Talk:Changi Airport/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

London Underground?

To 202.156.2.170 who added London Underground buses...whats that?--Huaiwei 11:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Standardisation

Huaiwei, I see you have reverted my edits which standardised the infobox and the desination lists. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports project exists to improve the airport articles on Wikipedia and give them a consistent style.

The standard infobox - Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/infobox - contains much less information. It is intended as a quick source of facts.

Destination lists on every other arport page include the airline name (with link) and a list of the destinations they fly to directly. The table format used in this article contains far too much information - information that should be on the airline's page.

Please can we continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Standardisation - Singapore Changi Airport (I will copy this message to there).

Regards/Wangi 15:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I am much too dissapointed to bother about this anymore. Feel free to delete the page eventually if you guys decide the airport itself isnt important enough for wikipedia. I suppose I shant contribute much to this page anymore least some people deem its "not important" and delete it in a matter of seconds, erasing hours and hours of work.--Huaiwei 09:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei, this is a collaborative effort. Wangi 09:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It is? Just because two individuals wish to delete information does not amount to concensus. Show me which wikipolicy shows that a wikiproject should entail streamlining to the point of removing information? I believe I have been here long enough to know what basic collaboration or the relevant wikipolicies are. What is happening right now is not collaboration.--Huaiwei 09:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

wangi and vegas, can you get out of this page? you have indeed showed how selfish you are. the table contain far too much informations? those informations are just adequate and essential to readers. you do not edit wikipedia for the sake of improving it and enlightening readers that come in here. you edit wikipedia for the sake of editing it in order to gain recognition. please stop your nonsense. if this page contain too much information i suggest you remove those EXTRA informations that are present in many pages such as london bombing bali bombing al qaeda harricane katrina...etc and many other website and wikipedia will soon be gone. grow up.

I'm disappointed with this page, used to have so much information, but now its gone. What a WASTE!!! I wish you Vegaswikian and wangi, from good info, but making it so short! I wish you just don't be so self-scented, and at least discuss, what standardisation is this! Can't some articles be different from others. I don't like the current revision of this article. This is a Singapore article, and you are being very selfish, extremely selfish. I hope you can put back that table in place, and just kindly leave, and let other users of the project handle this! Terenceong1992 15:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, there is no need for personal attacks. It's been gone over a fair bit at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Standardisation - Singapore Changi Airport re the reasons - do you have any specific points to make? I have reverted your edit. Thanks/wangi 17:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Why direct anyone to that wikiproject when a few members there cannot seem to accept views by another (similarly small) crowd? I dont see any "standardisation" so to speak.--Huaiwei 23:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have that strong of any opinion either way. But I do think that everyone should be DISCUSSING why one option is better or worse than the other. Don't just say "We like it this way" and then keep reverting any changes. Explain why your way is better or more sensible. Try to be as polite and clear as possible about what you disapprove of. Rdore 08:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I would certainly like to see some discussion and a weighing of pros and cons on either side. What seems to be happening now is some members appear to think they have greater say over what goes in and what gets trashed just because they are the main contributors to the said wikiproject despite seemingly having a shakey understanding of the dynamics behind the aviation business. Wikipedia isnt here just for laymen, so who is in the position to judge that certain information is "too much for laymen?"--Huaiwei 11:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Guys, can we continue this discussion in one place, rather than the three or so pages it's currently at? Thanks/wangi 11:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise if I made any personal attacks. Terenceong1992 04:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Changi Airbase (East)

Changi Airbase (East) had the ICAO code of WSAC in the past, but now is technically part of Singapore Changi Airport since it shares the same ICAO code. Even though the runway and apron is not physically linked with the civil aviation side of the airport, I believe that runway information et cetera should be included in this article. Comments? DeAceShooter 17:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject

When I removed the Wikiproject tag I did not mean that this article shouldn't be subject to the same standards as every other airport article in Wikipedia; I simply meant that the project's name should not be on the page, since it is not representative of our work. Dbinder 13:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ugly

It's utterly and completely inane to list every carrier that has a codeshare relationship with some other carrier at this airport. It doesn't help anyone and it makes no sense at all. The whole table format is just plug-ugly and includes all sorts of information that nobody really needs (number of flights per day? booking codes? when the airline began flying there? who cares?) and clutters up the information people actually want to use - namely, where the airlines fly to. Just because this is an article about Singapore doesn't mean you have the right to decide unilaterally what is in the article and what is not. Please see WP:OWN. FCYTravis 18:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed/wangi 18:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The current state of the table certainly isnt what was initially desired. It became so because I decided not to improve on it after experiencing some pretty negative behavior by individuals like above who somehow decides that certain information isnt useful for all. What credentials do you have to make such an assumption? What target audience is this article geared for? Your grandma trying to discover if there is a flight from point A to B?--Huaiwei 18:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making assumptions, I'm making a judgement based on the above conversation in which it was essentially said that "I'm from Singapore, you're not, so go away because this isn't your article." If we can drop that sort of inanity, we can perhaps try and talk and come to some sort of consensus about the article. But first we have to agree that we all *can* edit this article. I think there is a place for the flights per day, when the airline started, etc. I just don't think it needs to be in the section which talks about where the airlines fly to. I've left the current table in place as I put my proposal in. Feel free to mess with it. And yes, in some sense, the target audience is my grandma (or me!) trying to discover if there's a flight from Point A to Point B. That *is* the point of an airline and an airport, isn't it? Getting people from Point A to Point B?FCYTravis 18:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The consumer view alone is too narrow. There is also a history and industry perspective. There are people interested in the development of airport and commercial aviation in general, hence the other information you mentioned are relevant. And of course, American Airlines frequent flyers would like to list AA here too. Instead of deleting information, why not suggest arrangment of information instead, i.e. suggest where these information should be placed, instead of deleting others effort. Deleting information is so against the culture of wikipedia that encourages (and requires) collective contribution. --Vsion (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it ridiculous when individuals like yourself see this as a "I'm from Singapore, you're not, so go away because this isn't your article." issue. It is not wonder there is this bunch of folks who insist on imposing certain standards beyond what would have been reasonable for all. I have half a feeling that the main motivation here is not a genuine desire to conform articles to a guideline, but a personal egoistic desire to pit against supposedly "Singapore-POV" individuals. A rather immature reasoning and position to edit from, I must say. When I ask about credentials, I ask about your familiarity with the aviation business in general. If all you care about airport pages is to get from point A to point B, and that these articles should remain as such, then please consider going to wikitravel. This article is supposed to document, analyse, and critique the services, development, design, functionality, and organisation of an airport, amongst many other possible topics, and not your travel guide. Are you excluded from editing? Of coz not. But are we?--Huaiwei 04:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

But why would AA be listed here just because someone "likes" it? They don't fly to Singapore. Hence, they shouldn't be listed. Given the state of airline alliances today, everyone codeshares on everyone such that if one were to list codeshares for every airport, British Airways would be flying to Boise, Idaho and you'd have to list US Airways as serving Arcata-Eureka Airport from SFO when it's really just a computer ticketing legerdemain on United Express operated by SkyWest. FCYTravis 22:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Codeshares also change much more frequently than actual flown routes, so it's difficult to maintain (as mentioned below). Also, another example of the codeshare having airlines fly to places they don't: listing all codeshares would have US Airways flying to Tokyo, despite the fact that they don't own any planes that could safely make the non-stop journey from their hubs in Philly and Charlotte. Dbinder 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree codeshares do change more frequently. That said, codeshares dont change so often as to make them difficult to maintain either. Instead of completely deleting them and denying their existance, have you guys considered simply moving them to a seperate list section? It seems that deletion is a far easier way out for some of you, eh?--Huaiwei 04:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If the codeshares are retained, they need to be in a separate section. Many of the fields don't even apply to the codesharing airlines (terminal, date service started, etc.). Dbinder 12:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets not forget that the route information as it stands is simply not maintainable — as can be clearly seen from all the "fill in" and "N/A"s... And I must echo I can see no use at all for code shares being listed, and disagree strongly with the belief that "deleting information is so against the culture of wikipedia", after all WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information. wangi 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please define "not maintanable". They are stated as "fill in", because the information was not on hand at the time of the table's writing. Anyone can do some research and fill them up. Is this an issue of maintanance or availability of information? For the upteempth time, please define for me what an indiscriminate collection of information is.--Huaiwei 04:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of demonstrating this isn't the opinion of just one or two people, I definitely agree that the table should be consolidated into something cleaner and more reasonable. I think it's certainly reasonable to debate what should or shouldn't change, but some ammount of reduction is desirable. Rdore 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I, too, agree that the table needs to be tweaked such that it is easier to read and maintain. But I wonder if individuals here are willing to give some room for others to experiment with that idea, instead of coming around and deleting them, calling all those who attempt to improve articles beyond the status quo as "POV pushers".--Huaiwei 04:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody deleted anything - I simply added, so that we can compare the various approaches. FCYTravis 06:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody, you say?--Huaiwei 06:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I do agree as well. Maybe we should make the table easier to read. We just need to do some research of the codeshare destinations and we can complete the table. Its better not to remove the table and improving the article is a better idea than removing the information. More is better than less right. The table and codeshare information does not really fall into Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 05:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

History section and Terminal 2

As I was reading the History section, and then I see "Phase 1" which mentioned "first passenger terminal building", yada yada, until I hit "Budget Terminal". What happened to Terminal 2? --Anonymous 20:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

United codesharing

The article claims that the direct flights to LAX and EWR on SQ are also codeshared by UA. I cannot find any info online that backs this up. Can someone confirm or deny that this is the case? Rdore 07:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Destinations

Do we absolutely need a table for destinations? If not, I will delete it and change it to list format. I think this is the only stumbling block to inclusion into WikiProject Airports. Please respond in affirmation or negation, or the table will be replaced.

Never mind; let's have a vote:

Shall the editors of Wikipedia keep the current table of destinations listed within the article Singapore Changi Airport? If answered in majority of affirmation, the table shall be kept as in the present condition. If answered in majority of negation, state after your vote what shall be changed regarding the table of destinations, or if it shall be removed and replaced with the listing format per WikiProject Airports guidelines. --Physicq210 03:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this before if you want to search the archives. But yes, I'd be behind you if made that change./wangi 08:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And i think the current article and talk page show clearly that the code-share information is not accurate or maintainable/wangi 08:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd back you up on this as well. Elektrik Blue 82 08:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Support as I did before. Dbinder (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the table will be unlikely to be updated after Huaiwei's departure from Wikipedia. It will be very hard to maintain and update the table. In this case, the table of information will become outdated. I admit defeat and shall vote weak support. --Terence Ong 15:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewording; vote below... Dbinder (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Should the table be replaced with a list as per the WikiProject?

• Support - Physicq210
• Support - /wangi
• Support - Elektrik Blue 82
• Support - Dbinder
• Weak Support - Terence Ong

Due to what I see as overwhelming support for the change, I will commence the change of the format from table to list. I believe the tally above displays the "consensus" that Huaiwei always wanted. Thanks, Terence Ong, for your support. Without it, this plan will fall flat.

To those that are so kind to remind me that attempts to do so have been rebuffed, I did a lot of research before deciding to hop onto this usually-divisive topic. But now, since Huaiwei is not present, I believe that it is ripe for another attempt. And I hope that this time, the change will be permanent. --Physicq210 01:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've kept the previous version i.e. including the table in my sandbox for storage. --Terence Ong 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Codeshares

A bit of to-and-fro today onthe destination list re codeshares... Given we've got a standard list now, surely it does not include codeshares? /wangi 15:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the issues, codeshares should be listed as well even in all articles. It doesn't matter. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

But they're not - all other arport articles only list the airlines that actually fly the route, and only segments that you can buy tickets for & fly/wangi 16:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Codeshares change too fast for the article to keep up on, hence they should not be mentioned, for the editors' sanity. --Physicq210 07:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC) The other question is whether to include "direct" flights which are not nonstop. (For example, United flights between SIN and ORD stop somewhere along the way, and passengers may even have to change planes.) I see them as nothing more than an airline scheduling trick. And we've been excluding them from other articles. But I'm not that passionate about it and open to hearing other opinions. Rdore 14:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There definitely shouldn't be codeshares, except possibly in a side note that simply mentions "the following airlines do not fly to SIA but codeshare with existing carriers"... Also, the convention on direct flights is to list direct, non-plane-changing, international flights. UA 896 (SIN-HKG-ORD) does not involve a plane change in Hong Kong, so it should be listed. Dbinder (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fallout from Removal of Table

nonsense and insults phy? you just cant accept the fact that you are not a singaporean and all you are trying to do is to edit things as per your way and in whatever way you can to gain recognition get out of singapore!202.156.6.54 01:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother responding to this nonsense comment. Does anyone else want the distinction of fueling this fire? --Physicq210 01:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Terminal 2 history??

I see that there is no history about the Terminal 2, Phase 2 was part of Terminal 1 as according to the Straits Times special section on 1 July 2006. A history of how terminal 2 began should be included in the article. Also, there isn't any mention of the extentions to the departure gates i.e. finger piers. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 14:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)