70 million passengers.. If you have a competing source of equal reliability that states the total annual handling capacity is less than 70 million passengers, then let's hear it.

Now, the reason I brought significant figures into this was to explain why your proposed figure of 68.7 was unequivocally incorrect. Conveniently, it could also explain why the figures given can still add up to 70... but yes, that's speculation, and that's why I haven't inserted a word of it into the article. Jpatokal (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you refer once again to the comments above, no one is disputing that the official sources states a total handling capacity of 70 million, and that the breakdown by terminal under its detailed statistical section was 21, 23, 22 and 2.7 respectively[18]. The difference here is that while the first total figure is being cited from a general introductory page (it always sounds far nicer to give a rounded figure in publicity and media articles, obviously), the later three are from a more technical page hidden below. The issue therefore, is that displaying both figures in the same article is going to raise queries over their accuracy (you will note that the first total figure does not appear in the detailed figures in the reference I cite). It may be barely acceptable to cite the "more than 70 million" figure in this article's introduction followed by a more accurate figure further down the article, but it is not acceptable when they both appear in the same table. I hope you are still not speculating that the shortfall is a result of missing figures from JetQuay?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The only person raising concerns here appears to be the one who doesn't understand significance arithmetic, as the numbers are mathematically compatible within their bounds of precision. But just for you, I've changed the summary figure to "c. 70 million" to indicate that it's an approximation. Jpatokal (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Airlines and Destinations

Why is the airline and destination list suddenly formatted like a table? It used to be separated into 3 different terminals. Is this the correct layout from WP:AIRPORTS? Bucs2004 (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The new style is according to the consensus decided for us by the article's owner, Huaiwei. Jpatokal (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Very funny, Jpatokal. Kindly note my edit summary[19]: "Complete table (for illustration)". In light of past complains over that overly-long list, I am illustrating a conversation into a sortable table which avoids having to list airlines by terminals etc, allowing the user to read the list in any method he chooses. Anyone is most welcome to change it back if this formatting is not feasible.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Airlines starts and terminate service as and when demand changes. The "Commenced Date" column in the table dont make any sense at all. Is this column refering to the Airline first commenced service to Changi Airport or different destination from Singapore? This column is redundant and should be removed.Jefflhlee (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering there is only one primary airport in Singapore, the column obviously refers to the date when the airline first commenced services to the airport. Care to explain why it makes no sense, is redundant, and should be removed?--Huaiwei (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If an airline start service to Changi airport then stop due to whatever reason, but re-start the service later, do you consider the initial start date or second, third, forth... re-start date? Take Cebu Pacific Airlines for example, it started service to Changi in 2002, but stop in 2003 due to poor load. Then, in 2006, it returns to Changi. Therefore, is the commence date 2002 or 2006? Jefflhlee (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A second scenario, still taking Cebu Pacific Airlines for example, in 2006, it started service to Cebu and Manila, then in 2008, it start service to Darvao. In this case, will the commence date be 2002, 2006 or 2008?Jefflhlee (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you see how the data for Cebu Pacific is being presented before asking these questions?--Huaiwei (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Have you seen how Cebu Pacific is written? It does not make any sense. As I have mentioned in my first entry, airlines suspend and resume services as and when demand calls for it, OR due to whatever reason, like Adam Air, and Air Bagan. If you were to list every single time and airline suspend and resume, it will be a mass and it could never be complete. What about Singapore airlines? Are you going to list every single destination it starts service to? This list is suppose t be a list of airline serving the airport. Anyway, it is just my view, that is why I bring it up in this discussion page. Jefflhlee (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Then kindly tell us why it dosent make sense, for right now, it is your comments which makes little sense to me. You sound completely pessimistic on the ability of this table to be completed or to be useful in any way without attempting to try doing any research yourself. If it is just an issue of asthetics over a number of dates, that can easily be solved too by tweaking columns widths or using shorthand without removing the entire table. This table does not indicate dates for each specific destination served by any airline. Kindly use basic common sense and basically look at the table properly before commenting. Thanks.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it is only my comment, no need to be offended. If I have offended you in anyway, my apology. Anyway, what I am trying to say is, this table is to show the list of airlines and destinations served by Changi Airport. Airlines terminate/suspend and resume destination as and when they deem profitable. If you are going to list all these changes down, this record will be much longer than the what it is trying to display here. That is why, I feel that it should not be shown and the list can never be correct and complete(can you list every single start date Singapore Airlines destination?) . That is why, I said the information does not make sense to me. I believe you are aware that JetStar Asia has now suspend service to Phuket, and have the intention of restarting the service at a later unknown date. If you are going to record all these information down(I mean for every single airline and every single destination), just imaging what will happen to the list. I am not saying that this information is wrong, it just that I "personally" feel that it should not be shown as it will be much too long and does not serve the "main" purpose of this particular list (which I stress to show the list of airlines and destination served by Changi). Anyway, if you maintain that it is OK, it is fine with me. Cheers.Jefflhlee (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Complete mess in the "References" department

Guys, I'd appreciate if someone could help sort out the mess here, nothing in this section is decipherable anymore! Suspect that ref no.30 could be the culprit... I need to catch some sleep, eyes heavy after 6 hrs of editing! -- Dave1185 (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, never mind about my earlier request, I got it all sort out. Time for me to Zzz... -- Dave1185 (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Runway length

I see that User:Jankaeding has persisted in changing the runway length of 02L/20R from 4,000 metres to 3,260 metres[20][21][22]. This is not correct. Official runway data from the airport website clearly states the airport has "2 parallel runways separated 1.64km apart, each 60m wide and 4,000m long" [23]. The airport's Aerodrome Chart as published by the CAAS [24] clearly indicates that 02L/20R has dimensions of 3,260m by 60m excluding a displaced threshold of 740m long, for a total dimension of 4,000m by 60m. The displaced threshould is always counted in the total runway length, as can be seen in all official statistical data on the airport, as well as that in other sources[25][26]. I do not see how this basic data can be further disputed.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It is explained in the article at Singapore Changi Airport#Runways but to make it clearer I added a note in the box. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes idea. I have amended it a little by using a different template. Anyway, indeed the details are explained in the Runway section, but User:Jankaeding also attempts to edit that section by negating references to the displaced threshould. Wierd...--Huaiwei (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

References

When adding references using external links please remember to give them a title. Don't just use the bare http such as http://www.silkair.com/mbe/en_UK/content/corporate/index.jsp?JSESSIONID=H19S2BGcJrmYTYJnvC5mJVjypnthvv7fQSdyStFHT22Sn7J2tsfv!501409391!NONE but SILKAIR - THE REGIONAL WING OF SINGAPORE AIRLINES.

Because the reference section uses {{reflist|2}} when the page is viewed in Firefox it scrolls off the right hand side. Look at this version in Firefox to see the problem. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead reference link

The reference #4 is a link to http://www.changiairport.com/changi/en/about_us/media.html?__locale=en but there is nothing there and no way to figure out what it should be. Where was it supposed to go? 11:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Direct" destinations

Alot of so called "direct" destinations that require plane changes have been added to the airlines and destinations section of this article. WP:AIRPORTS specifically states not to add these "direct" flights that go thru a hub airport. For example Atlanta has been added as a destination for United Airlines and that flights goes thru HKG and ORD (ehich is a UA hub) and there is definitely a 100% aircraft change if you look at UA's schedules. Audude08 (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Kindly define "alot", because the only destinations which are under dispute are Minneapolis/St Paul for NWA and Atlanta for United Airlines. The true industry definition of a Direct flight has never excluded flights with a change of aircraft. It is the flight number which must stay constant. Attempts by a handful of wikipedians to change an industrial definition amounts to WP:OR, and will be resisted with enthusiasm until some sensible conclusion can take place from those discussions which are still left hanging at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports‎.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The definition of direct flight is not disputed here. The question is: is Atlanta a destination of Singapore, if you need to change planes and terminals along the way to get there? Common sense and WP:AIRPORTS guidelines say that no, it's not, in the same way that a SQ codeshare on a NZ domestic flight doesn't make (say) Dunedin an SQ destination. Jpatokal (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If the definition of a direct flight is not disputed, then could you explain why your statement that a flight where you need to change planes and terminals is not a direct flight, despite the fact that they are by industrial definitions?

I'm not stating anything about direct flights. The destination box lists destinations served by an airline from an airport, and my view is that a destination is not served if you need to change planes to get there. WP:AIRPORTS states this as "The flight number and the aircraft [my emphasis] starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports." Whether this is or is not a direct flight is irrelevant. Jpatokal (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as the sources above are concerned, Atlanta is a definition served from Singapore by United Airlines. The flight operated by UA from Atlanta to Singapore via Chicago and Hong Kong is through the same flight number (UA895/UA896). The plane change at Chicago is via the same terminal (Terminal 1 Concourse C). The entire flight is operated by the same airline, and does not involve codesharing of any kind. I fail to see why a comparison is made to a codeshared flight which is operated by different airlines, via different flight numbers, and possibly from different terminals too. Kindly read up first on some basic facts before making a nonsensical comparison. Thanks.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should we be slaves to the industry definition? --Matt (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research are official content policy to create this encyclopedia. If you have a problem with basic policies here, than you do have an option not to contribute further and liberate yourself from self-imposed "slavery".--Huaiwei (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with either of those policies, in fact I believe I follow them and enforce them regularly. I don't see how it's at odds with creating a slightly different requirement for the destination lists on articles. Could you explain that please? --Matt (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot help but chuckle at the irony in the above statement. I would think it far more interesting to hear from someone who supposedly enforces WP:V and WP:OR, yet insists on enforcing a "slightly different" requirement. "Slightly different" meaning it is still "Slightly different" from verifiable sources (removing a "Tibet" from a list of Chinese subdivisions is also a "slightly different" endeavour, I recon?), and "slightly different" from any reliable published source out there in a way that it becomes unique to wikipedia (writing "E=MD2" is also just slightly different and does not amount to being an entirely new equation, eh?). What do you think?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a straight answer? --Matt (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To what question? --Huaiwei (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Destination box

I've seperated out the destination box into two seperate boxes. It turns out that on certain monitors the light grey that is being used can't be seen. This makes the current and former users all one colour and it's then impossible to tell which is which. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that is just asthetically horrible. Colour banding is not the only way to tell which airline is no longer operating (although there are a few entries where the termination date is still missing). Please consider reverting this, because I now see a "normal" table above and a "grey" table below, a sight obviously seen by most users who do not have unusual levels of screen contrast.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I edit from three different places using different monitors. Yesterday at one of my workplaces was the first time I had looked the article on that particular monitor. I tried adjusting the monitor to see if that would fix it but couldn't get the former users to stand out. Rather than change it right away I emailed a friend to check and and they reported the same problem. Right now I have now removed the "bgcolor="lightgrey"" so it's the same colour as the other box. To tell the truth I can't really understand the need for mixing the current and former users together anyway. If though the airlines should all be mixed together why not mark the former users as ''[[Air Canada]]'' so that it's visible to all. ON the whole I think the idea of having the box for destinations is great and a marked improvment over things like Toronto Pearson International Airport#Terminals and airlines. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually checked on the condition of each of the "affected" screens, the type of screen being used (CRT? LCD? etc), and if any of these screens has been adjusted or calibrated in any way before? In my years of editing wikipedia articles and introducing tables, not once have I encountered this problem even after using numerous monitors to accomplish this task, including in the computer labs back in my former alma mater. There has also been no massive complains against these format. You will also note that the current table is using a default format where the first row is in a faintly darker shade (which is definitely lighter than "bgcolor="lightgrey""). If it was indeed a major problem for numerous users, it would not have been set as the default. If you are unable to see this distinction now on your screen, I would recommend that you check its condition, because this may mean you are unable to even see the cells in an empty excel sheet!--Huaiwei (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not at the worksite where the problem occurs so I can't try and adjust the monitor again. However, there is no problem seeing empty cells in Excel at that computer, in fact if we couldn't then we would not be able to complete our work. Here at home the different colours are indeed quite visible. It still comes back to why mix the two together? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the table sorting feature is not going to work across two tables?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Then as I suggested before use the itialics feature Air Canada but I still think that having the two combined is confusing. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition of any markings around the names will actually screw up the sorting, which includes any codes preceeding the text, hence my avoidance of using other forms of markings. Anyhow, the colour banding, even if non-existant, is not a primary concern, as this can simply be solved by adding a text in the "Terminated" column. A combined list is not confusing for those who are not looking at this table as some kind of a travel guide, which this site is not aiming to be anyway. Meanwhile, are the colours still posing problems to you?--Huaiwei (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't be back at that particular place until 3 April. And it was the only place that had the problem besides a friends monitor. In both cases it was on LCD monitors, probably cheap ones at that. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I sure hope that was an exception rather than the rule. Anyway, we are still keeping it as two tables?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and it's done with the bgcolor="lightgrey" and italics feature as well. I didn't think before but the sort feature ignores everything but the visible words. Unfortunately that also means that the table does not sort well by commenced or terminated. If you click on terminated you get the airlines without termination dates, followed by the ones with numbers, then the in operation airlines and the ones with months. Because the sort feature ignores everything including hidden comments I can't figure out a way to get the terminated airlines to sort together. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes the sorting feature at present still can't sort dates properly. As for the missing information and months appearing in wrong places, the only way to solve them is for us to research and find out the dates. I am still in the midst of doing this, so I beg for some patience in the meantime! Anyway it might not be truly neccesary to leave out the terminated airlines during the sort, since sometimes we do wish to sort the commencement dates, irrespective of whether they are still operating or not.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean that the sorting should be removed from the commenced/terminated, or that they should be removed at all, but it might not be necessary for the remarks section. What I found interesting is that it doesn't matter if you put the dates in as 1 April or April 1 the column still sorts, for me anyway, them as if the number was first. I just discovered that it is possible to sort the airlines by the ones in operation and terminated. If you replace "In Operation" with "align=center|—" (it has to be "—" and not "-", which will not work) when you click the sort button on the terminated column all the terminated airlines are at the top and all the current airlines sort to the bottom. Check it out at User:CambridgeBayWeather/Sandbox. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah I didn't mean that either. :) Anyway your suggestions were both valid. Shall I assist to move the table in your sandbox to mainspace, or would you like to have that honour? :D--Huaiwei (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, former destinations have brought up a number of times and consensus says that it's not encyclopediadic and difficult to verify. So it might be best to pull the section. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 7#Former routes. --Matt (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I may be digressing, but may I just find out what is your credentials in the field of aviation to form an assessment that the history of usage in an airport is not encyclopediadic? If an article is able to archieve a reasonable level of verification for content on historical routes, is there room for this article to maintain these information, or is it subjected to the whimps of the most poorly writtern articles (or the most inward-looking, lethagic and uninspired editors who do not have the will to even do basic research) for the sake of blind consistency?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not just digressing, you're jumping straight into personal attacks. --Matt (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And you are jumping straight to assuming bad faith? I am very dissapointed.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to say anything about what belongs in the article, but I do think the current mega-destination-box with former, current, passenger and cargo flights all mixed up is ugly, unwieldy and hard to use. Before it was very easy to determine eg. which airlines have current passenger service from SIN to Jakarta; now half the hits of a "Find" for "Jakarta" are for airlines that either don't operate or carry only freight. Jpatokal (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would you need to determine only current operations to a particular destination? Are you a traveller, and is this article writtern to be a tourism guide? If listing the number of airlines to any destination is considered statistically critical to you (and yes it actually is), shall we add another table to sort the information by destination?--Huaiwei (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the most common reason for me to actually use the Changi Airport article is to quickly figure out who flies where. As said, I'm not going to say anything about what belongs in the article, but I, personally, would be happier with the previous setup of three separate lists/tables: passenger, cargo, and defunct. Adding a table for destinations only seems a little redundant, although it certainly would be spiffy if you could sort the existing table by destinations as well. Jpatokal (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The most common reason for me to use the Changi Airport article is to read up about its development, its history, its operations, and the reasons behind its legacy. In other words, I simply do not threat airport articles as travel guides. The reasoning behind having one table to allow easy sorting to find particular entities has already been well esplained above. Practical usage should still take precedence over abstract asthetics. I wish we could sort by destinations to avoid having a second table, but unfortunately, it can only sort the first entry per column for obvious technical reasons.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's do a straw poll. Sign your preferences below!

Mix current and former destinations in the same box:

• ...

Separate current and former destinations into different boxes:

• Jpatokal (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• HkCaGu (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mix passenger and cargo destinations in the same box:

• ...

Separate passenger and cargo destinations into different boxes:

• Jpatokal (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• HkCaGu (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. So we are now placing more emphasis on votes than reasoning?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You have asserted that "Talkpage discussion is to have one table, not two." I think that your reasoning hasn't succeeded in swaying opinion, and that the consensus is against you on this, but let's measure it to find out. Jpatokal (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose in your books, the discussions which has taken place immediately above in this same section are invisible to your eyes, because you have failed to participate in it by your own accord, and the result was something you do not agree with? Sheer hypocrisy, do you not think? Perhaps this is behavior I should draw reference from in future dealings?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice way to WP:AGF. Someone announces a straw poll and you come over here to see what the options are and if you want to participate. And what do you find? A reason not to participate here. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Disam Jakarta??

I see that Jakarta have been disambiguated from Jakarta to Jakarta-Soekarno-Hatta in the destinations list. Jakarta only have 1 airport that have significant passenger service. Is it really necessary to dismabiguate it? Audude08 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There are flights serving two different Jakarta airports from this airport. Care to settle that?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As Audude says, there is no passenger service to Halim, and in fact Halim no longer has any scheduled services anywhere. The disambiguation is thus unnecessary. Jpatokal (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is it neccesary to disambiguate airports only when it involves two passenger services to two different airports in one city and not in this case? How about a case where two freighter services operate to two different airports in the same city? I beg for a logical answer for once...Please.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to disambiguate Jakarta airport. Halim has no scheduled flights in and out of the airport. same problem facing in KUL article where editors tend to add Jakarta-Cengkerang which I have deleted.Jannisri (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What about Tri-MG Intra Asia Airlines's flights then? Not scheduled?--Huaiwei (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Are they scheduled? Does the airline even fly anymore, after being placed on Indonesia's band 3 safety classification of imminent doom a year ago?

This is all a bit of a red herring though, as there's plenty of precedent for not disambiguating airports that are way bigger than any alternatives. For example, this article lists flights to "Los Angeles", not "Los Angeles-LAX", even though LA also has other airports in Burbank, Long Beach, Santa Ana and Ontario.

Last and least, a part of the problem here is that passenger and cargo flights are now mixed up together, instead of being listed separately as usual. List the passenger flights to "Jakarta" and the cargo flights to "Jakarta-Halim", and there's zero chance of confusion. Jpatokal (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For someone arguing that "Newark" should be "New York-Newark", I am not the least surprised that you seem to want all those airports to have an "LA" prefix too. Well in this case, Halim is firmly within Jakarta's city borders, so at least that is a non issue in this case. Having seperate sections or distinct tables is not going to mean a viewer somehow knows that the two operations do not land at the same airport. Logic, mr.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The introduction to Soekarno-Hatta International Airport says that the replace the two former airpor serving Jakarta and that Halim Airport only serves military and cargo flights. This is identical to the Montreal airports. Audude08 (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Have both of you checked actual flight schedules (at least the one for Changi is working) before commenting? Is the current information in a wikipedia more accurate, or a text from a recent article?[27]--Huaiwei (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

An Indonesian airline that shifted its base from Jakarta's main international airport to a second airport in the capital amid flooding early this month has moved back, says the article. So Merpati used Halim for a week as an emergency measure because the tollway to CGK was flooded, and now it's back at CGK. Your point was? Jpatokal (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is that you are pretty selective in your reading. That same article states that the airport serves only a few short-distance commercial flights and charters. And you were questioning the existance of any scheduled commercial routes out of this airport, in particular those operated by Tri-MG Intra Asia Airlines despite them showing up in the Changi current shedules?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Forbes? Hardly a reliable source, don't you say Huaiwei? The fact of the matter is, is we don't need to disambig Jakarta, when CGK is used for the vast majority of flights, just as we don't disambig Melbourne to Melbourne-Tullamarine, Melbourne-Avalon, Melbourne-Essendon, unless in those cases where service is to one of the lesser airports. The same goes for Sydney, Perth, etc. And guess what, the same goes for Singapore with Singapore-Changi and Singapore-Seletar.

Very humourous, Russavia, for your clearly addressed your own concern. There is indeed a scheduled flight from Singapore Changi to each of the two Jakarta airports in question, fully in line with your self-created criteria that there is "service is to one of the lesser airports". Kindly read before taking sides in a lame attempt to "frustrate" those you have a personal distaste with, Russavia.--Huaiwei (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Read his comment again. Russavia's suggesting that disambiguation is unnecessary unless the flight goes to one of the "lesser airports". In this case, this'd mean that all flights to CGK are "Jakarta" and the solitary cargo flight to Halim is "Jakarta-Halim". Jpatokal (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What utter nonsense. He is clearly saying disambiguation is neccesary "where service is to one of the lesser airports", ie Melbourne-Avalon or Melbourne-Essendon besides Melbourne-Tullamarine. He made absolutely no mention that "Melbourne" must be depicted as "Melbourne" instead of "Melbourne-Tullamarine". You are beginning to sound desperate, Jpatokal. By the way, you have yet to explain why you think a pair of airports should be disambguated only when it involves two passenger operations, but not when there is one passenger and one freight operation? I am all ears.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two separate points here, my friend. One: If one airport is far larger than the competition, disambiguating the name of the larger airport is unnecessary. (Cf. SIN vs XSP, KUL vs SZB, MEL vs the rest and, yes, CGK vs HLM.) Two: Passenger and cargo flights should be separated into their own tables, which further reduces the need to disambiguate cargo-only airports like HLM and YMX. Jpatokal (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to disambguate Jakarta, you need to have a consistency. Every airport article that has Jakarta as a destination, disam as Jakarta-Soekarno-Hatta or Jakarta-Halim NOT half-and-half. Audude08 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So do we need to now disambiguate Singapore into Singapore-Changi for every airline that flies there? Because Seletar most certainly has scheduled passenger traffic. Jpatokal (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, please talk some sense, Audude08. If absolute consistency is so freaking important to you, kindly name all airport articles as just Airport!--Huaiwei (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay forget it, if ya'll are going to argue with me then I'll just shut hell up and NEVER EDIT WIKIPEDIA AGAIN!!!!! Audude08 (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised you have such difficulties in handling a simple discussion, Audude08, and I will be even more surprised if you were to carry out your threat.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just...forget about it! Audude08 (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "airtraffic" :
  • {{cite press release|title = Singapore Changi Airport Registers Another Record Year for Passenger Traffic|publisher = Singapore Changi Airport|date= [[2008-01-28]]|url = http://www.changiairport.com/changi/en/about_us/media.html?__locale=en}}
  • {{cite web| title= Changi Airport - AIR CARGO TRAFFIC STATISTICS - 2006| publisher= Singapore Changi Airport| date= [[2007-06-01]]| url= http://www.changiairport.com/changi/en/air_cargo/cargo_performance/cargo_trafficstatistics.html}}
• "accidents" :
  • {{cite web| title= Singapore-Changi International Airport profile| publisher= Aviation Safety Network| url= http://aviation-safety.net/database/airport/airport.php?id=SIN| accessdate= 2007-12-21}}
  • {{cite web| title= Singapore-Changi International Airport profile| publisher= Aviation Safety Network| date=| url= http://aviation-safety.net/database/airport/airport.php

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Xiamen Airlines

There has been a little dispute on whether or not Tianjin should be listed as a destination from SIN. Is it a truely direct flight or is it a flight that connects thru its Xiamen hub to a different aircraft? Since I don't know anything about direct and faux-direct flights on Chinese carriers, I will let ya'll decide. I am just bringing this up since i saw the dispute on this matter. Cashier freak (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)