Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Singapore Changi Airport |
Status | Closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | Thadius856 |
Parties involved | Jpatokal, Huaiwei, DB, Thadius856, Betacommand, Rifleman 82, Heligoland, le petit vagabond, wangi, physicq210 |
Mediator(s) | User:Chacor, User:Hunterd |
Comment | Recently Closed |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Singapore Changi Airport]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Singapore Changi Airport]]
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
I'll have a look at the details shortly. For the sake of clarity, I am Singaporean, but to my knowledge have never touched the article on Changi Airport. I have asked for a second mediator to avoid any possible claims of bias. – Ch acor 09:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
Here are the options I see today, although only the second can be seen as a compromise:
Unfortunately I don't think the compromise is going to satisfy anybody, as one of the main reasons for keeping things as is seems to be that all four official languages deserve to be listed prominently, and listing only Chinese would elevate that language above the rest. Jpatokal 11:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
</indent> It seems that we've reached the end of this case's usefulness as its growing stale without new comments and having reached a general agreement with all involved parties who have responded. Would it be safe to assume that since participation in this mediation is voluntary, we've reached the 22 day mark, and all parties have been notified of this case's existence that we've established consensus on the matter? If so, it'd be awfully nice to close it before we've reached the month-old mark. Any objections? thadius856 talk| airports| neutrality 04:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
I'd like to help out with this case. This will be my first mediation, so you'll have to walk me through it, but I'm happy to help and in know way have a care about Changi Airport, so I am free of bias (in theory). The Duke of Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
There is evidence to support the listing of (just) the English and Chinese names in the lead, and the other official names in the infobox/footnotes. However no compelling reason has been given to do so, and standard practise on other Singapore related articles is to have all the official languages in the lead. I do not see this as an urgent need for mediation, nor a barrier on getting the Singapore Airport article to FA status. Thanks/ wangi 05:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
So, I was the one who unwittingly stepped into this little hornet's nest. My stand on this specific case remains the same as it was on day one: the huge list of names makes the lede illegible and does not provide any critical information, thus going against WP:LEAD. In addition, as the alternate names are already listed in the airport infobox, which has a standard place for this kind of info, there is no compelling reason to duplicate them in the lede.
For the overall case, I think the practice of having all four official languages in the lede makes many other Singapore articles equally illegible and have suggested that, when no suitable generic infobox exists, a Template:Koreanname-style infobox be created for storing this info. Most of the time, including Changi Airport, the names in alternate languages are just word-for-word translations and provide no interesting etymological or historical information. (Exceptions, like Tekka Market, should be treated on a case-by-case basis.)
I agree with wangi that this is fairly a trivial issue, but since a lot of virtual ink has already been wasted, we might as well bring it to a formal conclusion and actually settle it. Jpatokal 07:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have just stumbled on this article and I have always had a problem with the lead sections of many Wikipedia articles and their inaccessibility. This article seems like one of the worst examples I have seen. I would plead with everyone on all sides to try to come to some compromise which will improve the readability. I do not know what languages and texts should be kept in the first sentence, aside from English. I would suggest that only one language besides English be retained in the first sentence for readability. The others can be found in the information box or relocated lower in the text.-- 68.49.201.13 02:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
As per User:Hunterd's suggestion:
Case closed by The Duke of Mediation Cabal/Cases 10:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Singapore Changi Airport |
Status | Closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | Thadius856 |
Parties involved | Jpatokal, Huaiwei, DB, Thadius856, Betacommand, Rifleman 82, Heligoland, le petit vagabond, wangi, physicq210 |
Mediator(s) | User:Chacor, User:Hunterd |
Comment | Recently Closed |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Singapore Changi Airport]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Singapore Changi Airport]]
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
I'll have a look at the details shortly. For the sake of clarity, I am Singaporean, but to my knowledge have never touched the article on Changi Airport. I have asked for a second mediator to avoid any possible claims of bias. – Ch acor 09:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
Here are the options I see today, although only the second can be seen as a compromise:
Unfortunately I don't think the compromise is going to satisfy anybody, as one of the main reasons for keeping things as is seems to be that all four official languages deserve to be listed prominently, and listing only Chinese would elevate that language above the rest. Jpatokal 11:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
</indent> It seems that we've reached the end of this case's usefulness as its growing stale without new comments and having reached a general agreement with all involved parties who have responded. Would it be safe to assume that since participation in this mediation is voluntary, we've reached the 22 day mark, and all parties have been notified of this case's existence that we've established consensus on the matter? If so, it'd be awfully nice to close it before we've reached the month-old mark. Any objections? thadius856 talk| airports| neutrality 04:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
I'd like to help out with this case. This will be my first mediation, so you'll have to walk me through it, but I'm happy to help and in know way have a care about Changi Airport, so I am free of bias (in theory). The Duke of Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
There is evidence to support the listing of (just) the English and Chinese names in the lead, and the other official names in the infobox/footnotes. However no compelling reason has been given to do so, and standard practise on other Singapore related articles is to have all the official languages in the lead. I do not see this as an urgent need for mediation, nor a barrier on getting the Singapore Airport article to FA status. Thanks/ wangi 05:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
So, I was the one who unwittingly stepped into this little hornet's nest. My stand on this specific case remains the same as it was on day one: the huge list of names makes the lede illegible and does not provide any critical information, thus going against WP:LEAD. In addition, as the alternate names are already listed in the airport infobox, which has a standard place for this kind of info, there is no compelling reason to duplicate them in the lede.
For the overall case, I think the practice of having all four official languages in the lede makes many other Singapore articles equally illegible and have suggested that, when no suitable generic infobox exists, a Template:Koreanname-style infobox be created for storing this info. Most of the time, including Changi Airport, the names in alternate languages are just word-for-word translations and provide no interesting etymological or historical information. (Exceptions, like Tekka Market, should be treated on a case-by-case basis.)
I agree with wangi that this is fairly a trivial issue, but since a lot of virtual ink has already been wasted, we might as well bring it to a formal conclusion and actually settle it. Jpatokal 07:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have just stumbled on this article and I have always had a problem with the lead sections of many Wikipedia articles and their inaccessibility. This article seems like one of the worst examples I have seen. I would plead with everyone on all sides to try to come to some compromise which will improve the readability. I do not know what languages and texts should be kept in the first sentence, aside from English. I would suggest that only one language besides English be retained in the first sentence for readability. The others can be found in the information box or relocated lower in the text.-- 68.49.201.13 02:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
As per User:Hunterd's suggestion:
Case closed by The Duke of Mediation Cabal/Cases 10:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)