User talk:90.197.233.175

This article was nominated for deletion on January 28 2006, on October 6 2007, and on May 10 2008. The result of the first, second, and third discussions were no consensus.

This is stupid deleting such a Informative Article which im sure is very helpful and is a good encyclopedic reference for many people. I have found this article very interesting and I'm sure many people benifit from it. Deleting such a fine article which obviously has had a lot pf effort made by people to make would be degrading to wikipedia. Having this excels the name Wikipedia in my head and shows how good an encyclopedia can be, Iv'e even put some effort editing extra facts into it (though nothing compared to the people who originally worte it)

Please keep this article and would be a waste of human time and intelligence deleting it:(

Thankyou and I'm very impressed with the people wo worte it, Thankyou, you have made a brilliant contribution which I'm sure will be used by thousands of people in the time to come:)

Tom 11:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Complete List

I have to question the value of the complete listing of SQ aircraft past and present on this page when it would be simpler to have a link to the SQ entry on plane-spotters from which most of the information contained in this list is garnered. I feel the plane-spotters entry is likely to be better maintained and updated more frequently then this entry and that removing the "list" from this entry would make the entry more useful and less cluttered. skyskraper 13:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a complete list with such detailed information could become very long indeed. Instead a encyclopedic article with the history of the fleet and aircraft operations would be nice. --Oden 22:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like the full list of aircraft was introduced in the first version of the article: diff. It has also been suggested that the material might be copyright infringement: diff. --Oden 09:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The person suggesting it was a copyvio would then have to point out the relevant source where information was directly lifted from, and where the source has not been indicated in the article itself. Where may this source be?--Huaiwei 10:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest moving the complete list into List of Singapore Airlines aircraft so that this can be a article on the fleet, right now most of it consists of a list of aircraft. --Oden 11:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Might be a good idea in the interim, although the original intent of this article was actually meant to be heavily rewritten and expanded, particularly the current introductory section. Most of the "notes" in the main article can then be removed, leaving a para or two plus that table.--Huaiwei 12:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious much of the information has been DIRECTLY lifted from the planespotters page [1]. I don't think that even a list of Singapore Airlines aircraft makes notability. If a fleet page is necessary (I feel most of the information can be covered in the main article fleet and history sections) inclusion of individual lists with registration and remarks etc is not worthy of inclusion imo. skyskraper 08:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. When I constructed the original list, I collated information from a range of sources, all of which were listed in the reference section at the bottom of the article. None of them reads "planespotters" to me.--Huaiwei 10:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The article on Singapore Airlines is currently 35 kilobytes long, and even though there is no technical limitation anymore on article size there would be less rooom for a extensive section on the fleet in the main article (see Wikipedia:Article size) and less room to expand Wikipedia's coverage of the subject.

As for the copyright issue, the article on Copyright says:

"Copyright law covers only the particular form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work."

A list is basically a collection of facts, like a telephone catalogue (see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service and originality). However, WP:V requires that article content be verifiable, so every list requires a source. Whether or not the content is encyclopedic is a separate matter (see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). --Oden 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you will have to show just where this list was directly lifted from, without which the copyright allegations cannot hold true.--Huaiwei 10:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read my message above you will understand that a collection of facts cannot be copyrighted (e.g. a list of Presidents of the United States) since it lacks originality. However, articles need to be sourced (WP:V and WP:NOR). --Oden 11:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Singapore_Airlines_fleet#References clearly indicates the relevant sources used, unless you want a citation beside every single figure in the table.--Huaiwei 11:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone shed any light on the ambiguity of the statement "Short/Ultra long haul" listed for the range of the Airbus A340-541? Braditude 08:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove the complete list and merge

Even United Airlines doesn't have a list of all its airplanes; heaven forbid that every airplane UAL has ever owned should be listed! Mangoe 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, this article violates WP:NOT and WP:CRUFT, and the fleet of the airline is not notable, except for the fact the aircraft are operated by Singapore Airlines. It is fanboyism at it's worst. The only parts which need be merged with Singapore Airlines are the types of aircraft operated in the past. Of course, some will say that the article fulfills all of wikipedia's policies and is needed to give a better overview of the airline. This is nonsense. There are only two airlines in history which have had truly notable fleets, those being Pan Am, and Aeroflot. Aeroflot would be the most notable fleet of any airline in history, as no other airline in history has ever operated more than 10,000 aircraft. Does this mean that we need an article detailing every single aircraft ever operated by Aeroflot? No, it means that the historical fleet should be covered within the article of the airline concerned. It doesn't need its own article. This article should be put up for community review and ultimately deletion --Russavia 11:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Care to comment why United Airlines should be used as a benchmark in this case, Mangoe? Virgin Atlantic Airways manages to incorporate a fleet list without too much protests. How should an enormous airline's inability to list its aircraft have any bearing on mid-sized or small-sized airlines who have fleets with greater notability? Aeroflot has a notable fleet? To whom? Do you have any sources to support this assumption? Seriously, Russavia, are you going to turn all airlines into carbon copies of Aeroflot?--Huaiwei 13:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Virgin Atlantic article needs to go too. Now, let me think a minute. If the Singapore Airlines contingent has their own fleet article, then the Virgin Atlantic contingent has their fleet article, which means that.....let me check......low and behold, I was right. If SIA and Virgin have their own article, then YES, Malaysia Airlines has its own fleet article too - Category:Airline_fleets. We best not let the Emirates Airline and Cathay Pacific crowd hear about this, because then they too will need their own fleet article.

As to Aeroflot, are you serious? The largest airline EVER. Over 10,000 aircraft and helicopters. Over 500,000 employees at its height. Literally thousands of destinations (a complete destination list would be impossible to source or list). I have a book here called Soviet Transports. It is a listing of basically all aircraft manufactured in the USSR and CIS. Over 750 pages long. And a good 95%++++ of it is Aeroflot aircraft. A similar book on SIA would take up a single page in this format. A notable fleet though? A serious question? Well. The worlds first sustained jet aircraft service - the Tu-104. The worlds first regional jet - the Yak-40. The fastest ever turboprop airline (just below jet speed) - the Tu-114. The worlds first SST - the Tu-144. The list can go on back thru 80+ years of history. It doesn't need its own fleet, a simple list of aircraft with a reference source is more than suffice. I fail to see what is so notable about 9V-SVL or 9V-SFK that they need to be listed in an encyclopaedia? I dread the day that you get your hands on the internal SIA telephone directory, for then we will see more inane SIA cruft on wikipedia. --Russavia 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your 1,800 characters isnt really worth reading, since they basically claim the same stuff. Perhaps you should kindly set aside time to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (OH and btw, if other airlines are following Singapore Airlines in having their own fleet lists in wikipedia, than just what does that say about notability of SIA's fleet, and the brandname of SIA in general?). Who seriously cares if Aeroflot has flown the world's largest fleet of flying coffins, other than the poor safety record as notable in itself? By the way, the Aeroflot article seems almost devoid of talk on its rather shaddy past and horrific safety record, albeit a single paragraph below which appears to be an unabashed attempt in white washing history. Care to do something about it?--Huaiwei 13:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What does it prove? That perhaps, unfortunately, Malaysia Airlines and Virgin have the same type of fanboi contigent as Singapore Airlines? Virgin doesn't seem as bad, due to lesser fleet numbers, but it is there all the same. Luckily, those airlines don't yet have these types of articles, Singapore_Airlines_awards_and_accolades. As to doing something about the Aeroflot article. I have a lot of stuff written up for a complete rewrite already, which does address the safety record 'issue'. But right now, I am helping the guys at El Al with their attempt to get it to [status], something which looks like it could get to. --Russavia 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Or that those "fanboi" behaviors are practically reminiscent of corporate behaviors by major airlines? Tell us: Did the flying coffins of Aeroflot inspire the world's airlines to the extent of them copying Aeroflot's fleet, and attempting to compete with it in terms of number of aircraft? And as for your "help" at El Al, I was kinda wondering why you could not contribute to that article earlier, and only wait till a FA request to list an entire bunch of "problems" for others to rectify.--Huaiwei 14:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why couldn't I contribute earlier? Because there are thousands of airlines Huaiwei, and I can't possibly do something on all of them. I have a list of a around a hundred (and then some) articles which I will be working on for the majority, bit by bit. When Flymeoutofhere posted on the WP:Airlines that the article is going thru FA review, as a member of WP:AVIATION, I feel that the majority of our articles have potential to be featured content, and am happy to comment. Flymeoutofhere has asked for comment and critique, and I have provided what I think it needs and doesn't need, but haven't simply left the task for them to do, as you can see from further info I have provided to these guys. As someone who's forte isn't Israel or El Al, it is best left to these guys to do up as it seems it is their 'pet'. But I have to say, it's a pleasure to help out in anyway I can on that article, because the guys getting the article up to scratch have asked for critique (not blind criticism), and have taken it on board where necessary. So don't think I am just sitting back criticising and leaving problems for others to rectify because nothing can be further from the truth. I am not one to sit back and let others deal with 'problems' as is evident with edits on Singapore Airlines (and associated articles), unfortunately some editors on those articles aren't as open to critique and improvement as those on El Al. Over and out, Huaiwei. --Russavia 14:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

An Featured article candidates nomination is actually the final step of a long journey of reviews after reviews. If your hundreds of edits in wikipedia leaves with so little time that you cant even actually put into affect the tonnes of "problem" you listed in the FAC nomination, that just what does that imply, Russavia? ;)

And I continue to find the words you choose to use mildly amusing, ranging from "Fanboism" to even "pets". I am sorry, but are you suggesting ownership of articles is acceptable? And conversely, that Russian airlines are probably your "pets" as well, and that you expect others not to touch them? Correct me if I am wrong, but are you implying you are condoning some who adopted wikipedia articles as "pets", but you cannot condone some others, and thus labels them as a sign of "fanboism"? Since when did wikipedia come under your subjective judgements, Tsar of Russavia?--Huaiwei 15:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, could both of you cool down for a while. No personal attacks please and assume good faith. Huaiwei, don't assume bad faith by saying Russavia adopting his articles as "pets" and do not make personal attacks like calling him a "Tsar of Russavia". Russavia, "unfortunately some editors on those articles" is rather rude and sarcastic, please do not assume bad faith. We are here to discuss the article, not to make false accusations and personal attacks on others. Discuss the content of the article, not the contributors to the article. Please calm down and settle things in a civil manner. Terence 09:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to single out negative conduct by one member, and expect both parties to "calm down", I would think that is a rather tall order especially from my point of view. Kindly adopt some sensitivity and maturity while attempting to diffuse a heated dispute if you are truly sincere about it.--Huaiwei 14:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort to balance your comment somewhat, although I wonder if you have ever witness the kind of conduct which has been allowed to transgress before this, and leading up to the kind of language being used now.--Huaiwei 13:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line for this article is that it explains too much information for an Encyclopedia... so much that it becomes too much to handle. It is very difficult to verify if everything on this page is truthful, and by no means is this page a reliable source of information. It should be merged into the Singapore Airlines page, but do not include information like Registration, and do not include codes for certain things. Alot of people do not know what they mean, and they probably think just as I do that it takes up useful space. I don't know how many times I have tried to elaborate this, but I hope I can finally reach a conclusion regarding this article, as well as Malaysia Airlines fleet and Thai Airways International fleet.--Golich17 19:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving on

Now that the article has survived its second AFD nomination, lets move forward and consider ways to improve this article, especially taking into account some suggestions mentioned in the nomination. In particular, I would like to move the two large lists into their own list articles, so as to keep this article succint. Other ideas and recommendations are most welcome. Thanks!--Huaiwei 10:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

DC 10s

Singapore Airlines once had DC-10s, these aren't mentioned, does anyone know about them? I understand they were replaced either by 747s or by the earliest A340s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyscott (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Financing of 6 A330s

http://uk.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUKDUB00059120080326 This announcement by AWAS does not in any way suggest a new order. It has all the characteristics of a financing deal for an existing order. If it had been a new order (in addition to the existing 19), then most likely Airbus or SQ or both would have issued press releases. We will know with certainty when Airbus releases their March order announcements. Until then, it can only be presumed to be a financing deal unless Airbus or SQ announce otherwise. Mcarling (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

As stated before, this article violates WP:NOT, WP:CRUFT, and consensuses established on WP:AIRLINES. Contrary to what some editors think, this article is under the scope of WP:AIRLINES, if the box at the head of this talkpage indicates anything. This article is also existing within Wikipedia. As thus, to conform with this, the first two tables need to be merged into the main SQ article and the remaining tables deleted, and this page becoming a redirect to Singapore Airlines#Fleet. Citing 3 AfDs that resulted in keep is not a valid argument against merging; no consensus defaults to keep and does not imply any endorsement of either side. Guidelines exist for a reason and if all other airline articles can follow Wikipedia guidelines, there is no reason for Singapore Airlines to be the exception. Saying it has a long history doesn't work; even Pan Am doesn't have a separate fleet page, and their history is far more significant. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And where are the references for the copious info on individual aircraft that's presented in this article? The only reference ("Singapore Airlines Fleet") cited in the article just tells how many of each type of aircraft is in the fleet. Unless I'm missing something, it has none of the specifics listed in the tables. This article appears to be 99% WP:OR and totally non-verifiable. Yilloslime (t) 05:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The information is obviously verifiable since data like registrations are, by definition, a matter of public record. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they AREN'T referenced. Other airline pages have a link that holds that information, rather than going against WP:AIRLINES' consensus and holding the information on their own. It's clear that the community agrees that registrations are irrelevant (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin America fleet‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet‎). Just because it's verifiable doesn't mean it ought to be included on Wikipedia. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yilloslime suggested that the information was OR and not verifiable. That was hysterical hyperbole. Your constant assertions that the article must conform to the standards of WP:AIRLINES are not much better. If that project was actually active here then we wouldn't need to debate the matter - you would have de facto consensus. The editors who matter are the ones who show up. Silent majorities don't count. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

However, there are no sources. As thus, it falls under OR. A verifiable source was provided by myself; however Huaiwei rejected that source. Furthermore, as said, the tables go against more than just WP:AIRLINES. You evidently don't reject the notion that the bulk of this page goes against WP:NOT and WP:CRUFT. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not the least surprised that Butterfly0fdoom should claim there are "no sources" when the sources actually used to first build this list existed in this article until his attempts to remove or merge it. As can be seen in the most recent version immediately prior to his first edit in this article[2], there were six sources listed. I specifically relied on http://airlinerlist.com/ to build the early versions of this article, supplemented by info from http://www.airfleets.net. Subsequent editors have used new data from Airbus and Boeing to update the table accordingly. Any claims of WP:OR are obviously unfounded and engineered to advance "WP:NOT and WP:CRUFT" arguments, despite them being unrelated.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Without references, and without the source of the information being readily obvious, this is WP:OR. Not necessarily SYN, but OR. I'll retract what I said about it being non-verifiable, and instead say that this appears non-verifiable. Let's see a verifiable source. But even if one can be produced, can someone explain how the fact that 9V-SQO, a Boeing 747-212B, was delivered on June 27, 1980, was retired on June 24, 1991, and made it's first flight onJune 12, 1980—can anyone explain how this is fact notable? Info in the first table is certain notable, but could easily be handled in the main SQ article. The next table I'm not so sure about, but the rest of the article is pure CRUFT, of no discernible notability. Yilloslime (t) 20:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Notability is used to determine the inclusion or exclusion of entire articles, not on specific content, text or tables within it, nor specific entries within tables. And it states this very clearly: Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people). There is therefore absolutely no requirement to demonstrate notability of the history of 9V-SQO in SQ's fleet, just as there is no need to demonstrate notability of Brunei's contribution of "relief materials" in the Cyclone Nargis article. Your interpretation of Wikipedia policies clearly need some reflection over.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. I never linked WP:Notability, precisely since, as you point out, it applies to articles not content within articles. I meant the general idea of notability--perhaps I should have used another word to avoid confusion. But wikilaywering aside, the question of the idea, rather than Wikipolicy, of notability still stands. How are these details notable, in the general sense? More bluntly--who cares? In my opinion, the info in first table should be incorporated into the main article--it's clearly notable, and then we can just provide a link (if one exists) to the sources of the details given in the rest of the tables. There's no need for WP to host all this specialized data. Those few people who care about can follow an WP:EL for more info.Yilloslime (t) 21:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You do not need to specify a link to imply you refer to it. You specifically said "But even if one can be produced, can someone explain how the fact that 9V-SQO, a Boeing 747-212B, was delivered on June 27, 1980, was retired on June 24, 1991, and made it's first flight onJune 12, 1980—can anyone explain how this is fact notable? Info in the first table is certain notable, but could easily be handled in the main SQ article." If you are now twisting your own comments to tell anyone you were not trying to weigh the notability of each table in the article despite WP:Notability never stating it should be used on part of the article, then you are merely kidding yourself. And your statement of "More bluntly--who cares?" tells me quitely clearly that you are demanding that things be removed because you do not care, and nothing else. Unfortunately for you, there are obviously people who care enough about such details to bother to keep it updated without me having to ask for such assistance anywhere, and there are people who actually care enough about such details to write entire websites on this topics alone, and who debate endlessly on such details in popular aviation forums such as airliners.net. So to put in in equal bluntness, who cares that you dont care, because others do?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgment of importance of the topic is inhibited by their fanaticism." "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." And, frankly, the sprawling list of registrations is not suitable for inclusion and is important to only a small population of aviation enthusiasts that already rely on other resources for the information in those long, sprawling tables. There is no reason for the first two tables to be in a separate article and there is no reason for the latter tables to be on Wikipedia due to WP:CRUFT and WP:NOT. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Find us any wikipedia policy or even guideline which states that wikipedia is writtern only for the disinterested public, and not for people with specific interests.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is simply that this is WP:CRUFT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and WP would be best served by merging the info in §1 into the main SQ article, and simply providing external links for the info §2 & 3. Furthermore, unreferenced as this currently is, it appears to be WP:OR, which is another problem, albeit a problem, which if solved, would not affect the cruftiness of this article. And with regard to WP:Notability, if §1 were merged into Singapore Airlines and removed from Singapore Airlines Fleet, then what would be left of Singapore Airlines Fleet would clearly fail the article WP:Notability guidelines. While the registration numbers and dates of first flight might be hot topics of internet chat rooms, discussion boards, and some self-published websites, as far as I know, they have not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject [i.e. Singapore Airlines]." Maybe I'm wrong—I'm not an aviation buff—and so maybe there is extensive reliable literature discussing the ins and outs of SQs fleet. And if so, this article should cite some of it. Yilloslime (t) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Also because I am genuinely curious: these people who care enough to keep the article updated—where are they getting their info from? I've asked this several times now, and no one has been able to give me an adequate answer. Yilloslime (t) 22:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• WP:CRUFT is a tendentious essay of little practical value. See WP:CRUFTCRUFT for a similar counter. Please stick to basic principles such as the Five Pillars. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You know Colonel Warden, you might very well have saved me from having to expend significant effort just trying to explain to disinterested people who already declared they are "not an aviation buff" why the tables may be of use in some way or other to people other than themselves. And may I point out quite matter-of-factly that I am no "aircraft freak" either. I am merely someone who has always admired the concept of flight, and while I enjoy mapping out routings, analysing data, amongst other things, trying to track the movements of individual aircraft isnt exactly my cup of tea. Yet when I first wrote this article, I had the interests of many other users at heart, those who often ask the exact number of aircraft in the fleet at any one time, which particular aircraft has the "new seats", which has the distinct special livery, which was the 1000th B747 ever delievered, where the retired B747 went to, etc, etc, etc. And the people who ask these are often not aircraft freaks.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice dodge, guys, but neither Huaiwei or the Colonel have addressed any of my points, nor answered my very pertinent, and one would hope answerable question: where does all this data come from? Yilloslime (t) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Table merger

There now exists two tables in this section: one for all aircraft by delivery date, and another by registration number for existing aircraft. This was done at a time when there was no table sorting feature, which is now available. I would therefore propose merging the two tables so that updating it will be less of a chore. Anyone disagrees?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to such constructive editing however I gather that the sorting feature only works in some browsers such as Firefox. Please consider this point. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but I use IE, and I have no problems? Pardon me but I wasent aware that the sort feature has this technical issue. Any references for me to check up on the extent of the problem?--Huaiwei (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Works fine on Safari and Firefox (on my mac with leopard). If it works on IE as well, it shouldn't be an issue.--Regents Park (Feed my swans) 14:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Formal request for mediation (2nd filing)

As the informal mediation in relation to the various issues regarding the Singapore Airlines article was not successful, I have now instigated a request for formal mediation on these issues at MedCom at this link. The previous request for mediation was not succesful as not all parties would participate, however, I am trying again with this request. I have added a number of 'involved parties', however, if you believe you are involved in the disputes raised in the request, please add yourself to the 'involved parties' list and add yourself to the 'Parties' agreement to mediate' section. Perhaps we can now have these issues resolved in a timely manner. --Россавиа ^Диалог 21:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Rather than edit warring, maybe we can have a discussion about the various tags that are being contested by User:Huaiwei. I'll kick it off with this:

Though there are a few links (mostly of dubious reliability) in the References section, only one is actually associated with any text/data in the article. It has been asserted by Huaiwei that the other links in the section support the data in the article that is otherwise unreferenced, but User:Butterfly0fdoom[3] and I have both checked these links, and neither of us could find the information contained in this article. Thus the majority of the information in the article is unreferenced, and in my view, the {{unreferenced}} tag or some variation of it is appropriate. Furthermore, I have asked in at least two places (here and here) for editors to demonstrate exactly where these alleged references support the info in the tables that comprise this article, and these requests have ignored repeatedly.

Given that no one has been able to show where this info is coming from, the article therefore appears to be original research and thus that tag is justified as well. Finally, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and a lack of 3rd party sources specifically addressing, in a non-trival way, the fleet of Singapore Airlines, the material in the Full Aircraft Listing section does not appear to belong in Wikipedia at all, and therefore some version of unencyclopedic = y or a notability tag also seems appropriate.

Let's discuss. And given that 3 editors (me, User:Russavia, and Butterfly0doom) have added or restored the tags, and only one user (Huaiwei) has removed them, it's obvious that until this dispute is resolved, the tags should stay. Yilloslime (t) 21:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest giving it a few more days for an answer from the editors of this article, and then perhaps it is time to take this to AfD again, due to the policies in question have not had satisfactory answers to them, and editors have had more than enough time to answer these questions. --Россавиа ^Диалог 20:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article has gone through 3 AfDs, and all three result in no consensus with the same arguments being repeated every time. I don't think it will change during another AfD. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Before I give a full answer to the above issue, I do notice that non of the three individuals here have taken any concrete steps to actually improve the article. Instead, adding tag after tag seems to be a favourite pasttime here.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We did take concrete steps. AfD, RfM, and merge (as, per WP:AIRLINES, this page should be merged into into the main SQ page and the sprawling reg tables should be deleted). You oppose those moves, therefore you have the "burden of proof", so to speak. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And I'll also add that I'm much more interested in improving wikipedia as a whole than in improving any specific article, and it's my belief that in this case wikipedia would be best served by merging this particular article. Furthermore, how anyone could interpret my request for proper references as anything other than an attempt at improving this article is beyond me.Yilloslime (t) 01:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and when all three proponents of the merge fail in their bid to obtain consensus to effect the merger, all three refuse to accept the result, insist on maintaining their stance, and thereby persists to undermine the article to serve their self-interests as a continued demonstration of their inability to accept the outcome. Clearly, non of these three individuals are genuinely interested to improve the article by adding tags. Rather, the tags are seemingly being added to add weight to another merger or deletion attempt. I would just like to note that this disruptive behaviour is being observed and noted, and will be surfaced as a matter for concern when the opportunity arises.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been provided the opportunity on at least 2 occasions now Huaiwei, and you refused to participate. Of course, to participate means you have to give up ownership. I will provide you that opportunity again, this time at AfD which I will get to work on right now. --Россавиа ^Диалог 17:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Before we proceed, kindly specify what you mean by "ownership".--Huaiwei (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You honestly expect me to answer that? Please. One need only look at your totally unsupported moves and additions to this entire (unneeded) series of articles to see that you think you own these articles and you can do as you damn well please. --Россавиа ^Диалог 21:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes I certainly do expect you to answer it. Telling me to look at my own edits clearly is not answering the question.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The tags exist for a reason: to let you know, according to community consensuses, what needs to be done to improve the article. If they add weight to an AfD, that just goes to show how much of an issue those tags represent. Your commentary on our actions needs to stop, as it's extremely reflective of YOUR actions and, to a lesser extent, the actions of the rest of us. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The road ahead

To all dear contributors who are primarily interested to write wikipedia articles than to put their egos in their mouths while rampaging across the site, I have finally began commencing the next phase of a long-envisioned reshuffling of content on the SQ fleet. But there is alot more to be done. Some of my suggestions include:

• to rewrite the introduction (and also the summary paragraphs which remains in the fleet section of the main Singapore Airlines article).
• to merge the "full aircraft listing" section's two tables into one, as suggested recently.
• To expand the "historical fleet" section, where alot needs to be done to research on the old aircraft used and their deployment. Also, on the significance of certain aircraft to the company's history. When the content grows, we will be able to have sub-sections for each aircraft family as is done fo the "current fleet" section.
• To expand the "Boeing 747" sub-section within the "current fleet" section, given its long history as the flagship of the SQ fleet.
• To possibly add a new "orders and deliveries" section for the various new aircraft joining the fleet, and where the "Aircraft to be delivered by registration number" table can be moved to.
• And of course, to improve and always add relevant references where neccesary in accordance to core policies. At the same time, ignore the efforts by some individuals to basically plant a "citation tag" behind every single sentence for no better reason then to tell people he is still alive.

I hope more of you may step forward to give more ideas and to drive this project forward, in our bid to bring more articles up to FA standard (or perhaps even FL standard). Thanks in advance, and lets keep rocking!--Huaiwei (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I provided a website in the past that would suffice as a reference for your sprawling tables, but you rejected it (although NOW you use it as a reference). I feel that your attacks on my person as being a "citation tag adder without contributing to content" is unjustified. Your changes to the article will only further go against pre-established community consensuses. Clearly, Russavia, Yilloslime, and I are not pursuing self-interests; you are. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Care to identify what "self-interest" may refer to here?--Huaiwei (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

In accordance with the Protection policy, I've protected this page for a period of 18 days. The protection can be extended or shortened depending on how things go. I encourage the involved users to continue discussion on this talk page, and come to some sort of an agreement about the disputed content. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirected

See above for the merger discussion. The main editor opposed to merging, Huaiwei (talk · contribs), has indicated that he's got better things to do than resolve this conflict. If he's not going to participate in conflict resolution, I think we need to move on without him, and since he was the main voice opposing the merge, then I guess that means consensus is now for merging. I know I'll be accused of trying to make a WP:POINT, failing to WP:AGF, and of being a WP:DICK, but I'm at the end of my chain here: Huaiwei shouldn't be able to use a request for mediation as a tool to maintain this article in his prefered state. Sorry, that's just not what mediation is for.

The other way to look at this is that I'm just taking Huaiwei at his word when he says this dispute is too low on his priority list, and I'm thus justified in assuming he's too busy to reinvolve himself and oppose this WP:BOLD merger. Yilloslime (t) 03:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless all information are merged back into the main article, this article will be restored. A simple conversion of this article into a redirect without adding anything to the main article is not a merger. It is outright deletion, and you have failed in all attempts to delete it after not attaining consensus to do that. And may I just point out that you have no consensus even to merge the article either.--Huaiwei (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In light of recent disruptive editing by Yilloslime who now attempts to justify his failed merge proposal as merely being "WP:BOLD" after failing to gain sufficient concensus, I am inclined to recommend this article for page protection[4]. One is left wondering just what Yilloslime is up to, considering Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines has just recently shifted into higher gear.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think you are fooling anyone? You come back to this page playing the victim, make non-consensus changes re-starting an edit war, then go to WP:RFPP and ask for the page to be full-protected in your preferred version. Nice. Thankfully the uninvolved admin who reviewed your request saw through it, and didn't grant it.[5] Yilloslime (t) 14:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And that was quite a delightful read, Yilloslime, with it choke full of bad faith comments. Why is it so much a concern to you just who is the "victim" here, as thou victimisation is a concern here at all? And may I just check just who single-handedly changed this entire article into a redirect, despite gaining no consensus to do so? And continues to do this several times over despite being told in simple English that the discussions has resumed in the relevant mediation page? So just as you think you are justified to practise bad-faith editing against someone you think is committing the same act, you think it is alright to fool everyone because you think he is trying to fool everyone too? ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I "single-handedly changed this entire article into a redirect" only in so much as I was the editor who actually made the edit. Many other editors had previously expressed their opinion in support of the action, and the fact that the redirect stood, without protest, for more than a month, even while the article was (and continues to be) subject to a request for mediation—this fact suggests the edit had general support. So far, you are the only person to oppose the edit, and you've done it quite belatedly. And I don't even know what to make of this statement: "And continues to do this several times over despite being told in simple English that the discussions has resumed in the relevant mediation page?" You are the one who has be been repeatedly requested to participate at the RfM (1,2,3), not me. Show me where anyone has posted a note saying, "Hey Yilloslime, where are you? We need you at this RfM." The facts are clear: I posted my opening statement on August 15 a day and half after mediation officially began, you have yet to post one, and you didn't begin participating until October 4. Furthermore, as I said in my opening statement, I have only been involved in the fleet dispute, and would thus restrict my participation to that issue, and not involve myself in the other issues at hand. So far, the mediation has not turned to the fleet dispute (in large part due to your foot dragging), so I have not yet participated in the RfM other than to give my opening statement. Please refrain from misrepresenting my actions. Yilloslime (t) 18:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Huaiwei or anyone else watching this page: for the last time, exactly where does the information in "Full Aircraft Listng" come from? Please do not remove the "missing citations or footnotes" tag without provide full and accurate references for this information. As you should know by now, all articles must conform to WP's verifiability policy| and all sources should be reliable. Yilloslime (t) 14:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yilloslime, you are, perhaps for the last time, reminded to use your mouse, click on the references which has been clearly listed on the article, and check the resources there. Your are once again reminded in very simple English that your haplessness (or perhaps simple reluctance?) in downloading compressed zip files, unzipping them, and reading simple Excel tables is not the fault of any other wikipedian or that of wikipedia itself. No wikipedia article shall be held hostage by an editor who refuses to learn how to read cited sources, just as no wikipedia article is deemed as "unreferenced" just because another editor cannot read a source in a language which he cannot understand, or is in a file format which he has no software to open.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

While the tone of your post is infuriating and insulting, I'll ignore that for the moment and focus on the errors instead. First off, this isn't simply a me vs you dispute. Two other editors (Russavia and Butterfly0fdoom) have also added/restored those tags, and only you have removed them. So you are in the minority here, not me. There is absolutely no consensus to remove those tags, the issues have not been resolved. Secondly, I have asked you time and time again to show us exactly where on http://airlinerlist.com/ and http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Singapore%20Airlines.htm this information resides. It's certainly not on the pages you land on when click the links--maybe it's buried somewhere within these websites but I haven't been able to find it. If it is on those websites somewhere, then why not link directly to it? Thirdly, if, as you claim, these website contain this information, then why not put an actual inline citation, i.e. with <ref> tags, in the table heading so everyone will know where the info comes from. Only through this talk page debate have I come to understand that those particular links on the bottom of the page supposedly support the info in these tables--someone just reading the article for the first time would have no idea what those links are for. Furthermore, without actual inline cites, it's impossible to know which data comes from which website. Why do you refuse to provide this simple information? A separate issue, which I intend take up either at the RfM or after resolving this sourcing issue--whichever comes first--is whether the content itself is encyclopedic. And another issue, which I will pursue over at WP:RSN now that you've unambiguously stated that airlinerlist.com and airfleets.com are your sources, is whether these qualify as reliable. Yilloslime (t) 16:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the WP:RSN thread: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Airlinerlist.com_and_Airfleets.net. Yilloslime (t) 16:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Now if we may just assume that we are still going to use http://airlinerlist.com/ as a source, where detailed lists of individual aircraft are sorted by brand and model and contained in compressed CSV files, perhaps it is now your turn to teach us how to do logical in-line citations linking to these compressed files, when the tables contain aircraft across multiple makes?--Huaiwei (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty big assumption, but for the sake of argument you could link directly to the .csv the same way you hyperlink to any file e.g.: bla bla bla is true. Or you could link to the page, and give instructions for download link this. As far as putting inline cites into the table, I think there are couple of easy options that are far superior to having no citations at all. If all or most of the data in each column comes from a particular source, you could put the cites in the column headers, and then add additional citations to individual cells that are exceptions. So the inline cite in the header could say, "Unless otherwise noted, data is from ipso loretem....[link]." Another, more time consuming option would be to add a "sources" column, and put the citations for each line in that column. A third option is to combine the two styles, as is done here. Finally, the way Colonel Warden did it in this edit ain't so bad either. The cite isn't in the body of the table, but at least it's obvious where (some) of the data is coming from.

Yilloslime (t) 04:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Huaiwei, your job as the one that wants to keep the tables, is to make sure the references direct people to the actual source that validates your information. If we have to dig for the source, then your reference is invalid. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

While it is certainly my onus to provide citations as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources doesn't dictate that I must teach another user how to "use a mouse, click on references, download compressed zip files, unzip them, and read simple Excel tables".--Huaiwei (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But that just means you need to use the Excel document as the reference. You have the "burden of proof", or so to speak. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Huaiwei, I would appreciate it if you won't assume that I'm a hapless idiot who can't use excel, or unzip a file. I have said in no uncertain terms that I've gone to the pages linked from the references section, and looked for the data, and could not find it. Maybe the csv or xls file really is right there, just one click away, but rather than insulting me, you could simply say, "scroll down to the bottom and click the link labeled 'XYZ'" or whatever. Yilloslime (t) 04:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Header Tags

I have removed the article header tags because the matters in question are being discussed here on this talk page which is the proper place to discuss editorial issues of that sort. The article page is the place for content about the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning, and I believe you are incorrect. 1: The tags are there to bring attention to the issue, so that interested editors know it's being discussed and can contribute. 2: The tags also put pressure on the editors involved in the dispute to reach resolution. Without them, there is less incentive for editors who favor the status quo version to participate in talk page discussion/dispute resolution with editors who see a problem. 3: The tags also alert readers to potential issues with the article. 4: WP:NPOVD says that as long as NPOV issues are being actively debated, a {{POV}} tag should remain in place, and I think that concept applies here, too. I mean c'mon: why does wikipedia even have these tags if not for use in situations like these? So I'm restoring the tag. If you remove it again, please provide links to policy/guidelines/precedent that support your argument that as long as "the matters in question are being discussed here on this talk page" the tags can be removed from the article. Yilloslime (t) 03:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC) numbering added by Yilloslime (t) 04:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless discussions on a talkpage have come to a consensus that a tag is unjustified, a tag should remain on an article until such an agreement is reached. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tags are often used to signify that the article's content may have issues. And in this case, there are potential issues. The information in the long sprawling tables are not backed by solid references, therefore are of questionable accuracy. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yilloslime says that he is placing these tags to provide leverage upon other editors with whom he is edit warring. He asks for pointers to guidelines/policy which indicate that this behaviour is inappropriate. He is invited to read WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT. I have removed these tags again. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation of what he said. As he pointed out, the tags are also intended to inform readers that an issue exists and that it is being discussed on the talkpage. Your edit-warring over quite justifiable tags is not acceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may cite "The tags also put pressure on the editors involved in the dispute to reach resolution. Without them, there is less incentive for editors who favor the status quo version to participate in talk page discussion/dispute resolution with editors who see a problem." If that is not directed at editors with whom he is edit warring, I do not know who else he is referring to.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

@Huaiwei: I was speaking generally about the purpose of tags, as I think should have been obvious. If you thought I was refering to you or someone else you are wrong, and sorry if I was not clear. Yilloslime (t) 03:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

@Colonel Warden: I brought 4 independent arguments to the table about why the tags should stay. 2 other editors agreed the tags are appropriate. You addressed only 1 of my 4 arguments (unconvincing, but that's not the point), and ignored my request for you to back your stated reasoning for removing the tags with links to relevant policy/guidelines. That's not an appropriate way to engage with other editors and resolve disputes. Yilloslime (t) 04:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

But let us relook at this from the following angle. Butterfly0fdoom launches the [AfD nomination] against this article on 10 May 2008, the result of which was no consensus; default to KEEP on 16 May 2008. Unhappy with the result, Butterfly0fdoom and Yilloslime supports each other when the former launches a formal article merger proposal on the very same day[6]. They were however unable to convince Colonel Warden and myself, and the merger proposal soon ends without a consensus to merge on 17 May 2008. Still visibly upset, and with new found enemies in an individual named User:Huaiwei, they now insist on discrediting this article by inserting all kinds of tags, including the merge tag which has failed five months ago (do they intend to keep this tag till eternity until the merge is fulfilled?), and the unencyclopedic and unreferenced tags which were their main arguments in their delete and merge proposals.

To summarise the above therefore, most well-meaning editors add similar tags to highlight problems in article so that they may be improved on. In this instance however, we are having several editors who are actually using tags against an article because they ultimately wish to see it disappear. Are we therefore going to allow this bad-faith and disruptive use of tags to continue?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Because there is a problem of verifiability. And notability, which you and Colonel still fail to solidly address. An airline enthusiast MIGHT find the information useful isn't solid, it's hypothetical. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

CAAS

Moving on, I have added a citation to the CAAS which provides definitive lists of aircraft registered in Singapore. This should dispose of the issue of sourcing for the current and recent fleet and editors may now content themselves with keeping it up-to-date. I have made some spot checks and our information mostly stands up but we should perhaps consolidate to make the work of maintenance and checking less laborious. I expect that the historical information is also out there since this stuff is a matter of public record. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hence this presents one of the main problems of trying to use in-line citations for the table. Much of the online data which the information was sourced from are dynamic in nature, in that they are routinely updated instead of maintaining a historical online record. This applies to the CAAS online records, as it does to the Boeing, Airbus and Singapore Airlines sites. Providing these as general links has therefore been the logical solution. I would also think it most advantageous if we could provide citations to the physical records in existence, since that should serve as a far more permanent record for current as well as historical content which is crucial in lists such as this. Meanwhile, I do still intend to merge the tables into one soon, so that should make citing even easier. Do let us know if you have any further ideas to improve on the verifiability aspects of this article.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That verifies the type and registration of the current fleet, but not any of the other sections in the tables or the historical data. Are you planning on removing the other sections, or is there a reliable source that covers this information? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The CAAS archives maintain the historical records. Planenut (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I only see 2007 and 2008 in the source supplied. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not archived online. You have to contact them for the previous years. Planenut (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And so how do you intend to cite that? Hearsay does not satisfy verifiability. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardcopy black and white does not attribute to hearsay. Check the dictionary. Planenut (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that the belief that a source might exist that could verify some text does not allow a reader to check that the text is accurate. Unless some sources are supplied to validate the text this material will have to be deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Colonel Warden for digging up a reliable source that supports some for the material in the disputed tables. But to second what Tim Vickers and Butterfly0fdoom have already said, we still need sources for the rest of the info, especially since everyone who's bothered to contribute to the WP:RSN thread on Airlinerlist and Airfleets has agreed that these are not reliable. Yilloslime (t) 04:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)