Jump to content

Talk:Changi Airport/Archive 3

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

Images

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

OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I will now delist the article as there is no substantial improvement on the article. OhanaUnitedTalk 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)

I deleted an image

I deleted an image from the article that was a picture of the Terminal 3 transit center because it interrupted the Airlines and Destinations list which made the part it covered hard to read.72.89.35.142 (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

July 2013

Hi there,

I am from a PR agency representing Changi Airport. Can we seek your advice on making factual edits on Changi Airport please? For instance, we'd like to edit numerous dated and wrong information that include:

1. Changi’s daily record was broken on 22 December 2012, the Saturday before Christmas day, with 180,400 passengers passing through the 24 hours. [NOT 17 December 2011 with 165,000 passengers handled as currently posted on the Wikipedia page]

2. An image depicting Singapore Airlines Airbus A380 and a Northwest Airlines Boeing 747 at Changi Airport needs to be removed since Northwest doesn’t exist now.

3. Extensive upgrading works in Terminal 1 similar in scale to the recently completed works at Terminal 2 commenced in May 2008 [NOT September 2007 as currently posted on the Wikipedia page]

We look forward to your advice.

Cutedude1979 (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  1. Do you have a reliable source for the daily record, maybe a newspaper report? The entire "operations" section is almost exclusively based on the airport's own reports and seems rather promotional, especially with the useless "2.8 times the length of the Great Wall of China" comparison - I suspect that's not the standard industry measure of handled baggage.
  2. Northwest Airlines clearly existed when that picture was taken; that they since merged with Delta is no reason to remove the image. Consider it a historical document. That said, the article has lots of rather useless plane images; in particular the "Scoot Boeing 777-200ER on final approach" doesn't even show the trees behind the runway and conveys no information whatsoever about the airport.
  3. The entire paragraph on the supposed September 2007 expansion cited a single source which is no longer available and isn't archived by the Wayback Machine, making that content unverifiable. That's not the only Channel NewsAsia source with that problem. I have removed that paragraph and the speculative one following it. If you know of reliable sources discussing this upgrade, please provide them. Huon (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Armbrust found that source, and it indeed says September 2007, but it was written in January 2007. According to the airport's press release construction on the terminal itself didn't start until May 2008. I'll reword that paragraph. Huon (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/changi/
    Triggered by \bairport-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The "Airlines and destinations" section

There are too many images of planes landing, which overflow into later sections and interfere with their images. Could we decide which images to retain and which to remove? The History section already has two other images of planes landing.

In addition, the lists are too long and mostly unreferenced. Are the many destinations really necessary? What could be done to shorten the lists? What references could be added to the lists?

Consider this discussion the start of a cleanup collaboration (together with Mailer diablo) to improve this article to GA status.

--Hildanknight (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Destination listing is standard airport content per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT and is an illustration of what an airport is like--who flies there and where to. Photos I don't know. I agree we don't need that many. HkCaGu (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to the WikiProject guideline. For an international airport ranked among the best in the world, perhaps the length of the list is justified, but more references are needed. Since you agree that we do not need that many images of planes landing, how could we decide which images to retain and which to remove? Does WikiProject Airports have any guidelines on selection of such images? If not, were any of the planes in said images involved in historically significant or otherwise notable events, such as accidents or new records? If not, then perhaps priority should be given to planes from airlines that are of particular significance to Changi Airport (such as Singapore Airlines, of course). --Hildanknight (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Most of the images are not needed in what is an article about an airport not an image gallery, no clear guidelines but any images that actually show the airport and aircraft at the airport should be included, just having side views of aircraft is not the aim. So a representive one or two images showing airlines at the airport and ideally ones that show the aircraft in context of the airport not ones that look like they could have been taken anywhere. And as Hildaknight says any that are of particular note the the airport should be considered. MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I perused GAs about airports, finding only four about international airports and only two with similar sections of comparable length. Of the two GAs, one (Trondheim Airport, Værnes) had no images in its equivalent section, while the other (Melbourne Airport) had five images, all of better quality. In my opinion, this section does not need images, but if we decide to have some, then five should be the limit. Assuming none of the planes were involved in significant events, I would prefer planes from the airlines with the most flights at Changi Airport.
Recent image removals are a step in the right direction, but Singapore Airlines, Qantas and Garuda Indonesia are no longer represented in that section. The rationale given is that these airlines are already represented in other sections, which begs the question whether some plane images in other sections could be moved here. For example, the 2011 image of Qantas and Singapore Airlines A380s (but not the image of the first A380) or the image of the Garuda Indonesia Boeing 737-300 being pushed back. --Hildanknight (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I just used a simple arbitrary "rule" to shrink the photo string back to not exceeding the section's length. We can be more complicated in deciding which to stay and which to go, but we can't be too complicated. For photos to be added there first needs to be photos taken by someone and not copyrighted, so there can hardly be an airport-to-airport standard there. HkCaGu (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Just tried replacing all the images with three images from other sections. How does this look? --Hildanknight (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it true TK don't have rights to fly passenger SIN-CGK? According to this report, [7] TK have a fifth freedom rights, amounting up to 2,016 seats per week one-way. Maybe it can't be booked online like Yemenia Air for KUL-CGK Tafeax (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.changiairport.com/getting-around/getting-around-the-airport/inter-terminal-transfer and http://www.changiairport.com/getting-around/to-and-from-the-airport/coach-to-johor-bahru-malaysia. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Uzbekistan Airways

I don't think Uzbekistan has local traffic on the SIN-KUL-TAS, I added a note ad it was removed, I cant seem to find a way to book only the SIN-KUL sector, correct me if I'm wrong. - TheChampionMan1234 06:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Singapore Change Airport Transit law

I wonder if there is anyone knowing the details of the applyed law at the Singapore Changi Airport - Transit Zone, as International Transit Areas are a sort of diplomatic enclave. Some are regulated (i.e. Schengen), some exist solely by convention. How is that regulated in Singapore? Thanks! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Singapore Changi Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

History

Should there be a history section detailing the orign of the site as a military base, and initial construction of the first airfields on the site by prisoners of war in Changi camp? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.10 (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved due to lack of support for WP:COMMONNAME for the proposed shortened name.(non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Singapore Changi Airport → Changi Airport – Common name for Singapore's only major international airport is simply 'Changi Airport' (http://www.changiairport.com/). 'Singapore' is a redundant addition to the article name. Dropping it would bring the article in line with airport articles like Heathrow Airport and Indira Gandhi International Airport without the city's name in front. Tiger7253 (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
the only change needed is to add a medium-dash: Singapore—Changi Airport --2601:646:4200:F86:985F:597B:DB35:F302 (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unsourced destinations

I have added refimprove tags to the destinations sub-sections. It is largely unsourced and probably outdated as well. Quite a few of the references are not accessible. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Singapore Changi Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Listing airlines by terminal

With the new Terminal 4 opening, can we have the listing where we we list the terminal next to each airlines and destination under the "Airlines and Destination" column? It will help the public a lot. Timothyngim (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

We no longer include this information, per WP:AIRPORTS. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Singapore Changi Airport → Changi Airport Singapore – Current name, see its logo, or compare with Science Centre Singapore Rqiang84 (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Direct but stopping flights

A number of the china flights have a stop, technically they are direct but they stop in an intermediate Chinese city where immigration must be cleared. First case in the list is Air China to Yinchuan on CA404, this stops in Chengdu where passengers must leave the place, clear immigration and rebound. Dalian, Urumqi, Shijiazhuang and Yantai flight are the same I would like to propose we remove as are not vastly different to other connections and retain only in case where passengers can rebound at least without immigration

Sidavies (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Stuart

Changi Airport Contemporary Art Collection

I'd like to add Changi's Contemporary Art collection be mentioned on this page? They have some quite significant kinetic artworks. I added a brief reference to it on the Changi Airport Infrastructure page, but I think it would be preferable to do a breakdown here of the 5 different artworks - artwork name, artists and locations at least? Happy to take advice on the best way forward, should I add a new section on this page? - new user! HannahLSP (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Singapore Changi Airport/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nigos (talk · contribs) 10:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Good article criteria

1. Is it well written?

  • Prose is clear and concise

2. Is it verifiable?

  • No citation needed tags. I'll have to read it further to see if the article is well-sourced
  • No copyvios

3. Broad coverage

  • The article talks about the main topic without veering off

4. Neutrality

  • The article is neutral

5. Is it stable?

  • Yes. There isn't any recent edit warring.

6. Illustrations

  • Yes. There are enough of them. One picture of low quality needs to be changed.

Comments

  1. File:Changi Airport MRT.jpg could be replaced by a better picture, such as this. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 02:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Some of the citations are improperly formatted. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 02:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Fixed this. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 02:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thus should be a quick fail. Missing sources all over....whole sections need verification and is why the last GA did not work.--Moxy 🍁 14:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nigos and Feinoa: Ho0w are we going with this review. I agree with Moxy that the sourcing is poor (accidents in particular need sourcing). AIRcorn (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Fail for now. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 12:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: Nigos did not actually adjust the article talk page to fail this nomination, so I'm taking that step now; as both Moxy and Aircorn have noted, there are severe sourcing issues, with entire sections being unreferenced. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 02:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


Singapore Changi Airport → Changi Airport – As per WP:COMMONNAME, we should be using the most common name. Changi Airport is searched 4.5x more than Singapore Changi Airport, and the website refers always to the airport as "Changi Airport", with the only exception being in the browser title tags. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Support - "Changi Airport" itself is more well-known than "Singapore Changi Airport". TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - "Changi Airport" is more appropriate. No airport articles have their country in their name. Itsquietuptown t • c 23:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Itsquietuptown: Uh, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Taiwan? Singapore is a country yes, but it's also just a city. You can't really compare that with other countries. Bouymid (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Bouymid: You're right, we do have some articles that include the region's name in the article title. That being said: the Taiwan airport you linked to doesn't (Taoyuan International Airport) and Hong Kong's international airport is literally just called "Hong Kong International Airport" so it isn't particularly relevant in comparison. Also as a comment to your below !vote, the official names policy actually explicitly says ...common names are generally preferred over official names as article titles... - while there are some exceptions, set out in topic-specific naming conventions, no such exceptions apply here. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per WP:OFFICIAL, and "Singapore Changi Airport" is what the airport is mostly known as, especially internationally. Google Trends is hardly the baseline for accuracy, it's something that should only be taken with a pinch of salt. Bouymid (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Its not accuracy that's the problem, its how common the name is. Its that "Changi Airport" is the name used by people, falling in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Accuracy is not the only criteria for an article's name. Itsquietuptown t • c 01:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Support: WP:COMMONNAME goes first. "Singapore" existing in the title has nearly no use for readers to identify the airport. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 06:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Taoyuan International Airport and Hong Kong International Airport are different cases. "Hong Kong International Airport" itself is a common name; Taiwan has more than one international airport, which results in the need of disambiguation. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 06:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I vaguely remember seeing a logo on this page. What happened to it? Grsangekoek (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that section Changi Airport#Airlines and destinations be split into a separate page called List of Changi Airport airlines and destinations. While the article is not so long that a size split is needed, the length of the list makes the article difficult to read, and it is not so relevant that it needs to be at the main article. BilledMammal (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal, is there a similar split on the other airport articles? – robertsky (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know. It's currently proposed for Heathrow Airport. BilledMammal (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would tentatively support such a split, as it seems sensible to not have such long lists on otherwise mostly prose airport articles (a format split rather than a size split). I can see the benefits in readability, and also in hiving off what is the main target for unsourced changes in these articles. My support is only tentative as this seems like the sort of idea that should have some expected standard over various airports (or at least those with let's say over 10 destinations), and so it might be useful to have a slightly wider discussion over a localised consensus. CMD (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Absolutely no reason to make readers go to a separate page for this. It's key information readers go to airport articles for, and it's a disservice to move that out. The article is not difficult to read because one table is long, and this would achieve nothing. Reywas92Talk 21:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I agree with what the user above wrote. There is absolutely no need for a separate article to be created just for airport destinations. The lists are integral parts of airport Wikipedia pages and there is no need to separate and create a different page just for lists. Yellow alligator (talk)

A RFC on splitting "Airlines and Destinations" out from articles has been opened since 16 January. Rather than continue the discussion here, responding to the RFC may yield a better consensus among all interested editors. – robertsky (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Changi_Airport/Archive_3&oldid=1257792736"