Talk:Singapore Changi Airport

Archive 1: December 2004 to September 2006
Archive 2: September 2006 to June 2008

Images

The images in this article are too large. It makes the article look messy. (MoHasanie (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)).

• Out of curiosity, what makes you think so? Care to share your thoughts with us? --Dave1185 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Singapore Changi Airport/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

Many problems:

1. Non-uniform reference style. Some are just bare html with title.
2. Some "citation needed" tags.
3. Airline destination notes should use round brackets, not square brackets (per MoS)
4. No source from ground level transportation
5. Some sentences were at best sound like advertisement, if not pushing POV (e.g. first paragraph in Expansion section)
6. Multiple use of weasel words

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I will now delist the article as there is no substantial improvement on the article. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Kuala Lumpur-Subang or Subang?

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved: Firefly's turboprop flight from KL will be listed as Kuala Lumpur - Subang to differentiate it from KLIA and Anon IP required to stop picking over this minor but important detail!

Should the flights be listed as Kuala Lumpur-Subang or Subang? Since this was reverted back/forth many times as seen in the edit history. Charmedaddict (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've request semi-protection of the page - at this link . The IPs involved are refusing to discuss the issue, instead deciding to vandalise the user pages of those involved on top of warring. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 03:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Officially it's Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport and often referred to as Subang Airport. I don't see the Kuala Lumpur handle in it's official name. For clarity in the article, I am willing to go against the norm and go for Kuala Lumpur-Subang as not many people out of the region knows that Subang is in Kuala Lumpur. Planenut(Talk) 03:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not many foreigners would know it simply as Subang, so I think Kuala Lumpur Subang should stay. Momo san ^Gespräch 03:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

::::Yeah and isn't Subang part of the Kuala Lumpur? Charmedaddict (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I was also under the assumption that Subang was closer to Kuala Lumpur than the current KLIA as well. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 04:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, other SE Asian airport articles list SZB as "Subang" and SIN list it as "Kuala Lumpur-Subang". What make SIN different from other airports. Charmedaddict (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly due to airlines flying to BOTH airports. I've noticed on the desto screens on my last visit a few months ago it was listed as "Kuala Lumpur" and "Kuala Lumpur-Subang". --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 04:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the open for KLIA, Subang airport is no longer to serve Kuala Lumpur anymore. For those 'PRO', Subang is located at Klang Valley, Selangor and not Kuala Lumpur. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.86.240 (talk • contribs)

:::However, Subang and Klang Valley are still part of Kuala Lumpur. Charmedaddict (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC) ::::And also, on the Kuala Lumpur page under "Transportation", it states that "the city is served by 2 airports" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur#Transportation). Charmedaddict (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wondering are you know the capital of Malaysia is Kuala Lumpur? Who the hack inform you that Subang or Klang Valley is part of Kuala Lumpur?? Do not show your stxxxd in here. Please study the different between capital and state before posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.86.240 (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take note that Newark Liberty International Airport may consider that it's serving New York metropolitan area, but do anyone stated it as New York-Newark? This is the same situation in Subang airport. Are you agree? You can have a check for Malaysia Airlines where they stated New York but landing at Newark Liberty International Airport? Same as Singapore Airlines where New York-EWR and New York-JFK. How do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.86.240 (talk) 07:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please check the official website at here [1], why the official website stated only SUBANG but not KUALA LUMPUR-SUBANG? Why there is Jakarta, Soekarno-Hatta or Shanghai(Pudong) or Seoul, Incheon Intl or Tokyo-Narita? Because they know that there is only 1 gateway for Kuala Lumpur which is KLIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.86.240 (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If KLIA is THE ONLY gateway, then why is FY marketing their flights as Kuala Lumpur via Subang? Planenut(Talk) 07:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, KLIA is designated to serve Kuala Lumpur after the limitation of Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport, the IATA code also moved from Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport to KLIA. Here has been very clarify that KLIA is the only gateway for Kuala Lumpur. Don't you know Malaysian Government had announced that Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport only to serve turboprop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.86.240 (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if SZB is no longer the gateway, it is still located, and is closer to Kuala Lumpur than the current KUL Airport. GMP (The old Seoul main Airport) is still served by short haul international flights, even though most of their flights have since re-located to Incheon, and is marketed by airlines as Seoul via Gimpo, the same as Firefly advertises their flights as Kuala Lumpur via Subang. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 07:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to compare GMP & ICN with SZB & KUL, do you notice the majority domestic flight is take off / landing at KUL? How about the domestic flight in ICN? How much or % of domestic flight is take off / landing at ICN? I believe you have the answer?

Why should we ignore the information from the official website? It stated very clear that Kuala Lumpur, Subang, Seoul, Incheon. Why should we create such unnecessary trouble? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.86.240 (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You already caused enough trouble by doing disruptive editing against the wishes of the other editors before this discussion. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 10:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just my 2 cents here, there was another IP user who did the exact same thing here (check the edit history!) and I've reverted him twice, could it that all this is the work of the same person? If yes, I would request a semi-PP on this page later to prevent this guy from being disruptive again. --Dave1185 (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 9#Naming_of_Kuala_Lumpur_airports - Twy1 (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 10:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

::And there was not enough consensus to change. Charmedaddict (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC) :::And also, KUL is located in Sepang, Selangor, Malaysia and it is also far away from Kuala Lumpur but we don't list it as "Sepang". KUL also serves the Klang Valley. But the airport is called "Kuala Lumpur International Airport" not "Sepang International Airport". Charmedaddict (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC) ::::And I might also add that on Firefly's website, where SZB is its main hub. Have SZB listed as "Subang (Kuala Lumpur)" indicating that the airport serves Kuala Lumpur. Charmedaddict (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see some of the user accept the point but some not. The explanation from above is blur. Please check the operator for Malaysia Airport at here[2], It's stated <<Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport, Subang>> and here[3] , it's also stated <<KLIA>>, since when the Sepang (word) come from? For those who are not clear about the KLIA history, beside Firefly & Berjaya Air, there is no others airlines are allow to take off/ landing at Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport. When someone who is going to Singapore, does he/she will landing at Seletar Airport? This is because everyone knows that they are going to land at Singapore Changi Airport, this is the same case with Kuala Lumpur where they knows they are going to land at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. Why should we ignore the information from the official website[4]? It stated very clear that Kuala Lumpur and Subang but not Kuala Lumpur and Kuala Lumpur-Subang?

Sepang is the location of KUL Airport. Subang is the location of SZB Airport. However, SZB is listed as "Subang" (where the airport is located). KUL is just listed as "Kuala Lumpur" where it is further away. But KUL is not listed as "Sepang" if SZB is listed as "Subang". 74.183.173.237 (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Newark Liberty International Airport may consider that it's serving New York metropolitan area, but do anyone stated it as New York-Newark? This is the same situation in Subang airport. Are you agree? You can have a check for Malaysia Airlines where they stated New York but landing at Newark Liberty International Airport? Same as Singapore Airlines where New York-EWR and New York-JFK. How do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.86.240 (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

:: You don't have to mention EWR since you already mentioned it 2 times already. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not come here to 'irrigation' if there is no constructive comments. There is a reason why I repeat the same thing twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.86.240 (talk • contribs)

See, I knew that we are all going to continue to diagree, threatening each other. And I think that this is going nowhere. Therefore, I am withdrawing all of my comments...Thank you and Good Night! Charmedaddict (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well is happy to see you given out your opinion but sadly to say why can't you try to accept others opinion? If you can make some strong observations to fully convince me, I will accept it. For those(like we) who have different views on the theme, I strongly recommend it should follow back to the official website. Don't you think so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.86.240 (talk • contribs)

You can argue with all the other editors all you want. I have better things to do than to argue about this. Charmedaddict (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think I was trying to argue with all editor? Think about it, do the Singaporean so 'stupid' to clarify Kuala Lumpur and Subang? Your stubbornness is not helpful to Wikipedia, you should try to open your mind to accept the new facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.86.240 (talk • contribs)

Arguing will NOT settle this or any dispute. You (The IP address) need to work with other users and not go againest anyone, otherwise nobody will respond to you. Momo san ^Gespräch 14:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And also, please be reminded No personal attacks policy. "Your stubbornness is not helping Wikipedia" is considered a personal attack. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

For all the registered editors who had made their opinions known in this particular discussion thread, I think it is plain for all to see that the IP editor(s) is(are) obsess with following the website's official listing instead of working together with Wikipedians for Wikipedia. But the IP editor had also let known of his view thinking that this article was written from the context of a Singaporean viewpoint (note: just because there is a number of Singaporean editors here does not mean that we own this article!) and not from that of Wikipedian's perspective, thus rendering his own case invalid. Why? Because this is not SgPedia we are talking about here, this is Wikipedia and we don't necessarily follow guideline laid down by other websites because of a few reason, other than those with copyrights issue. Please note that Wikipedia is a FREE-to-edit online encyclopedia, it is open to everyone who has internet access and that anyone can edit it (provided it is done in a constructive way). That being said, it is not to be hijack for the purpose of pushing individual's viewpoint but rather to cooperate and work with other editors (registered or not) to come to a common consensus and the current common consensus (as before) is that we are sticking to the old view that was discussed in another thread that had been archived. If the IP editor(s) feels that this is not right, even after we had told him that is unacceptable to everyone to accept only his view then I'd pushed for the article to be salted, thus preventing anymore further anon edits by IP editors. The community can do without having such persistent and disruptive editor who goes around name-calling and canvassing for support (also known as shopping for answer with parents, kids are very capable of that when they want things their way) instead of discussing it in a proper tone and manner. --Dave1185 (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And besides, we do not own any part of Wikipedia. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JAL KUL-SIN-KIX route suspension

I know that Japan Airlines will ends some of its routes next year and KIX-SIN-KUL is one of them. Just wanted to know is only the SIN-KUL segment is ending or is it the whole routing to KIX is ending? Snoozlepet (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

JQ on SIN-DPS

JQ (not 3K) does fly between SIN and DPS/CGK, continuing onto Australia. See [5]: JQ114/115 CGK-SIN, JQ116/117 DPS-SIN. Jpatokal (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

SilkAir to Christmas Island

There has been a mini-edit war regarding the listing of SilkAir's flights to Christmas Island. I was wondering if this is a regularly scheduled flight where you can book via SilkAir's website or if it is a charter flight? Snoozlepet (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO it should be listed as an Evercrown Air flight; the fact that they're wet leasing a Silkair plane is incidental. See [6]. Jpatokal (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The IPs involved have been saying its bookable through "private-email" only, which is via a third party in some form. IMO, through Private-Email only, still means it isn't directly bookable (You can't walk up to a Airport and book it at the last minute, nor days before for that matter). Sb617 (contribs) 05:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not exactly a private e-mail but an e-mail address of some travel agent which charters the flights. They are regular charters using Silkair aircraft every Thursday, and leave at the same time every week, using the same flight numbers (MI 288/287). I think that flight like these should be listed in some form, as although you can't book them directly from Silkair, they are still bookable, and being regularly scheduled, contribute to the overall importance and connectivity of the airport. 218.186.9.226 (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Air routes map from SIN

Can help me to create Air routes map from Singapore Changi Airport? Littlearea (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Airlines

Many Chinese airlines seem to be following the "timetable direct" concept of the US airlines. As we all know UA flights to ORD have a third "direct" leg to BDL and UA flights to IAD have a third leg to MCO, while DL's flight to ATL also has a third leg to MCO. Generally, we do not include those 3rd legs.

Examples of such destinations are MU's flights to TAO and XIY, CZ's flights to SHE, MF's flights to TSN and HGH, ZH's flights to TNA and recently, HU's flights to DLC. In my opinion, the second legs to these flights are just domestic flights within China and should not be listed, just like those US-based airlines who continue from one US city to the next. What do you think? The dog2 (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. What you said is already covered by WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. HkCaGu (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Tiger Airways and South East Asian Airlines partnership

Under “Airlines and Destination”, I am thinking South East Asian Airlines (SEAir) flight from Clark is operating on a aircraft painted in Tiger Airways’ livery(ie, this A319 aircraft is leased from Tiger Airways). Furthermore, the seats on this flight can only be bought on Tiger Airways website. Any attempt to purchase seats for this flight from SEAir website will be redirected to Tiger. As such, should we label this as “Tiger Airways operated by South East Asian Airlines”? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.137 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Xiamen Airlines

What is Wikipedia's stance on this? Xiamen Airlines is flying to Singapore from Zhengzhou, Tianjin and Hangzhou all of which while routed via their domestic hub is direct and does NOT invovle any change in aircraft. Why are they constantly removed? 175.159.140.117 (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Flights that continue with the same flight numbers but through a domestic hub are not listed. In Mainland China, gates are separated domestic and international, so after immigration, customs and security, you have to go to a gate on the other side of the airport to "reboard". At a hub, who's to guarantee it's even the same plane? HkCaGu (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)