Talk:Singapore Airlines

Archives

1 2 3 4 5

Article Layout

Once again, I would like to make it clear that this page is way too long, disgustingly layed-out, and dominated by select editors. I have not edited this page for some time now due to the fact that this page has much ownership with select editors. Wikipedia Airlines has a prefered layout that I like to follow, and many pages now have that layout. The reason why it is preffered is that many editors have come to a conclusion that it would be the best way to layout the page. However, some pages, like Singapore Airlines, choses to be the odd one out. If I had my hands on the page for one hour, I can make wonders happen... but it is very unlikely that I will even get a second, let alone an hour!--Golich17 02:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Kindly be more specfic with your comments. What does "disgustingly layed-out" refer to? Who is "dominated by select editors" refering to? If you claim you can do "wonders", can you show us the best of your work anywhere in wikipedia to demonstrate it? As for article length, its quite funny, but since there are folks who keep insisting on deleting supplementary articles created precisely to reduce this article's length, perhaps you would like to bring this matter up to them instead?--Huaiwei 04:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the layout could be improved. Will look at the Wikipedia Airlines template later. RomanceOfTravel 08:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have edited the fleet section, and hopefully it will NOT be reverted because I try real hard to keep the airline pages looking good and CONSISTENT. This page puts a gap in the consistency of the airline articles. I have made the table layout more simple and more common to other fleet tables for other airlines. I would like you to implement the information I have removed into the actual fleet article, but keep this looking simple. If you choose to revert my edits without considering the changes that i've made, I will revert it back. Please discuss my edits and your theories to keeping this article simple and in a well-designed layout.--Golich17 19:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See my comments for the string of reasonings behind removing some of your rather silly edits. If you need to be reminded that dates are to be wikilinked and that you do not switch between British/American English as a deliberate move, you gotta go back to reading basic guidelines. The content which is to go into the Singapore Airlines fleet article has yet to be decided, so do not remove information from here until it appears somewhere. It is a tonne of work having to find deleted information from edit histories, thank you very much, so just as you plead for people not to remove your work due to your "sweat and toil", perhaps you may wish to exercise some consideration for others as well. Interestingly, there has been hardly any response when I called for comments over there, after so much "interest" in the last AFD. Where did all the participants go?--Huaiwei 19:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to help you merge a few things in the article for Singapore Airlines fleet in an effort to make the table and layout in the Fleet area simple and consistent with other pages. My reasoning as to having the Historical Fleet near the bottom is because it does not have as much significance to the fleet than what they have at this time. Also, the reason why I changed the name to "Retired" is because the fleet is simply removed or sold, and bears no historical signifcance, other than the actual aircraft operated. I renamed the Current Fleet area to Passenger because the fleet does operate with passengers, but Current is fine too, but the word "fleet" can be omitted since it is a sub-section to the fleet section. The registrations and engine types need to go, meaning move them to the Singapore Airlines fleet page. Also, class codes can be omitted by simply placing the words "First/Business/Economy" under the word Passengers, which generally makes everything easier to read in the table. Hopefully I can help you with these edits to make this page be the most reliable page in Wikipedia. I love to edit this article because Singapore is a very "advanced" airline. They maintain a young fleet while implementing new things to the industry. Sorry I simply edited the area without prior discussion, I just wanted to see if people liked it.--Golich17 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you've highlighted something of importance, Golich17; prior discussion will usually be better and encourage a more collegiate atmosphere more collegiality - I'm sure folks really appreciate your hard work and knowledge but it would be better to reach a consensus for any changes here first - especially when those tables are such hard work to improve incrementally. Thanks for listening! Alice^✉ 03:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I made some decent edits. I moved engine information to the Singapore Airlines fleet page and I also omitted the class codes as they are also displayed on the Singapore Airlines fleet page.--Golich17 23:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, User:Golich17, that I didn't check my link to "collegiate" more carefully - I do hope you don't think that I was implying that your edits were in any way juvenile or not thought through. (I hope the link I've changed above is now more relevant...) It's just that my understanding of Wikipedia (and I'm brand new here) was that we should co-operate and discuss any major or controversial changes to achieve consensus before we make them. I'm too stupid to comment on the merits of your changes but I just wanted to compliment you on raising your concerns on this article's discussion page rather than edit warring. Thanks again for listening! Alice^✉ 23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No harm ha ha. I did not know exactly what the word meant, and evidently I did not see the wikilink. Why thank you for your compliments and I hope to see your beneficial edits soon!--Golich17 22:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Golich17. I don't think you are new to this dispute, but I am glad that there seems to be a change in your "rules of engagement" this time, and I appreciate that. I agree that the fleet table probably looks rather untidy since it is so wide (but to be honest, it looks relatively ok on my screen coz my screen is wide enough! :D), but I still see it as a temporary measure. My personal intention is to remove the "routes" and even the "notes" column, both of which could be better presented elsewhere. Class codes should remain, because you cannot expect readers to somehow figure just what class they are, when not all aircraft offer all four classes which SIA now markets. The existance of registration numbers have been explained before: it is to distinguish between those which have derated engines and those kept as is. It also helps to identify one leased aircraft from MAS. When the B747s leave the fleet eventually, that column should hopefully look much neater progressively.--Huaiwei 01:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as a warning. This article has been a flash point for a while now. The issue is between those who are trying to preserve a common look for articles in this encylopedia and those that believe this article needs to be unique. Vegaswikian 01:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this sums up one of the primary reasons for all the bad blood motivating actions being played around over here. Suggesting that the wikiproject is attempting to "preserve a common look", while degrading others for having an agenda of keeping this article "unique" is grossly naive and a tad childish even. I do not know about the rest, but my primary effort in this article is to make it useful for all: casual, academic, technical and enthusiasts alike. Is this against the spirit of wikpiedia? I doubt so. Has the said wikiproject been merely trying to "preserve a common look"? I arent sure, when it has obviously gone beyond merely deciding on asthetics. Jesus, why does this feel kinda like a situation in Myanmar or other similar uprisings? :D--Huaiwei 01:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I strive to be perfect. When everything has some sort of commonality, it gives the impression that Wikipedia is a reliable source due to the fact that everything has a smooth, easy-to-understand layout, while still focusing on what needs to be in the article and what doesn't. The reason we make extra articles, like Singapore Airlines fleet is because we simply cannot fit the amount of desired text into a reasonable space. By removing such text (registrations and class codes), we make it easier on people who aren't aware of what the codes may be. That's why under the word passengers in the passengers column, we place small text stating the classes offered. Asterisks can be placed if there is an exception (i.e. Northwest Airlines/KLM both operate World Business Class on International routes and First on Domestic routes). I understand this article has alot to say, but at the same time we need to realize we need to manage all this information in a reasonably small space (whatever that may mean).--Golich17 20:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you aim is for the aviation-related articles to be considered a reliable source under the veneer of "professionally-consistent appearances", you will be sorely dissappointed. Many aviation experts who congregate at sites such as Airliners.net continously berate wikipedia for its less-then-perfect information. I frequently notice users, when forced to cite wikipedia, would go something like "well, this is from wikipedia, but that's the best source I could find..." or even "its from wikipedia, so be warned". Exerts arent fooled by asthetics. And if you are going to use asthetics to cover up the obvious fallacies of these articles, than you are doing a major disservice to relatively ignorant users who may assume higher reliability in these articles than they actually are. Wikipedia is not just for perfectionists. It is also for responsible educationalists.

Censorship is not the best way to educate people. You do not remove information just because you think they wont know or understand it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an encylopedia is to educate. This is not some kind of time capsule solely to capture and present stuff people already know. People do not know what flight numbers, aircraft registration numbers, and class coes mean? Explain what they are. Show them what they mean. Sometimes, less is more, but not when you need to be precise. A text which shows "F30/Y80" means nothing to folks who do not know class codes, but means something to those who do. "30/80" means nothing to everyone, laymen and experts alike.

Finally, I think it is about time people quit citing the old refrain of articles being "too long" as excuses to delete information. Please be updated and realise that article size is no longer a major technical requirement now. Exeptions have been made, and fairly often too, even amongst many of our featured articles.--Huaiwei 02:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the demon, I chanced upon this thread in airliners.net today. Check out the comments made once someone breathes the word "wikipedia". I would be ashamed to mention that I am a contributor to aviation-related articles in wikipedia, let alone mention I am part of a wikiproject attempting to "give the impression that Wikipedia is a reliable source"!--Huaiwei 14:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Woo...moments after I post this comment, that threat was already trashed. Tragic indeed.--Huaiwei 14:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with you is that you are ALWAYS negative. You never seem to agree with anyone. I read Airliners.net daily and I can give to damns what they think about Wikipedia. You need to realize that you will not always seem to get your way no matter what way you elaborate it. You continually change the subject, because you do not want to deal with criticism from other editors. Wikipedia is supposed to be a user-friendly, easy to read and understand site, while providing useful information. Class codes are NOT useful to me because i'm never going to say, "I'm sitting in Y class today!" No one says that but the airline employees, which also tend not to use that code.--Golich17 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you even give concrete evidence to support your statement that I "never seem to agree with anyone"? BTW, people who know me in real life actually often find me an exceedingly positive person. It is a pity that you should feel otherwise! :D--Huaiwei (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead too long?

Does anyone else think that, like Topsy, our lead section or introduction has grown a little too large? Alice^✉ 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yea. On a part of this, how encyclopedic is a blow by blow change list of who's on top of the market capitalization today? I think all of that discussion should be dropped. It can change significantly overnight and one bad earnings report or a significant accident can affect this. So we probably should just drop that information. Vegaswikian 02:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that ephemera or material that constantly (and/or predictably) changes should not be incorporated in the lead - unless that constant change, of and by itself is notable.

I think we can summarize that SIA is a world class (and, in many case, world beating airline) but without going into so much nitty gritty there. Let's save the minute detail for the sections so we're not continually edit-warring over the lead.

Perhaps we could each create a user area page with our own idea of the lead and compare them to see if we can find common ground? Alice^✉ 03:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you refer to WP:Lead, an article of this length can actually support up to four paragraphs. If you feel each paragraph is too long, check out our WP:FA, and you will see its length is actually rather average. The detail on market capitalisation is kinda necessary in the lead since it is common for the mass media to refer to SIA as such, albeit wikipedia provides a more current measure of it. Market values may change overnight, but unless anyone can provide evidence here that SIA has leapt up and down the tables every so often, I will not consider this as volatile enough for complete removal.

The current lead as it is is pretty simple actually:

• Para 1: The airline's operational background.
• Para 2: The airline's corporate background
• Para 3: The airline's service standards

These are the primary information one would expect from an airline article introduction, especially paras 1 and 2. Para 3 is added for SIA due to its service reputation. If anyone can offer a more logical lead layout, fire away.--Huaiwei 04:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, the lead should only include paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 only. The paragraph 2 can either be ommited or integrate with section 2: Corporate Management. I agree with Huaiwei to keep Para 3 as SIA is famous for their service excellency. Jannisri 05:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As is usual, Huaiwei makes some excellent points. I've no difficulty with Paragraph 1, but I am worried that there is a tendency for visitors to want to cram everything into the lead when the detail belongs in the relevant subsequent sub-sections first and only then, and if it is essential, should a précis or even a glancing mention go into the introduction.
Rather than discuss things in the abstract, I would be very interested if any editor could show us (presumably, in their user space, a better introduction). If not then, my point is moot. In other words - put up or shut up time - because I really would like to remove the {{advert}}<!-- added 10/2007 --> template which is beginning to annoy me! Alice^✉ 06:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, but I would still love to hear from the rest of you. ;) The template is certainly annoying, especially when it seems to be placed there by one editor, yet not having bothered to really point out specifically which problems need rectification. Back to the lead. I was the one who was largely guilty for writing most of the current introduction, although this has been the nth version already, and has tried very hard to cram the same amount of information in just three paragraphs. If the current versions seems to cram too much info, perhaps it will be good for us to list down each point and consider them one by one. Here we go:

Paragraph One

• Alternative names
• SGX Code
• National airline
• Operational base
• Major markets served

Paragraph Two

• Industries diversified into
• Major subsidiaries
• Company size

Paragraph Three

• Company reputation
• Service quality
• Safety

Is this information too overwhelming, or just right? Comments please!--Huaiwei 09:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Paragraph One - OK
• Paragraph Two - The diversification info could be moved to the history section
• Paragraph Three - The service quality bits could be moved to the top of Services

Just my thoughts. MilborneOne 17:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Putting up, instead of shutting up, the intro has been changed by myself on several occasions only to have them reverted wholesale. Additionally, changing the intro is hardly going to be enough to be able to remove the advert tags from this article (mind you, it is the opinion of many editors this article is marketing for the airline as evidenced by the change logs) - remove flights numbers (as per concensus), bring codeshares inline with airline wikiproject (as per concensus), cut right back info on KrisFlyer to only that info which is encyclopaedic, and then one may be on their way to removing the advert tag. Additionally, I have on occasion changed the part to referring to capitalisation of the company, as Singapore Airlines Group is not the 2nd largest (formerly largest) airline by market capitalisation, Singapore Airlines Limited is. The link which apparently validates the statement is no longer available for viewing, and requests for providing of a direct quote from that article which would validate the Group being capitalised have been removed by one editor repeatedly. If removing the advert tag is the purpose of this particular discussion, then I would suggest looking at the incredulous use of a quote from an SIA employee to attempt to validate a claim that the airline is looked at by other airlines when reviewing fleet purchases. Anyway, here's just one exmaple intro to this article which I tweaked and which was reverted. Additionally, and this is not limited to this article but many airline articles, too much emphasis is being placed on IOSA audits, it would appear that there is little to no understanding what these audits actually are, and before too long for an airline to maintain IATA membership it will have to be IOSA accredited; that's just one example of a piece of information which serves no real purpose rather than PR. --Russavia 16:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It intrigues me why you continuously wax lyrical over your supposed "victimisation" in this article. Kinda ironic, but this seems to be a sign of WP:OWN? Let me just state quite clearly that edits which are not factually supported, which are POV-laden, and which are not inserted in good faith have every reason to be removed. Do not attempt to paint an inaccurate picture of supposed "concensus" just because you are sore about not getting your way. Do not attempt to mislead newer contributors by indoctrinating them with supposed "widespread views" over as absurd a charge as this article being a marketing vehicle for the airline.

If you can read basic English, this section is about the length of the lead section. If you have issues over advertising (which obviously you do, yet didn't bother to comment earlier), kindly add them to the correct section(s). If you have content issues over SIA's corporate structure, kindly revisit past discussions and reflect on them.

Kindly tell us if there is a better substitute to evaluate an airline's safety other than the IATA's Operational Safety Audit Programme? Can you cite a more neutral, non-PR means of indicating that an airline has met stringent safety requirements? Considering only two Russian airlines has passed and obtain this certification, could you tell us if its value is not worth mentioning? If not, kindly do not discredit sources just because you don't like them for some unknown reason (just like that vendetta against Skytrax in recent times) and assume ignorance on the part of those who write about it.

Oh and I wonder what's your beef over that quotation from an "SIA employee". Perhaps you will be much more accommodating if that employee was you. Since you do not wish to acknowledge the well-known fact that SIA's aircraft purchases are closely watched in the aviation business, a huge quotation which directly points this out is probably painful to your eyes. If there a good things to say about anything in wikipedia, and it is adequately sourced, this information will be included. It is convenient to slap any "good news reporting" as a sign of advertising (but strangely "bad news reporting" doesn't seem to draw as much attention), particularly when the said individual has issues with particular airlines being much more successful than the ones they root for. Childish, isn't it.--Huaiwei 01:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you two are having a .... tiff. But anyway, a quick search revealed that there are numerous sources saying that SIA is a bellwether aircraft purhcaser. Among them include the New York Times, Bloomberg and the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation. These seem to confirm the SQ GM Gulf's quotation. A definition of Bellwether is on Wikipedia. RomanceOfTravel 19:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.191.175 (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, IOSA is not an accurate way to evaluate an airline's safety, as it does not take into account causes of any accidents; IOSA accreditation simply means that various operational safety instruments have been implemented on paper; it doesn't give reasons for pilot error, terrorism, adverse weather conditions, miscommunication between aircraft and ATC, mechanical failure; aviation safety is too complex to simply say that because an airline has IOSA accreditation it is safe; that it has achieved accreditation is somewhat important, but it isn't the be all and end all of aviation safety. As to your little sideswipe at the Russian airlines, there are 3 Russian airlines which are IOSA registered - Aeroflot, Siberia Airlines and Volga-Dnepr Airlines - it is not necessary for all airlines to be IOSA accredited and registered - it is only going to be mandatory for those airlines which are members of IATA - in Russia there are 6 IATA members, those being the 3 aforementioned airlines, Rossiya, Transaero and Vladivostok Air - all 3 of which I know are currently undergoing the audit process - which of course will be necessary for them to retain IATA membership. Additionally, the lead of an article is supposed to give a brief rundown of what people will read in the article, but the IOSA registration is not mentioned anywhere else in the article - in fact, most of the lead seems to be a mish mash of PR-spin with trivial information which really doesn't belong, or if it does belong, not so much information in the lead is required. --Russavia (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

World's largest airline by market capitalisation?

moved from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlice&diff=180363685&oldid=180354508 to this more appropriate venue I recently restored some sourced speculation and User:WhisperToMe was kind enough to respond on my talk page, thus:

Why the edit doesn't belong there

Okay, regarding the Air China lead not lasting:

• Even with a source, you still have to state who believes that the Air China lead may not last? To not provide the "who" may imply POV
• Even then, remember that the article is mostly about SQ, so you can say Air China took the lead, but does speculation about Air China belong there?

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in principle, with your first point. However, I think we should assume that some of our readers are perceptive enough to follow the cited reference to the cited International Herald Tribune article dated 11 October 2007, entitled: Around the Markets: Airlines Face Challenges at http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/11/business/sxasia.php and read that this is their opinion.

As to your second opinion, then I have no strong feelings one way or the other but this is a better forum to discuss the contents of the article and achieve a consensus than my talk page.

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to raise both these issues and I hope you will forgive the impertinence of bringing the discussion here? Alice^✉ 05:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that line certainly belongs here. Singapore Airlines has, for quite some time, been known for being large on a market capitalisation basis, albeit in later years Southwest became larger. Air China's sudden upswing is still relatively unknown (just check around current media articles), so it does serve a purpose to highlight that for now, especially when the referenced source also states that the phenomena may be temporary. When things become more stabilised later, the sentence can always be cleaned up.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice, please be careful using the International Herald Tribune as a reputable source, as if you refer to [this edit], it is disputed by Huaiwei that the IHT is a reputable source on matters relating to whether SIA is a subsidiary of Temasek (meaning that Temasek is the parent company of SIA) (and even though dozens of other media sources state exactly the same thing), so I can't see how the IHT could be seen as a reputable source of information on matters relating to Air China, particularly when info on the parent company is current, and info on Air China is merely speculative. --Russavia (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, Russavia. I agree that it is better to consider multiple sources. I do not have an informed opinion one way or the other as to the ultimate ownership issue; sometimes accountants are (need to be?) very crafty for reasons of tax avoidance, etc. Alice^✉ 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Exclusion of flight number lists

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

Past discussions in [[1]] and [[2]] show no consensus to remove. The said WikiProject discussion includes room for variation where justified, as has been demonstrated in past discussions here.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your first reference is directly related. The second one is basically over the data being a directory or not so it does have some standing. However both of those came before the project discussions to try and work towards a common look in this area. So, I'm not sure that no consensus, specifically over the discussion about this article, can be taken as a reason to override the project recommendation which represented consensus after the article specific discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur but would make the additional point that editors should seriously consider whether this is a major point worth edit-warring about. Alice^✉ 19:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2008 RomanceOfTravel (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Attempts have now been made on several more occasions to remove information in this article inline with concensus obtained in the Airline project wikigroup, and it is continually being reverted by Huaiwei. Contrary to what Huaiwei is saying, it is not only myself who has attempted to remove this info, but another editor has also attempted to. Huaiwei also claims that concensus has been reached on this talk page, however, there is no such evidence that this concensus exists, nor has any concensus been reached even been attempted on this talk page post-the project page concensus. I myself have every intention of abiding by concensus, and it seems that any attempts by myself to implement concensus reached on the project page is pointless so long as Huaiwei continues to ignore concensus reached. As such, I feel I no longer have any choice but to request a RFC/U on this issue, because the constant revisions of concensus gathered omissions from this article reeks of article ownership by Huaiwei, and that is just not on. --Russavia (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Russavia on this. Huaiwei, WP:AIRLINES states unequivocally that "Types of material that should not be included include: Tables of flight numbers by destination". I don't see any convincing reason why SQ alone should be an exception, and I certainly don't see a consensus here or on WP:AIRLINES that such an exception is warranted. If anything, the two links provided by Huaiwei above show that there is disagreement about whether the codeshare table is appropriate. Jpatokal (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ultimo Minus" debacle

Can RomanceOfTravel, or for that matter, anyone, please give me evidence to suggest the oldest SIA business class product has changed name from "Ultimo Plus" to "Ultimo Minus". It sounds somewhat like someone didn't enjoy their experience in the old seats... RomanceOfTravel, I'd love to see a link referring to the new name. Good luck! Besancon (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultimo refers to the product launched on 11 September 1998 on board the Boeing 747-400. UltimoPlus was a slightly enhanced product with a lounging position launched on the Boeing 777-200ER (to Chicago?). UltimoMinus is what is found on the vast majority of Boeing 777-200s and Boeing 777-300s. UltimoPlus and UltimoMinus are internal names. I would accept Ultimo when referring to the Business class seat found on the vast majority of Boeing 777-200s and Boeing 777-300s but UltimoPlus, it is not. RomanceOfTravel (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe RomanceOfTravel is correct in this analysis. (I've taken the liberty of, unusually, correcting a couple of typos in your statement above - just revert me if you think this was unjustified!) Alice^✉ 16:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will change the name to Ultimo to make it more accurate. Thanks for the explanation. Besancon (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to this article's discussion page! Alice^✉ 08:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Frequent Flyer

Hi, I've edited the frequent flyer portion to remove the ad flavour. Pls comment. For the rest of the article, my feel is that it is not sufficiently summarised. There is a lot of information that is at risk of becoming a red herring and not do justice to the entire article. Just a thought. mark (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This sounds rude and dismissive, but I feel that the frequent flyer section now sounds less like an advert because your edits have almost entirely removed the benefits of membership. One could have achieved the same results by removing the section entirely.

I think editors need to decide whether our readers are interested in what benefits this program offers and whether it is useful to include sufficient information for comparison with other FFPs. If it is, then your edits should be reverted and if it isn't, then the section can be deleted (or de-merged). Alice^✉ 20:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Elite Silver/Gold are now linked to Star Alliance#Premium_status, which explains the perks, and I've added two sentences that explain what PPS/Solitaire PPS are about. Jpatokal (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

May want to take a look at British Airways Royalty Programme for comparison. We have to remember that the Wiki is not a website and the contents should not be promotional. There should be a reasonable degree of detail in the information on what the Krisflyer Programme is about but not to the extent of the original text which came across as promotional. mark (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Historic Fleet

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

The so-called discussion on this topic has never ended conclusively, if it was discussed at length at all. The said tables were moved on the condition that it be expanded in Singapore Airlines fleet, which did not happen under the non-action of those who tried to move the tables[3]. Attempts by certain individuals to actually delete the entire Singapore Airlines fleet article further complicates things, since that will entail merging everything back into this article once again. If individuals with vested interests cannot agree on the direction this article should take, than do not expect "consistency" in any "decisions" made, if at all.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a great idea to have a good and comprehensive article on the Singapore Airlines fleet - but, until that article is up to scratch, relevant unique material should not be removed from this article unilaterally. Alice^✉ 19:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I should mention that the table I removed is the same as the table in Fleet, so it was not unique material. That is why I used term duplicate table -- it means the same not unique. A lot material on the current fleet is in both article. If we have got two article then we should not repeat material and just summarise the info in this article (as I have said before). MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you may just pay a little more attention to what I wrote, I mentioned quite matter of factly that this "duplicate table" was actually the result of a move which was subsequently overturned, although its existence in the second article was somehow allowed to stay due to disagreements on whether to keep Singapore Airlines fleet or not. I should know the history behind this quite well, for I was the one who introduced that table in this article in the first place, while I had no play in actually duplicating it elsewhere. Meanwhile, would you not agree that a table is actually a better summary than plain text in this regard?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with the table in general (although I am still not sure that the actual registrations are notable) my concern was the duplication. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In a paper encyclopedia, this duplication would be a waste of resources and render the resulting tomes too heavy to lift down from the shelves. One of the reasons Wikipedia is Wonderful, is that we are able to link and repeat in whatever form is most helpful and efficacious to our readers. Alice^✉ 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the advantage is to hyperlink and not repeat the data in different places requiring multiple updates when it changes. One source available everywhere from a single link. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good point you make about ease of updating, Vegaswikian. I did read somewhere about a technical method of doing that on simultaneous passages - was it something about anchoring - off to search for it... Later: I didn't find what I was looking for. One problem with using the linking method is that our articles are not stable; a once relevant link may slowly (or suddenly) transmute into something entirely inappropriate (or just plain wrong if a vandal attack goes un-noticed). Alice^✉ 21:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think that not linking to the fleet article for the historical fleet data implying that the base article would not be stable is not reasonable. Keeping data in two places in case of a vandal attack is not justified. Most articles, especially the ones we are discussing here, are watched. So that is not an issue for the SA fleet data. Keep it, especially the tables and the gory details, in one article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My points above were more general; returning to the current two articles under discussion, I can certainly agree that, in the short term at least, there is no danger of our current ever-vigilant team of editors not noticing any creeping (or sudden) deterioration.

Huaiwei: Is there any argument remaining for keeping more than a "see also" (and perhaps a very brief one or two sentence commentary) in the "Fleet" section of this main article once the Singapore Airlines fleet article is up to scratch?

"Deletionists": In my view the Singapore Airlines fleet article is still missing some significant detail and is not yet "up to scratch" - for example, it seems to be entirely missing a "Fleet expansion" text section... Alice^✉ 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any chance of the fleet article getting deleted. There is simply too much support for it. Yea, improvements will make it's nomination less likely. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's good to hear, Vegaswikian; my carpetbag term of "Deletionists" was intended to include those editors who wish to see most of the current "Fleet" section here deleted (or at least drastically cut short). For the avoidance of doubt, I'm broadly in favour of this approach in principle - but only when (and only after) the Singapore Airlines fleet article is "up to scratch" Alice^✉ 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I have been gradually expanding the fleet section in the main article with the final intention of porting almost everything over to Singapore Airlines fleet and leaving a standard-sized section and summary table in the main article as per standard MoS practise. This, due of the ever present possibility of Singapore Airlines fleet becoming a target for yet another AfD. It is actually rather tragic that things has to be done this way, but I often privately think that if all parties can just sit down and take time to actually write articles, before constantly arguing what goes in and out, everyone might actually turn out to be much happier at the end of the day, satisfied with a job well done born out of communal agreement than hostility.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange but I actually agree with Huaiweis points and support his/her approach of moving over the tables etc to the fleet article. With a balance of tables and textual detail in fleet it should resist afd. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear!Alice^✉ 19:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Orders/Options Table into Current Fleet Table

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

I find this line really comical: "However, once they are merged, editors with their own opinions regarding this issue should not continually revert back to the old style!". Is this a blatant sign of WP:Own, since it implies that no one can touch an edit you initiate? Edits which make sense can certainly be kept, but if they are made merely to "shorten an article" for no better reason than aesthetics and "bring consistent", than I certainly think you need to offer better justification than that.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Huaiwei: I know you didn't mean it to, but your response came over as a little bit sharp. I think it's good that Golich17 is seeking to discuss controversial edits in advance and I think that sort of attitude should be encouraged in all editors. Please delete this comment if you feel it is superfluous and/or you have taken the comment on-board. Alice^✉ 21:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't mean to be "a little bit sharp", for I am probably not sharp enough. Golich17 has a long history in being extremely disruptive with SQ articles, coupled with a rather unpolished tongue to boot. While I would probably give him credit for actually writing in much more mature language in recent weeks, the loud sentences in capital letters just gives him away. I would read all his comments such as "We work together in Wikipedia" with a huge pinch of salt, thank you.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to leave strong comments. Even if they are, they still remain constructive, therefore I'm not doing anything wrong. The reason I pointed out that I do not want edits reverted after they are discussed about is because many people seem to do that after anyone makes in edit, more often my edits. I edit airline articles comprehensively, and so far many of them are detailed and layed out in a more user-friendly format that does not suggest the article is for "advanced" readers only, which is what I belive the Singapore Airlines article boasts. Hofefully I can get some commentary as to what others believe should be done with the fleet sections... Anyone?--Golich17 (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

First and most importantly, an encyclopaedia makes no apologies to any novice reader who cannot understand an article, and makes no excuses to write itself down to the most basic level. Wikilinks exits for a reason, functioning no differently from cross-references in paper encyclopaedias in allowing users to refer to another article on any unfamiliar terms or concepts. We are writing an encyclopaedia. Not a nursery picture book. Second, what you personally consider as "user-friendly" is but a matter of your personal interpretation. I do not consider an article devoid of basic technical data as "user-friendly", but at least I recognise that as my opinion, and I do not insist that others should stick to my definition of "user-friendliness". As a matter of fact, you did not explain to us why a single table amalgamating an entire horde of information is supposedly easier to read for novice readers, and is more "user-friendly". Ultimately, you are simply adopting a different strategy in the talkpage to do the same thing in the article mainspace - to revert everything to your preferred version strictly conforming to the last detail to WP:Airlines recommendations. I have never seen any discourse you engage in reaching a higher level of sophistication, and I am still able to see through your ultimate intentions, Golich17.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You made a simple question into a complex argument, which I'm not about to have with you. Please listen to me and listen to me clearly, because I don't feel the need to repeat myself time after time. All I want to know is what OTHER editors think of a merge of the orders/options table into the main current fleet table. Not only would it save space (yes it would save space, as many of the aircraft in the table have ongoing deliveries, which can be merged into its fleet row and simply place (xx orders) under the amount the fleet currently comprises of), it would make the table more streamlined, having all information, except retired of course, in one simple and easy to read table.Huaiwei, I appreciate your comments, however you never address the issue that I am talking about. You tend to talk off-topic, and it really is a waste of space. What you think is my opinion most of the time is either a good opinion or a fact... so please, should you need to add a comment below this, please talk regarding the fleet table, NOT what you feel about me.--Golich17 (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and while you write long stories hard selling your supposed "contributions" to wikipedia, someone has already made significant changes to that section. I wonder why you have no comment on that? ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Sorry, but are you damn sure of what you are saying with regards to the fleet section now looking like a "Boeing page and an Airbus page, discussing the features of those aircraft"? Are you looking at the correct article? Oh and since you oppose the current version, could you even articulate a reason why?--Huaiwei (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what, do whatever you want with this article. It makes me very tired to elaborate what I'm trying to point out to you, therefore, I find no reason to edit this article. You don't evidently need (or want) my opinion, so I'm not giving one. I don't like this article period and it needs to be revamped as I've said over and over and over and over and over again.--Golich17 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's funny. First you want to edit an article without saying exactly why. When asked to elaborate, you make an about-turn, throw the job back at the one asking for details, and walk off in a huff claiming "tiredness" and "I don't like it". If you have problems even enunciating what you have in mind, what would you expect others to do? Agree with you that we do not like the article too??--Huaiwei (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)