![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
To 202.156.2.170 who added London Underground buses...whats that?-- Huaiwei 11:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
![]() | Please continue discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Standardisation - Singapore Changi Airport |
I sincerely apologise if I made any personal attacks. Terenceong1992 04:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Rewording; vote below...
Dbinder (
talk)
14:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Should the table be replaced with a list as per the WikiProject?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Ter e nce Ong ( Chat | Contribs) 14:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
To 202.156.2.170 who added London Underground buses...whats that?-- Huaiwei 11:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
![]() | Please continue discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Standardisation - Singapore Changi Airport |
I sincerely apologise if I made any personal attacks. Terenceong1992 04:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Rewording; vote below...
Dbinder (
talk)
14:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Should the table be replaced with a list as per the WikiProject?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Ter e nce Ong ( Chat | Contribs) 14:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)