Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines

Opening statements

Hi all, sorry for the delay in getting this started - I've been a little busy in real life. To get things started, it would be good to get an opening stated from everyone, summarising in less than 500 words what you feel the problems are. Please pop your statement in your own section.

Statement by User:Hawaiian717

Certain editors fail to abide by consensus reached within WP:AIRLINES regarding notability of lists of flight numbers, destinations covered by codeshare agreements, and lists of aircraft registrations, which is that such items are generally not notable and exceptions must establish notability for their inclusion. In this particular case, these items have not been established as notable for Singapore Airlines, yet certain editors persist in including such items. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jpatokal

I agree with User:Hawaiian717, except that instead of cloaked references to He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, to me it's clear that "certain editors" here are User:Huaiwei alone. However, if there are other editors in this mediation who do not feel bound by the WP:AIRLINES consensus on the above topics, this would be a good time to say so. Jpatokal (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Vegaswikian

I feel that the opening comments so far are pretty much on the mark. My position is that the projects involved are working to achieve a consistent look and feel which is important for an encyclopedia. The disputes here, and similar ones on other pages, seem to be based in the 'need' to be different and use WP:BOLD to ignore the projects' work. For differences, apparently no counter suggestions or consensus matters, everyone else is wrong. That leads to disputes. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Yilloslime

There appear to be several points of contention on the pages Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines fleet, but I have only been involved with the fleet article, and will restrict my comments to issues involved there. Basically, it is my view the information in listed in the tables in the Full Aircraft Listing section violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and also consensus at WP:AIRLINES) and should be deleted. Much of the rest of the article could then probably be merged into Singapore Airlines. Furthermore, this section is unreferenced and appears to be WP:OR. Repeated requests for references have been met with stonewalling. User:Huaiwei has contended that all this info can be found at Airlinerslist.com and Airfleets.net, but repeated requests to be shown exactly where this info resides on these websites have been met with only snarky comments. Regardless, theses appear to be fan sites, and seem to fail the criteria required of reliable sources. Yilloslime (t) 01:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Butterfly0fdoom

The sentiments described above are pretty much accurate, and I'm pretty much in the same position as Yilloslime. I believe that community consensus exists for a reason, and that uniformity is important. Certain editors feel their opinions are more valuable than the opinions of the community and don't hold back in underhanded insults when their references and actions are put into question. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Mcarling

It seems that some editors misunderstand the consensus reached at WP:AIRLINES. A consensus was reached that the sort of specific lists in question should not be mandatory. There was no consensus (as the question was not even raised) on whether or not such lists should be permitted. Poor phrasing of the question probably contributed to this misunderstanding. Mcarling (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:WhisperToMe

For the main issues the prior statements explain why this request for mediation is needed. Anyway, part of what characterized the dispute regarding the use of stewardess and flight attendant seem to stem from the fact that the article Singapore Girl has a scope that is not clear. Also how should we decide which words are most appropriate for use in a 2008 Wikipedia article? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Russavia

The main issues in my mind are the removal of verifiable information from articles which clearly belongs and the disregarding of consensus which has been agreed on several times. In regards to consensus, instead of recognising it, it is ignored and holes are attempted to be poked; and this in my mind is not within the spirit of WP. Other issues such as WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL (the latter is something I will readily admit I have not abided by on occasion) also need to be addressed. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 06:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:MilborneOne

Users have tried to change the Singapore Airlines and related article according to normal practice and concensus agreed by WP:AIRLINES but these have been rebutted by WP:OWN issues from other editors. Further arguments then ensued when the local editors resisted all changes at all cost despite discussions which ended up in a long drawn out edit war concerning the addition and removal of information concerning the owners of the airline. Question is does project concensus have any weight on indivdual articles when the local editors resist. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Planenut

I'm in the same position as Mcarling. Many editors on this article often cite non-conformity to the consensus agreed at WP:AIRLINES. Going through the discussion it is stated that while specific fleet lists are not mandatory, , there was no mention that having such details would be allowed. Unless the loop holes in the consensus are clarified, editors will be free to interpret it to their own benefit. Planenut (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Final Statement by RomanceOfTravel

I suggest that the destination list and codeshare list be included but in its current form. Specifically, it should be a table which has all but the top row hidden by default, allowing the reader to show it on demand. Further, the page should be adjusted to make sure the formatting isn't out of place and there are not large white gaps everywhere.

I agree that Temasek Holdings is the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited. It is stated in the Annual Report of Singapore Airlines Limited. There is a case to argue that Temasek is not the parent of the brand "Singapore Airlines" because accounting rules are not relevant in this context. That is something for you all to debate.

I dispute the article being promotional. It is my view that Russavia is uncomfortable with the fact that Singapore Airlines offers products and services which are beyond every competitor and in effect, wants to 'knock the airline down a few pegs' so to speak. There are no facts in the article which relates to product that are untrue. This claim of his has no basis.

I conclude by saying that this will be a heated debate.RomanceOfTravel (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Destinations

Right, let's get this underway. We'll deal with one issue at a time, so let's get the destinations part fixed first. The dispute seems to centre around whether or not destination lists should be included in Singapore Airlines. One suggestion I have is moving it out of the Singapore Airlines article completely, and creating List of detinations covered by Singapore Airlines. As long as this is verifiable and referenced, I don't see a problem with it being in it's own article. Notability in this instance isn't really a good marker - the notability guidelines are more for people, groups, companies rather lists of destinations. It would be good to find out if there are any reliable sources discussion the destinations that Singapore Airlines go to however. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, moving it out of the article has already been done, and isn't uncommon with the airline articles since the destination lists often get long and can overwhelm the article (although as standalone articles, they do get brought up at AfD from time to time, but that's another issue). In this case, it's at Singapore Airlines destinations.

The real issue with destinations I believe is whether or not codeshare destinations (that is, destinations served only by flights by another airline also sold by Singapore with their own flight number). Typically, these haven't been included with airline articles as they're viewed more as marketing extensions than as part of the scope of what Singapore Airlines actually does. One example is Phoenix, Arizona - where you won't see a Singapore Airlines aircraft (at least, not as part of any current scheduled service). A passenger holding a ticket to Phoenix with a Singapore Airlines flight number would actually be on a US Airways aircraft on a connecting flight from one of Singapore's North American destinations (such as Los Angeles). I don't think anyone objects to listing other airlines that Singapore maintains codeshare relationships with, just detailing to the point that it includes the destinations served only by those codeshare agreements. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting that the codeshare can be mentioned, but it must specifically state who the codeshare is with? That sounds fair. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember what the situation was like back when this first became an issue, but looking things over, the way things currently are on the Singapore Airlines article, with a separate section for codeshare destinations that delineate who operates the flight, seems like a reasonable approach to me. I suspect the objection, from those who have it, comes from the viewpoint that codeshare destinations are more of a marketing gimmick than an accurate representation of the airline's reach. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A separate section for codeshare destinations sounds pretty reasonable or maybe it can be merged into Singapore_Airlines_destinations. Regardless of SQ metal or non SQ metal, it's still a SQ numbered flight. Planenut (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think the best place for this would be in Singapore Airlines destinations. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As summated by Hawaiian, WP:AIRLINES guidelines specify that codeshare agreements should only list the airlines with which they partner, as those flights are not operated by Singapore Airlines, but by another airline. Codesharing is simply a way for airlines to market destinations to their passengers to which they don't actually fly. The way it works, let's use the Virgin Atlantic flights from London to Orlando as the example. SIA will blockbuy x-number of seats on that flight, which they can then sell to their own passengers and market it as an SIA flight, with SIA flight numbers, etc. But SIA has nothing else to do with the actual flight. The problem whilst yes is basically confined to SIA on this issue (as far as I can see), has far wider implications for the other airlines in the project; some airlines may codeshare with another airline on dozens upon dozens of routes - British Airways and American Airlines are a good example of this. We have requested clarification on several occasions as to why SIA should be treated any differently to all the other airlines on WP, however, no solid reasoning has been provided which should allow SIA to be an exception to the guideline. Guidelines of the project suggest the codeshares should be set out something similar to that in Aeroflot#Codeshare_agreements - with the airline name only - and referenced. We don't need to outline all the destinations (check the Aeroflot reference for a list of those destinations). I don't feel that putting them on the "destination" pages is a good solution due to the very shaky ground they are on already as evidenced in their past AfDs; AfDs which they were to arise again, I would likely be going the delete route for a variety of reasons, many of which I have myself have argued against in the past, and due to the addition of widely unsourced, unverified terminated destinations. If consensus here says codeshare destinations should be listed on the destination page, then we all have to acknowledge that this is going to have a knock-on effect for all other airline articles, as we can't very well have one for one but not for the others. In short, as codesharing is a marketing technique, it's my opinion we are WP:NOT here to do marketing, but to build an encyclopaedia. That's my two bob on this one issue. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't have a strong opinion, as yet, about what to do with the destinations. Second, codeshare agreements are not marketing agreements. They have virtually nothing at all to do with marketing and rarely involve joint marketing. Codeshare agreements are subcontracting agreements. Third, if we assume that all airlines have similar stability of route networks, then it logically follows that an airline's codeshare destinations generally must change more often than the destinations served with its own metal. More stable information is better suited for an encyclopedia than less stable information. Mcarling (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally, the actual discussions are underway, and I thank Ryan for initiating it. A quick summary of what transpired is as follows. Way back on 23 November 2004 when I first created the Singapore Airlines destinations article, there were but only two others: that of United Airlines and British Airways. These articles soon became the target of AfDs[1] in a matter of hours after its creation, but survived after heavy lobbying, including from myself (I can't help but wonder what the outcome would have been if the debate took place when Russavia and some of his cronies were active back then). Similar articles for other airlines soon sprouted, with some articles attempting to include code-shared flights, seriously ballooning articles to mega sizes. When Vegaswikian initiated WP:Aviation on 5 July 2005, he included the following in the initial guidelines:
Destinations following the world based format show in articles like United Airlines destinations.

• Code share destinations should not be listed for the secondary carrier.[2]
  

Suffice to say, therefore, that the main reason why the "no codeshare" rule existed back then, was to prevent users from mixing codeshared destinations with regular destinations in our destination lists.

One would note also, that in the same guidelines, a "Code shares" section may be added. This gradually expanded to include listing airlines, and in some cases, codeshared destinations in various articles. When I personally noted this trend, I added the codeshared destinations to the list of codeshared airlines back on 23 July 2006[3] since codesharing may not involve all flights operated by a partner carrier. The added information was sourced direction from the relevant SQ website at [4]. Many many moons later, under the protests of very limited but vocal individuals, the destination list has since become a collapsable table, moved under various sections before returning back to the destinations section where it makes more sense to be in anyway.

To summarise my arguments in maintaining these information:

• The primary purpose of the "no codeshared destinations" guideline was to prevent users from bloating the destination list and cause confusion if codeshared flights are not properly marked. In this case where the codeshared list is not anywhere near the main destination article, there is practically zero likelihood of such a confusion from taking place.
• The guideline has always recommended the inclusion of a "codeshares" section, without dictating how detailed this section should be. And rightfully so, for since when are guidelines supposed to actually determine content to the last detail?
• As I have mentioned countless times, WP:Aviation is basically a guideline. While consistency is aesthetically important, it must not be accorded greater emphasis when it becomes a tool to inhibit or even censor content development.

And that summarises the viewpoint which I have all along pointed out and supported by others who has assisted to restore the information which it was removed without consensus by individuals such as Russavia.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My cronies? That's it, count me out. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 06:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a major problem. The discussions shall take place without you, just as they can take place without me.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is Huaiwei?

This mediation is dragging out whilst all editors wait for input from Huaiwei, who has not yet even offered an opening statement. As one can see from Huaiwei (talk · contribs) his contributions, he has been active on WP, has been reminded on several occasions for comment, yet is saying that he will reply when he sees fit; this is nothing more than a delaying tactic, and considering that this has dragged on for almost 18 months, unless Huaiwei starts to participate, I believe we will have the concensus from previous discussions and mediation attempts, and will push for him to be sanctioned from editing these related articles, as there is more than enough evidence that there is a serious ownership issue here. It's not good enough, and we have all waited long enough for a response. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 04:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If Russavia bothers to read my talkpage (which he certainly does), I have cautioned in late August[5] that my editing time will be limited from that period onwards until a non-specified time, which I was obviously unable to predict at that juncture. A simple look in my editing history and my edit count[6] (which went from 1328 edits in August to 99 in September) very well illustrates this. My limited participation during this period in no way prevents discussions from continuing, and there is simply nothing to be gained from my end to delay this process. I challenge Russavia to draw up any wikipedia policy which permits sanctioning an editor under these circumstances. (Even the EU or NATO would hesitate to do so against a certain entity!)--Huaiwei (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing from RfM

Given the amount of time taken for Huaiwei to reply, and when the reply does come it delves directly into a personal attack, I am withdrawing myself from this RfM. I refuse to collaborate with editors who are persistently uncivil, and whilst I have retaliated on the odd occasion with some uncivil comments in the past, I will no longer take the bait, and I will no longer be discussing anything with such editors.

To other editors, have a look at the featured articles of the WP:AIRLINES project -- Pan Am, El Al and Biman Bangladesh Airlines -- these are examples of well written articles, and deserve that FA status. Take a look at Singapore Airlines and it is marketing; over half the article is straight out of the Singapore Airlines Public Affairs handbook; it's a great fanboy piece; all that is missing is their wonderful Singapore Airlines blankets and pillows , their Singapore Airlines inflight movies , their Singapore Airlines peanuts. Keep in mind what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia is not. Keep those 3 FA's in mind when discussing this article, and you can see what needs to be done. And keep in mind that two little words, Temasek Holdings, is going to be enough to stop this article from reaching FA status; because I will be sure to be there for that nomination, with those two little words. Cheers, --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 07:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Having just returned to more active editing in wikipedia, I am amused that my purported "delaying tactic" should now be used as a reason for withdrawal from this process, belatedly that is. And if WP:CIVIL is to be used as another excuse (considering that "Russavia and some of his cronies" simply refers to Russavia and some of his like-minded acquaintances, a simple shorthand as opposed to me having to list every other name), then the kind of taunts which has appeared in my talkpage[7] and Russavia's allegations of "delaying tactics" on my part[8] seems to present me with even more excuses to cry uncivil! and pull the same withdrawal stunt, which I had not. Russavia, the same individual who first ignited the 18-month old dispute when he single-handedly deleted material from the Singapore Airlines-related articles by dismissing its contributors as "fanboys", is now attempting to paint a different picture of himself. May the edit histories speak for themselves, even as Russavia possesses a habit of deleting potentially negative comments from his talkpage.

As for the supposed golden examples in Pan Am, El Al and Biman Bangladesh Airlines, I cannot help but point out the following observations:

• All three articles were voted as FAs with a grand tally of four, three and five votes respectively. In addition, all three nominations were devoid of inputs by the above members of the WP:Aviation project.
• All three articles do not conform to WP:Aviation's article structure guideline[9]. The Pan Am article has only two out of five section headings which are conformative, El Al has four out of ten, and Biman Bangladesh five out of seven. Observe how the same section may be treated differently across the articles, such as the Cargo section in the El Al and Biman articles.
• The Fleet table for Pan Am doesn't follow existing standards, and the El Al fleet table spots, oh my, tail numbers!!
• Sections like "Record-setting flights" and "Popular culture" in the Pan Am article are obviously "promotional" in nature, even if the airline may have left some kind of legacy. The El Al article is peppered full of "advertisements" all over, in particular its extensive "El Al security" section which seems to be allaying security fears of potential customers. The "Matmid" and "King David Lounge" sections appear lifted from the company website.
• There is hardly any analysis on Pan Am's financial or operational aspects, almost all of which are buried in that extensive History section. Unsurprisingly, the rest of the article is horribly underdeveloped. The El Al article has tiny sections called "Cargo" and "Livery". Biman has a "Subsidiaries" section which looks out-of-place and undeveloped relative to the rest of the article.
• The Pan Am article is stingy when it comes to referencing. There are zero citations in twelve paragraphs under the "History" section. In the "Popular culture" section, which according to [10] should be avoided, but if included should be well-cited, has a grand total of one citation when it has 1,119 words spread over eight paragraphs. The entire "Pan Am Flight 103" section has just one reference, while paras three and four of the "Accidents and terrorist events" section has zero references.
• And above all, I notice very limited contributions from vocal members of this particular mediation in the three articles except for the Pan Am article which has only slightly more participation. It is the Biman article which appears to be of the best editorial quality, and which ironically also has the least participation from WP:Aviation members involved in this mediation process.

So if these three articles are going to be held up as the best that WP:Aviation can produce as what Russavia purports, I can only glance wearily at the Aeroflot article and wonder just why it is missing from the list of FAs too since FA standards can stoop this low for airline-related articles!--Huaiwei (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You do know what kind of connotation "cronies" has, right? It's extremely uncivil, and it just illustrates the point that many of us have been trying to make. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The irony is that when one attempts to accuse another of bad faith, often times he is equally guilty of the very same thing. The same thing applies to almost all of your actions such as the edit war your reignite at Singapore Airlines fleet, the kind of bad-mouthing you do in people's talkpages[11] making wild accusations against individuals you suddenly love to loath just because of one single disagreement, including insinuating that I have "decided to join coincidentally when Russavia left", when all evidence points to the fact that Russavia chose to leave right after I returned to edit. Butterfly0fdoom, you have absolutely lost all moral authority to engage in disruptive editing, and may I just point out quite gently that your latest exploits in Singapore Airlines fleet is not going to earn you any extra points. Instead, you have demonstrated publicly that you are basically unable to control yourself emotionally and choose to edit war even when the dispute resolution is now in progress.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'll look at the usernames in that link you posted, you'll notice that I didn't say anything about you. Unless you're implying that I have sock puppets, which is a rather severe and false accusation. And if you'll look at the edit history for Singapore Airlines fleet, you'll also notice that I have been inactive. Your accusations against me have no ground, and clearly, you are letting YOUR emotions impair your ability to be civil. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah in this instance, you are actually right. I completely confused you with Yilloslime. Rest assured that the confusion was not due to alleged sockpuppeting, but far more likely caused by groupthink gone overboard!--Huaiwei (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because there is a multiple amount of persons that disagree with you doesn't make it groupthink. Stop constantly trying to portray yourself as the hapless victim in this discussion. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Question for the mediator

OK, where does this go now? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I note that this mediation process has proceeded despite several members' failure to indicate their willingness to participate, despite one member indicating that he disagree to participate, and despite my extended absence from the initial stages of this process. If this indicates a determination to proceed with the negotiation process despite the odds, then I hope the same spirit may ensure it continues, without falling prey to distraction tactics.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, we have a low rate of participation for the numbers involved. I think we should proceed here actually as I'm sure a compromise could be made. How about we concentrate on whether the codeshares should be included for now? It might be a good idea to keep it on track. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I will try my utmost to participate more actively to realise this common goal from this juncture despite other pressing demands from my schedules (which hopefully will not be as bad this month).--Huaiwei (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC

I'm sure the RfM will progress pretty smoothly now with one member withdrawing. I hope this will be objective now instead of just digging up old dirt and passing off as new. Planenut (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Codeshare

Now, the codeshare debate is a key area of this dispute. How about we try and write a section detailing all the codeshare agreements that Singapore Airlines has so we keep it completely seperate, make it clear that they're codeshares but still allow the information to be added? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Code shares are a way for airlines to sell extra seats or to offer additional locations without having to show an additional airline code on the tickets. The question is at what point does this become a travel guide rather then an encyclopedic article. Clearly the locations that the airlines fly to directly are encyclopedic. The issue is how encyclopedic are the destinations that they reach via aircraft of other airline. I'll take the position that those destinations are better suited for a travel guide and not an encyclopedia. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more for inclusion in the Singapore Airlines destinations article. If the arline is selling tickets with their code, then they do technically fly to those destinations and I'm not sure it would be complete without mentioning them. Providing that these agreements are made clear in the article, it may be beneficial to include them. An alternate route to take would be to mention that "Singapore Airlines also offer a number of code share seats where passengers fly to locations that aren't covered by Singapore Airlines planes and instead use a different airline. The flight number of these seats is that of Singapore Airlines. Destinations of Singapore Airlines code share agreements include *small list of example destinations*." Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

But the point is that they don't fly there. Another airline does. Why is the fact that they are using seats on another airline encyclopedic and not something for a travel guide? Where does this go next? Do we start including destinations that you can reach with one of their alliance partners? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The point of avoiding codeshares is more an issue of it potentially becoming unmaintainable, especially between airlines with very extensive codesharing agreements. Bringing up this "travel guide" argument is weak at best, for since when are details on destinations served by this airline not any more helpful to being a travel guide?--Huaiwei (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of aircraft metal, it's still a SQ numbered flight. The traditional mindset of code sharing has to go. The industry has changed in the last 10 years. The airline says it serves XYZ destinations, it serves XYZ destinations regardless of aircraft used. Planenut (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, there is already a section on detailed codesharing destination in the main article. I do not object to moving the details to the Singapore Airlines destinations article, except when some use this as added ammunition to remove them due to supposed "confusion", even if the data actually appears in its own section.--Huaiwei (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Consolidating the details to the Singapore Airlines destinations article is the best solution and we should get it done and move to the next issue. This RfM has been dragged for too long. Planenut (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have been happy with the codeshare destinations as it is: in a table which is by default not shown. RomanceOfTravel (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Codesharing is simply an outsourcing arrangement. In my opinion, codeshare destinations should be included in the destinations article but, in order to avoid confusion, separately from destinations to which SQ fly with their own metal. Mcarling (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The codeshare dispute seems to have been solved here. The consensus seems to be to put it into the Singapore Airlines destinations article, explicitly stating what the codeshare routes are. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope that all people realise that this is now going to affect ALL articles, and is now giving such lists, which aren't even referenced inline with WP:V, carte blanche to include all destinations for all airlines; which in the case of some airlines may involve hundreds of codeshare destinations. Just be aware of what implications this may have for all articles, and look past this single article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fleet list

Moving onto the fleet list problem. It seems the dispute lies on whether or not the fleet list is notable. It can obviously be verified, but has there been discussion about it in third party sources? These could be aircraft magazines or publications that aren't from Singapore Airlines. If these sources are available, then I think it would be good to have the fleet list in the article, if the sources don't exist then it's probably too specialised for a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For current aircraft registrations, http://www.caas.gov.sg/caas/en/Aviation_Development/List_of_Aircraft_on_Singapore_Register/year_2008/index.html provides monthly updates. Planenut(Talk) 01:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. The problem with the fleet list isn't just the notability, but just the fact that, AFAIK, WP frowns upon sprawling tables and excessive trivia. Websites already exist that document such information, providing links is more than sufficient. Fleets such as Frontier's are worth documenting as each aircraft has its own tail design based on the animal it's named after. Fleets such as SQ's, however, aren't. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And I believe that is the major point raised by those objecting to the inclusion of this data. The opposing argument is that the data is encyclopedic, but in the opinion of many, that case has not been made. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)