Talk:Singapore Airlines/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Parent company

I have noticed that the parent company info in the infobox has been changed in the past and those edits have been duly reverted by other users. Hopefully, for once and for all, this can be cleared up. The airline commonly known as Singapore Airlines has the official name of Singapore Airlines Limited. As such, it is impossible that the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited could be Singapore Airlines Limited. Someone, or some entity, has to own Singapore Airlines Limited, and whether they be public or private investors can differ from company to company. To quote from Holding company:

"A parent company is a holding company that owns enough voting stock in another firm to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors. Examples are The Walt Disney Company and Halliburton.

A parent company can simply be a company that wholly owns another company, such as Quaker Oats being the parent company of Aunt Jemima."

As such, Temasek Holdings holds a 56.19% share in Singapore Airlines Limited, and as the majority shareholder in Singapore Airlines Limited can easily be classed as the parent company, particularly as it has a large enough shareholding in SIA Limited which can be used to influence management decisions without considering other shareholders.

I hope that this 'explanation' is more than suffice for those editors who doubt such edits being made to the article. If not, I don't know how any improvements can be made to this article as a whole when such a simple piece of information has been duly reverted on several occasions in the past. --Russavia 17:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually this has been discussed in the past along with the Singapore Airlines Group. There has not been any reliable sources that I recall being found to show this one way of the other. What we need is for someone to find the facts. If Singapore Airlines Limited has several owners and has been involved with more then the airline (for example, Singapore Airlines Group), then it should have an article. Likewise if ownership has changed or if it is a listed as on a stock exchange. Who owns and exactly what is Singapore Airlines Group? Previous attempts to split this out have been reverted as being unsupported. I strongly support an article for Singapore Airlines Limited that can be cited. In there, the components of ownership can be discussed along with the other aspects. I did revert your change. Lets resolve this here before making changes. Vegaswikian 18:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor point, if the parent is not known it is usual to put the full legal name in the parent field refer Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Airline Infobox. MilborneOne 20:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Which leaves me wondering why Russavia should not see a problem with that part of the WikiProject, and instead bringing himself to wikiwar in this article with testosterones ablazing. The biggest shareholders of British Airways, Qantas and Lufthansa are not listed as the parent company, despite them being known. Can he care to explain this decrepancy before attempting to push forth his changes?--Huaiwei 09:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My heartfelt applause for such excellent research work on the part of my dear friend Russavia (which dosent happen very often), but until he changes the said field for British Airways, Qantas, Lufthansa, etc, I am inclined to believe that he should bring this dicussion to the wider community since it affects all articles across the wikiproject, and not constantly nitpick on this article alone. Until than, perhaps I can upgrade him from being a petty, hormone-raging teen to a more measured, balanced, mature, and valued contributor to this site.--Huaiwei 09:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

MillborneOne, in this instance, the parent company is known and (now) referenced. And has been changed to reflect that. In all honesty, the only airlines which should have the legal name of the airline in the infobox are those shady operators in the UAE which run guns, etc in Africa (and a few additional ones I guess). Particularly when taking into account what the definition of a parent company actually is. --Russavia 09:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with only iffy airlines having the legal name in the infobox, but I have no axe to grind I just stated what is generally done in the rest of wikipedia airline articles. Perhaps it should be clarified in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Airline Infobox. MilborneOne 11:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Having the majority owner listed when this is a publicly traded company is simply wrong. That is not how it is done on the rest of Wikipedia. As an example, what would people say if MGM Mirage had the owner listed in the infobox as Tracinda? I still think that 'Singapore Airlines Ltd' needs an article. It is the company that is listed on the Singapore Exchange for the symbol S55. It is not accurate to list that as the exchanage symbol for only the airline. If there was a separate article, that that article could cover the ownership of the public company. I would like to have seen the S55 annual report, but the web copies refuse to load for me, some kind of an error in the file. But from what I have seen in other places, the reports appear to list the group as the main entity and Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo as members of the group. Bottom line for me is that we still need to clear this up with referenced material that is readable by all. However listing Temasek Holdings as the owner is completely false. Vegaswikian 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vegas, as per definitions of what a parent company are, Temasek more than fulfills that requirement. If Tracinda is also a major percentage shareholder in MGM Mirage as Temasek is in SIA, then having Tracinda as a parent company is not all that wrong. Having said that, there are several things in the infobox that I don't much like. Hubs/focus cities being two of them (they are US/Europe-centric and don't apply to all airlines). Parent company being another one. Perhaps parent company needs to be changed to Major shareholders. As to "Singapore Airlines Limited", it is correct to have this as the exchange symbol for the airline, because every other company in the SIA group is a subsidiary of the airline. It is in the same vein that we don't need articles for 'British Airways plc', 'QANTAS Airways Limited', 'Deutsche Lufthansa A.G.', 'JSC, Aeroflot-Russian Airlines', etc. --Russavia 05:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, this is exactly why this article will be like it is, because you are the petty, hormone-raging teen that you accuse me of being. Let's see, I am not the one who will go and revert fully referenced edits to an article (refer to any of your reverts of my (and others) edits on this article, Singapore Airlines Cargo and Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations. I am not the one who will wholesale revert an edit to remove something which you dispute, take a look at some of your reverts of the destinations of Singapore Airlines Cargo - have a look at the number of destinations which aren't served by both airlines to see exactly what I mean. Although the 'parent company' in the infobox was not referenced by myself, it is now fully referenced in the article (in fact, it was already in the article although it wasn't cited). Additionally, can you explain why you would revert my changes on this article, and then turn around and try (harder next time) to insult me by calling me a petty, hormone-raging teen (actually I am somewhat older than that for your info), yet you go and do this [1]? As to who the biggest shareholders of BA, QF and LH, if these are well known, then why aren't you changing them? As yet, I have not bothered to look these up, but if they are well known, then surely you can make the edit? Anyway Huaiwei, I have had enough of responding to your infantile remarks, I think my time is better spent on answering Vegaswikian's questions. But a question for you before I go - you make out that Singapore Airlines is the best thing since sliced bread, and requires articles for this and articles for that, even when there is no rhyme nor reason for it. If the airline is as great as you think it is, why isn't it a featured article? In fact, the question should be why it can't even get good article status? Perhaps the reasons can be found in the mediation which took place some time ago, but at which absolutely nothing was achieved. There's a common demoninator in all of that. And I can understand why most people simply give up in the end. --Russavia 05:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now its rather late in the night, but just the length of that response above tells me I have somehow hit the nail on the head or something, so what else is there to comment? ;) Time and again, you claim you shant waste further time on me, yet can't help wasting more of your precious time moments later. You continue to claim that I make unwarranted, unexplained reversions of your edits, yet appear to completely ignore the edit summary, or the relevant talkpage, choosing to equate anything you refuse to agree with as being basically non-existant. Spoken like a truely petty, hormone-raging teen indeed!

And seriously, kindly grow up, if my reminders arent frequent enough. You apparantly think I am some kind of a Singapore Airlines fanatic who is desperate to promote it via this website, and do so by highlighting every teeny weeny detail about it. Or so you think. And since you persist on believing that the primary contributors to this article, myself included, are just a bunch of egotistic fanatical company shareholders, you seem to think you have the legitimacy to remove every item you personally consider mediocre. You choose to nitpick on this article, find little faults with just about anything in it and make a big deal out of each. You question every attempt to add content to the article, by using low-quality, under-developed articles as benchmarks. Why all these? It all boils down to the fact that you have a major inferiority complex problem. If wikipedia is not the place for fanboyism, I sure hope it isnt a place for sourgrapes who just cannot get over the fact that Singapore Airlines is as successful as it is, proven by countless independent sources, and not merely by my imagination or displaced pride. Why this article is not an FA? Because it is not fit to be one. Simple as that. And I will oppose any attempts to promote it as one until it meets an acceptable standard as far as this site's FA requirements are concerned. After all your wonderous efforts here, could you even cite one example of elevating this site towards FA status? You boasted that you will rewrite the article to one which is, to you, the FA standard. How is that going, now?

Oh, and talking about insults. Now if you do not consider dismissing editor's contributions as "fanboyism" as an insult, than I suppose you are clearly beyond hope. The whole world dosent owe you a favour. I wonder what kind of upbringing you have to actually think it is ok to heap insults on others, yet do not think it fair to receive any in return. By that remark alone, you questioned my editorial professionalism, my impartiality, maturity in thought, my ability to adhere to the NPOV policy, and basically my legitimacy and contribution value to this site. Kindly reconsider the tendency of pitting blame on everyone else for any repurcussion which may occur as a result. (Meanwhile, I will certainly try very hard in this department, thank you. You can do better coming up with your own ingenious insults, btw, instead of blatantly plagiarising comments from others!)

It is interesting that you chose to rehash some of our past "grievences". Kindly note that you chose to ignore discussions on Singapore Airlines Cargo after I allowed your preferred version to remain, and if this persists, you can expect some rekindling of sorts. Second, kindly inform if any of the edits in [2] are not legitimate? And lastly, I asked from you a very simple request. Find the relevant sources before making an edit, even if this may appear implied in the article's content. You chose to revert my reverts instead. You finally made the honorable step of explaining your edits in this talkpage. I pointed out the fact that your "findings" are not universally applied in the airlines wikiproject, and that project actually legitimises this inconsistency. I therefore took you to task for attempting to enforce a change in just one article which was not at odds with policy, your failure to discuss with the community for an edit which may have much wider implications, and your blatantly obvious bias in choosing to be anal retentive in this article. Imagine the smile breaking across my face when you now ask me why I arent making those changes to BA, QA, etc. My deepest apologies, Russavia, but I absolutely hold no intentions to make the same mistakes which you did!--Huaiwei 18:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring some of the earlier disputes, could I suggest the definition of parent company should be re-evaluated, with the view of applying the principal of substance over form to this particular case. In a group of companies, there may be many parent-subsidiary relationships: for example a parent company may be owned by another parent company (and so on). In such a group structure, the legal form of such a group is that the parent company at the top of group is the parent, which is usually disclosed as the "ultimate holding company" in group financial statements. However, in the case of Singapore Airlines, the ultimate owner is not a company but the Republic of Singapore which is the owner in substance. Could I suggest that what you put that the Republic of Singapore as the "parent", rather than any of any of intermediate parent-subsidiary companies which it is owner, so as to make this point clear. --Gavin Collins 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Whilst ultimately Singapore Airlines is controlled by the Singapore government, the company is a direct subsidiary of the legal entity Temasek Holdings, not of the Singapore government, and as such, so as to be truthful to what an encyclopaedia is, to put Singapore govt as the parent is erroneous. --Russavia 15:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

subsidiaries

I've added subsidiaries in the info box. http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/content/company_info/siastory/subsidiaries.jsp lists Tradewinds Tour and Travel, SIA Engineering Company, and SATS which were missing from this otherwise fine article. I didn't leave a citation in the infobox for appearance, though you can add it.Archtrain 16:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited, Singapore Airlines Group

Vegaswikian, I hope this a useful explanation for you of the differences between Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines Group.

Singapore Airlines Limited is simply the official registered name of what we more commonly know as Singapore Airlines. It is no different to QANTAS Airways Limited and QANTAS. Or Lufthansa and Deutsche Lufthansa AG. All entities are one and the same.

The Singapore Airlines Group is not a legal entity, but is merely used when discussing Singapore Airlines Limited (the airline) and its subsidiaries (partly and wholly owned), most often seen when discussing financial statistics. It is possible that Singapore Airlines (Singapore Airlines Limited) makes a profit of $500 million, but the Singapore Airlines Group makes a profit of $1 billion. This is due to some SIA subsidiaries having their own profit centres. From [3]

"Note: The SIA Group’s audited financial results for the year ended 31 March 2007 were announced on 11 May 2007. A summary of the financial and operating statistics is shown in Annex A. (All monetary figures are in Singapore Dollars. The Company refers to Singapore Airlines, the parent airline unit. The Group comprises the Company and its subsidiary, joint venture and associated companies)."

There is no need for a Singapore Airlines Group article, as all companies within that group are subsidiaries, joint ventures or associated companies of Singapore Airlines (Singapore Airlines Limited), and would be dealt with as per other airlines.

To answer another question you had, SIA is a publicly traded company and is listed on the Singapore Exchange. Their details on the SGX can be found here [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 05:49, 7 July 2007

• Well, reading this release, is it clear that the company, I'm assuming this to be Singapore Airlines Limited treats Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo as entities in Singapore Airlines Group. Clearly Singapore Airlines Limited when it makes announcements like this does not consider Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines to be one in the same. Given that, we should not try to make them the same. However we need to accurately define the structure which means doing more digging. But at this point I think it is clear that we have several legal entities here. Vegaswikian 05:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I find it amusing that you need this much level of digging to find information on something as basic as a company's corporate stucture, all the more so that this is a company as major as Singapore Airlines. Kindly refrain from cherry-picking a small range of articles and make your own inferences from there. It has been mentioned before that in various circumstances, such as in its financial reports, the Airline do make references to the Singapore Airlines Group because it needs to distinguish between the financial performance of its primary airline operations, and that of its subsidiaries. This has nothing to do with corporate organisation. If Singapore Airlines Limited is not the same as Singapore Airlines Group, this should be obvious from its website at the very least. Have you not considered why this is simply not so?--Huaiwei 13:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Web sites are marketing tools. While the information there may be valid, it may not tell the complete and accurate picture. In the US we can look at the required quarterly and yearly fillings for public companies to get the facts that the web sites try to hide. However in this case, we don't have those available. Also the name of the company for the stock symbol is Singapore Airlines Ltd and not Singapore Airlines. For accuracy this needs to be explained. Also has been stated, Singapore Airlines Ltd does group the various names in different ways for different purposes. Sometimes trying to show Singapore Airlines as the company and other times not the company. Frequently, even in the US, companies will include information on the web site of their main brand. That does not mean the two entities are one in the same. However the companies last financial report on page 19 clearly states that the report is for Singapore Airlines Limited ("The Company") and its subsidiaries (collectively the "Group"). Vegaswikian 19:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If you can even cite me one good reason why Singapore Airlines should attempt to shy away from declaring "Singapore Airlines Group" as a holding company and a parent of "Singapore Airlines", I will take the rest of your comments more seriously. You seem to assume that Singapore Airlines have no shareholders to explain themselves to. And please avoid simply comparing everything with the United States. While I understand that there is a trend of US airlines having a holding company each, this practise may not be widespread on a global scale. Attempting to force the rest of the world into the American mould is something I would have thought more typical for the less-literate, ill-informed, and provincial folks.--Huaiwei 08:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I have never once suggested that Singapore Airlines Group is a holding company. What I am trying to understand is how Singapore Airlines Ltd is set up and what it is. So far the only finanical company releases I have found indicate that it treats Singapore Airlines Group and Singapore Airlines as sub entities and in different ways based on what is being announced. If trying to understand something is an indicator for being "less-literate, ill-informed, and provincial folks", then I am guilty. The entire world does not do things in one way. However when one small country is different, especially in how they release data about corporations, it is worth the effort to explain this to the large number of readers who may not be able to comprehend this without sources and explanations. As I said, all of the Annual Reports which might help have PDFs that don't work. Not much help in getting to the facts using a source. You seem very able to tell me I'm wrong but unable to help me find documents that support your position. Vegaswikian 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Either you have a major issue with one small country, or you obviously hadent researched adequately on major airlines all around the world, or that of major corporations to boot. Singapore Airlines is far from unique in this regard, and its financial information arent exactly debucking global trends either, if that is what you are suggesting. Get the facts straight. You are not doing a wonderous service to the "less-literate, ill-informed, and provincial folks", because I have yet to see anyone questioning SIA on its financial books, its website presentation, or even in this site except yourself. Kindly cite reliable sources illustrating confusions of the magnitude you portray. The PDFs you find problems with work very well on my computer, I am afraid. And if you feel I arent showing you documents to support my position, kindly realise that it is almost impossible to find sources to demonstrate the non-existance of a corporation, unless you can show me how this can be done. Although if you could, your issue would have been resolved already I suppose. And if you arent suggesting Singapore Airlines Group is not a holding company, kindly state what you imagine it to be, and just what exactly is Singapore Airlines?--Huaiwei 11:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I notice that you find the group and the Limited company confusing in your responses, so clearly there is some confusion. I did not accuse you of hiding information. I clearly stated what issues I am having accessing the PDF files on several computers. The fact that you can load and read them does not help me at all. Without sources, I can not get the facts. Without the facts I can not prove anything, including your position. So without access to sources, this discussion is going no where. Vegaswikian 18:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
              • How you could deduce my supposed state of confusion remotely is beyond me. I also fail to comprehend this "hiding of information" thing. What information is there to hide, unless you think I am an SIA employee who encodes SIA's pdf files such that they refuse to open to select individuals like yourself? My ability to open those files may not be of any assistance to you, but kindly refrain from using technicalities as excuses for failing to back up your viewpoint, which btw is your onus to do so. Meanwhile, I am still awaiting your views on just what Singapore Airlines Group is and its relationship with Singapore Airlines.--Huaiwei 01:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fleet image

I have removed an image from the fleet section because the file link was wrong. If anyone can find the file please feel free to reinsert it with the correct link.

Infobox updated again and removed 2 sects.

I have updated the infobox on several occasions to reflect that Temasek Holdings is the parent company of Singapore Airlines, and the reasons for doing so are explained by myself [Talk:Singapore_Airlines#Parent_company here]. Even though Temasek's majority shareholding is stated and sourced in the main article already, my edits on the infobox matter have been continually reverted by Huaiwei, due to being unsourced.[5] In order to satisfy this demand by Huaiwei, I referenced the shareholding in the infobox (as silly as it sounds to have to provide two cites for the same piece of information). An example of such an edit by myself is here. This has been reverted on several occasions. Examples of these reverts are:

• [6] Huaiwei mentioned that he reverted because concensus was not met on the talk page (although a couple of editors is not really a concensus is it?)
• [7] Huaiwei said the reason for the revert is that the IHT is not an authority on SIA matters, even though the IHT is highly regarded in the print media. If it is true that the IHT does not meet WP:RS (which it does of course), I am expecting Huaiwei to remove any and all citations on these pages which are attributed to the IHT, including one already on the

Singapore Airlines article to another IHT article.

* [8] Huaiwei mentioned something about the 'brand', these articles are not about the brand, but rather the company, and this is evidenced that the article starts as Singapore Airlines Limited, this indicates a company, not a brand. It also needs to be mentioned that when I reverted his edit which resulted in this revert, he was asked to provide sources to support his assertion that Singapore Airlines Limited is the parent company of Singapore Airlines. This was not done.

I now find myself having to cite as many sources as possible, so that the verifiable information for the parent company is not continually reverted by Huaiwei who is acting as if he owns this article. It is absolutely ridiculous to assert that the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited is Singapore Airlines Limited - and I will be pushing for this to be addressed at the infobox project also in the next couple of hours (relating to all airline articles, not just this one). A list of sources for Temasek being the parent company of Singapore Airlines:

• [9] - QUOTE: Singapore Airlines and its parent company, Temasek Holdings, may pay about $930 million for a stake in China Eastern Airlines, a deal that would expand the carrier's reach in the world's most populous nation, people involved in the talks said." - published by the International Herald Tribune, a media outlet for which there is no question as to whether they meet criteria for WP:RS.
• [10]

- quote: "Asia's most profitable carrier, Singapore Airlines and its parent company, the Singapore government's investment arm, Temasek Holdings Pte plans to use the 25% stake it acquires as a key to open the gates of China's aviation market." - originally published by China Knowledge, a site which more than meets the criteria for WP:RS

• [11] - QUOTE: "According to the plan, Singapore Airlines will buy 20 percent of the stake while its parent

company Temasek, a Singapore State-owned investment company, will buy 5 percent. The total of 25 percent is the maximum allowed by Chinese law." - originally published by the China Daily, yet another source which meets criteria for WP:RS

• [12] (PDF FILE - approx 70kb) - QUOTE: "Elsewhere, Singapore Airlines and its parent company, Temasek, were rumoured to be paying US$930 million for a stake in China Eastern Airlines." - this was published by Lloyds TSB,

the fifth largest bank in the UK, and is part of an investment update, and Lloyds TSB would more than meet WP:RS criteria.

So there are some links which are from reliable media and financial services sources which state that without a shadow of a doubt that Temasek is the parent company of Singapore Airlines, a statement which is verified due to the reliability of the sources from which they came.

Here is another source to consider:

• [13] (PDF FILE - approx 4mb) - QUOTE: "SIA Engineering Company Limited (the "Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore, which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Singapore Airlines Limited and its ultimate holding company is Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, both incorporated in the Republic of

Singapore." - this is found on Page 94 of SIA Engineering Company's Annual Report for 2006/2007 (page 96 of 160 in the PDF file). The only problem I can see with this statement is the use of the words "ultimate holding company" as there could very well be more than one (or more) parent companies between the two entities - even though is obviously not the case due to the referenced direct shareholding of Temasek in SIA in the SIA article.

And here is the last source:

• [14] (PD

F FILE - approx. 10mb) - QUOTE: "Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore." - this is found on Page 80 of Singapore Airlines Limited Annual Report for 2006/2007 (page 80 of 160 in the PDF file). This statement has been checked for accuracy and certified by the SIA auditors, Ernst & Young (E&Y definitely meet WP:RS)

But there is a major' problem with using the Singapore Airlines Annual Report to cite my edits of Temasek being the parent company.

Huaiwei has called into question the reliability of the International Herald Tribune and the ability of the IHT to write with any degree of authority on Singapore Airlines, so has therefore called into question, by default, the veracity of any claims made by any entity which makes the same contentious claim that the IHT makes in their article. And because this is such a contentious statement by the IHT, the same statement (assertion) made by the company themselves (Singapore Airlines) would be removed because it fails WP:SELFPUB; it also means that all information which is sourced from Singapore Airlines 'official' sources is impossible to verify and hence needs to be removed from the article, which would make for a very short article indeed (a positive of course is that it gets rid of the horrendous cruft which is in the article. On a sidenote, if you own stocks in any of these companies I suggest selling them as the ability of Ernst & Young to accurately audit and certify financial accounts of all of those companies has been called into question (looking at the list it could mark the end of all world economies).

Additionally, Huaiwei has in one of the above reverts made the claim that the parent company is whichever entity owns the "Singapore Airlines" brand. If this is the case, then why hasn't this been brought up before now? Perhaps it is because it is perfectly clear that the "Singapore Airlines" article infobox pertains to a company, not a brand, particularly when you have "parent company" wikilinked. Additionally, the lead paragraph mentions the Singapore Airlines, the airline, and Singapore Airlines, the company.

I will be re-adding Temasek to the infobox as per the above verifiable information regarding the parent company using the IHT source, to replace Singapore Airlines Limited which is not sourced. If a verifiable and reliable source can be found which would indicate that Temasek is not the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited, and that Singapore Airlines Limited (or any other company) is indeed the parent, I will stand by the newfound sources and will not change it back to Temasek. This is, of course, done in the interests of upholding WP:FIVE, which is my intent, and always has been. And we are all bound by these principles.

I would like to turn Huaiwei's attention to a couple of reverts of edits made by himself.

• [15] - Temasek was changed back to SIA Limited with the reason being unsourced. A fact tag could have been added, but SIA Limited should never have been put back, with WP:V#_note-2 being precisely why, but I digress, unsourced information can be removed at any time.
• [16] - Temasek (referenced this time) was changed back to SIA Limited again (and still unsourced). The reason used for the revert this time was that I had not gained concensus to include that information in the article.

Huaiwei has opened the door in using those reasonings for reverting my verified, encyclopaedic edit. If he expects me (and everyone else editing this article) to source information, gain consensus and a multitude of other 'demands' made when reverting others edits, because he does not own the article, then one would expect him to edit this article based upon those same 'demands', in order to uphold WP:FIVE.

Therefore, I have made the following edits at the same time as adding Temasek back into the article infobox, and will provide the reasons for those reverts here:

• The Codeshare agreements section has been tagged as unreferenced since May 2007 - some 3 months. If you look at WP:V#_note-2, the entire section should have been removed long ago. However, structure guidelines of the Airline project does state that codeshare agreements should be mentioned, but that destinations should not be listed. As I have been coming across articles, they have been trimmed down to fall squarely within those guidelines, and I know that others have been doing the same since day dot. So I am completely editing this section to update it with only current

codeshare partners and to provide sources for the information. The destinations will be omitted as per the WP:Airlines guidelines. The section should not be reverted or edited to include destinations, until such time as consensus is gained on this talk page, or preferably on the airline project talk page. This also includes the unreferenced prose which has been unreferenced also since May.

• Flight numbers this has been an issue for some time, as evidenced in the mediation from January of this year. There was clearly no consensus for the inclusion of these flight numbers, but rather the opposite, and even now there is no concensus for their inclusion in the airline articles. I am removing the section in its entireity for the following reasons. First, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, the source for the opening sentence in this section is the SIA timetable, and the flight number ranges are used as a "How to" decode the airline's flight schedules - as publishing the airline timetable on WP would breach WP:NOT#TRAVEL and WP:NOT#DIR, the flight numbers provide no context for inclusion in the article.

Consensus on these two sections in particular was never gotten, and in fact, most say get rid of it. And consensus should be gotten for them to be included. --Russavia 02:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of having to write bloated messages to support blatant cases of non-concensus edits, let me just touch on each one, demonstrating my relative ease in shooting every point Russavia could put up:

• Parent company: The definition of a Parant company is defined by law, in this case, defined by Singaporean Law. Not by some simplistic notion of "majority shareholding" alone, which has clearly been the sole criterion used by Russavia irrespective of the corresponding laws in force in that country. The Companies Act states that a "subsidiary company" is one if the holding company controls the composition of the board of directors of the first-mentioned corporation; controls more than half of the voting power of the first-mentioned corporation; holds more than half of the issued share capital of the first-mentioned corporation (excluding any part thereof which consists of preference shares and treasury shares); is a subsidiary of any corporation which is the Holding company’s subsidiary. In most cases, secondary sources are preferred, but when it comes to a formal designation such as a company structure, primary sources obviously takes precedence. Has Russavia found within documents issued by Singapore Airlines or Temasek Holdings explicitely refering to their relationship as one of "parent-subsidiary"? As long as this remains unproperly referenced, it will be removed immediately.
• Codeshare agreements: The relevant guideline in the wikiproject calls for non-mention of codeshared agreements within airline destination lists for obvious concerns. There is no guideline forbidding its inclusion in another format somewhere else in the article, as long as it is not presented in such a way that it causes little distinction between actual flights operated and codeshared flights. Russavia's own inclusion of sources actually nullifies his own claim that the list is unsourced presently, and even if so, there are not difficult to come by if it need to be re-inserted now.
• Flight numbers: Russavia claims there was no concensus to include flight numbers according to the Mediation cabel. He conveniently refuses to note from the mediation cabel, that the members has failed to come to concensus. Second, he fails to realise that the medication cabel in the first place is not meant to be binding. Third, the flight numbers formatting has actually evolved to its current state as a result of feedback to ensure it remains relevant, and there has since been no objections to maintain it.

Indeed, it can be observed from the above that almost all three items are either non-issues, or has no longer come under serious contention for sometime, until Russavia comes along and attempts to rekindle all past disputes for no better reason than his personal distaste towards "Singaporean fanboism", a statement he admits himself. Editing wikipedia to fulfull his personal agenda, mass editing articles to proof his point, and constant reversions without optaining proper concensus first are all signs of disruptive editing just to proof a point. The article gets reverted immediately because of the above.--Huaiwei 03:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly say that these are non-issues, after all these non-issues were one of the reasons for this mediation in January. You have demanded from me that I get consensus to make a single change to who actually owns Singapore Airlines Limited, yet you, Huaiwei, refuse to show anyone where there has been any consensus for the inclusion of codeshare destinations and flight numbers. Remember, you do not own this article. If this will not be discussed properly, and I am not talking about the inclusion of Temasek, but squarely about the listing of codeshare and inclusion of flight numbers, then this will have to be taken even further. And this is not about fanboyism, which yeah I have used in the past, but rather about getting rid of cruft out of this article, which is now being used as a precedent for inclusion in other articles. --Russavia 04:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not about fanboism now? You are the last person on planet Earth whom I would expect to hear that line from. Practically every reasoning you place in people's talkpages or article talkpage discussions includes at least one reference to that or its equivalent. Kindly refrain from using words like "cruft" without even obtaining concensus that those contents are indeed "cruft". They are so only in your opinion, and not amongst those who restored the information, as it has just happened twice over. If you have a major problem over Singapore Airlines being used as an "example article" for other airline articles, then its a problem you have to sort out youself outside wikipedia, not here. Wikipedia works out its standardisation guidelines via wikiprojects and concensus, not by habitually attacking the "offending" article alone. And kindly wake up to the simple fact that guidelines and just that: guidelines. They are not policies, and they do allow for exceptions. Most importantly, you jolly well report the situation accurately. I demanded that you seek concensus before mass-changing wikitemplates, reworking template entries across wikipedia, and defining just what a "parent company" is without first obtaining any concensus [17]. I demanded you to provide verification on just who is Singapore Airline's parent company[18]. So just where is the ownership element here? And now what? The issue is with supposed "ownership" now, and no longer about "fanboism"? Seriously, Russavia, if you are interested in accusing any other wikipedian of their "crimes" in wikipedia, please at least gather proper evidence first. Getting disruptive editing (now of coz that's my definition of your edits!) removed from an article constitutes as "article ownership"? Oh enlighten us all please! :D--Huaiwei 05:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, I don't have to seek any consensus to change a field on a template which is sources and verifiable, particularly when you read this. I do like how you have totally sidestepped the issue here:

1) You claimed that the IHT is not a source which meets WP:RS. What grounds do you have for reverting on that basis?

2) You have still failed to show me where there is any consensus for the inclusion of codeshare destinations and flight numbers on this article. --Russavia 14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Now how is this supposed to say anything about you being excempted from seeking concensus? If anything, I noticed this: "company_name=parent or holding company if applicable, otherwise repeat full airline name". So if its company name, and not parent company which is currently being displayed in the infobox, could you kindly explain your exercise to change all references to "parent company" instead of simply getting that field corrected without the need to mass rename articles? A minor amendment to an existing template is not a new template, which you attempted to confuse by abusing the newinfobox tag. You appear to have problems even admitting to commiting minor mistakes. It's no wonder you remain obstinate in bigger issues.
• So now lets discuss bigger issues. It appears that you have great problems understanding that the mere insertion of sources is not all there is to it. You took an interpretation of what the source says, despite its failure in explicitely specifying the information you are attempting to show. This is not accurate referencing work, and this isnt the first time you do such nonsensicle things too anyway. Just look at the mayhem over at Singapore Airlines Cargo for one. If there is a dispute over the interpretation of the same source, than clearly a concensus will need to be sought. Have you done that, Russavia?
• Next, sidestepping the issue? Let's see. You claim IHT is a source which meets WP:RS. I have stated quite clearly above that "when it comes to a formal designation such as a company structure, primary sources obviously takes precedence." I challenged you to show any primary source from Singapore Airlines or Temasek Holdings which specifies their parent-subsidiary relationship, which if you could, I would accept it as a legitimate claim. Unfortunately, you chose to ignore that too. Selective reading has apparantly done you a deservice this time.
• As for "concensus" for the inclusion of codeshare destinations, I suppose you are semi-blind once again. I said quite matter-of-factly that "The relevant guideline in the wikiproject calls for non-mention of codeshared agreements within airline destination lists for obvious concerns. There is no guideline forbidding its inclusion in another format somewhere else in the article, as long as it is not presented in such a way that it causes little distinction between actual flights operated and codeshared flights." The same guideline does not forbid the inclusion of flight numbers either, and as mentioned before, "the flight numbers formatting has actually evolved to its current state as a result of feedback to ensure it remains relevant, and there has since been no objections to maintain it." With no further objections for months, "silence equals consent". There was indeed consent for several months until you take it upon yourself to reopen old disputes with a apparant agenda, an agenda you admitted yourself. Still remember your own motivations, or do you need me to find the evidence for you?
• It appears that I have to do frequent copy-and-paste operations when talking to Russavia. I suppose this is neccesary when dealing with individuals who show an apparant difficulty in accepting alternative viewpoints other than his own, engages in selective reading just to avoid facing the reality that his viewpoints can be challenged, and continously disrupts wikipedia with his mass-edits in the hope of lending himself weight in his battle against his primary target...this article, thus resulting in similar comments sprouting in multiple talkpages, but all basically saying the same old points over and over. Yawn.--Huaiwei 15:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will answer all of your questions and respond to all of your comments Huaiwei.

• My exercise to change the infobox 'parent company' is nothing more than ensuring that articles are encyclopaedic in nature. One of the major pillars of WP is WP:V, and what was in the infoboxes did not meet WP:V. As you might have noticed I have put forward a proposal in getting extra fields to distinguish between 'parent company' and 'shareholders'.
• The infobox template asking for new infoboxes to be inserted was an error on my part, hence why you might have noticed that I did not do all that many articles. You are not assuming good faith on my part, as in the reason I did so was so that editors of those articles could insert the latest version of the infobox to the article, for example, the SIA article infobox was hopelessly outdated. Am I expected to change THOUSANDS of infoboxes myself, whilst at the same time ensuring that information in them is correct?
• Please do not say that I was non-sensical in the way that Singapore Airlines Cargo was updated. Even when it was clearly explained to you, you still insisted on self-published sources as they were written and perhaps couldn't see the distinction that I and others put forward to you.
• Can you show me where it says that primary sources take precedence over secondary sources when it is my understanding of WP:V that the opposite is true. Additionally, WP:PROVEIT, states 'All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.'. As IHT is a reliable, published source there is no need to quote a 'primary' source. The right thing to do would have been to question it on the talk page (either article or user), whereby I would have happily supplied other sources as I have above, but the reverting of referenced material from reliable sources, because one may not agree, or doesn't understand, only serves to get people's backs up.
• In regards to consensus on codeshare destinations, to claim that there has been no objection for months is a bit of an understatement. The way that I read this there was plenty of consensus, but yourself claimed 'Unrealistic expectations here may result in no resolution or improvement to the current impasse at all.' - which I interpret as, no matter the consensus, they are staying. this and scattered against other airline article talk pages and edits, codeshare destinations are removed, and they stay removed. All except this article. In regards to both the codeshare destinations and flight numbers, these are not old disputes as from where I stand, reading all over, the dispute has never ended, as people simply tire of continually hitting their head against a brick wall.
• I, as well as many others, fail to understand, just what purpose both the listing of codeshare destinations and flight numbers serves in this, or any article?

I would ask that everything else be forgotten, and let's simply concentrate on the answering of the last question. What purpose does the listing of codeshare destinations and flight numbers in the Singapore Airlines article serve? I am questioning their encyclopaedic value, and I believe it is unfortunately your burden to explain this. Once done, let's get consensus for once and for all, by opening this long-drawn out dispute up for community comment/review. --Russavia 22:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My concerns have gone unanswered for 3 days, hence I will remove the sections as they stand now. If the questions can be answered satisfactorily, discussion on reinsertion can then take place. --Russavia 03:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If I write a comment, expect a response in 3 hours and I didnt get it. I suppose that gives me an excuse to start reverting articles too? Wikipedians are not held ransom by your whimps and fancies, including the time taken for others to response to your nonsence, if it was ever worth the time to respond to that is when they are primarily regurgitations of past comments.--Huaiwei 06:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the codeshare and flight numbers. They describe the codeshare operation, market profile, etc, as discussed many times before. These are very concise summary of previous long versions, I don't understand why anyone would want to make a big fuss out of this. --Vsion 08:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Because they do not describe any market profile, give any indicators as to market share, or anything else. The flight numbers especially is pure cruft. There is no sound reason as to why they should be on such an article, particularly as flight numbers for "Unutilised" are present. What exactly does it show? --Russavia 13:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pure cruft? Enlighten us on this one. I find it hard to believe that a former employee of an airline and self-claimed expertise in the aviation industry can actually consider a profiling of flight numbers (kindly note that this is not an entire list of individual flight numbers and their respective destinations) merely as a "travel guide" (oh, so I suppose your mother actually checks up wikipedia for a range of flight numbers that could fly her from Moscow to Singapore, finds that flights to Europe are in the range of SQ300-SQ399, and proceeds to book her flight telling the staff "oh, please book me a flight to Singapore, and make sure if ranges from SQ300-SQ399!" And when she goes to the airport, hey! Thank God there is only one SQ flight number which begins with 3, so she would probably be safe and sound in Singapore. God bless her on her return trip thou!) I believe we have stated repeatedly before, that flight numbers do give an indication on the airline's major destination markets, and in some cases, even the priority placed on each region. SIA's North American flight numbers don't kickstart the list by coincidence. Flights to China dont begin with the number "8" for fun either. A range of unutilised numbers simply hints that the company is reserving those numbers for future markets. If you cannot even read this kind of information by glancing at those numbers, you dont deserve to be in the airline industry, and you dont deserve to be an employee of Singapore Airlines.--Huaiwei 15:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are not a complete listing of flight numbers (I believe that article was deleted after failing Afd). The list of flight numbers as they are in this article still do not assert what you are hoping they would. The best indication of an airlines major destination markets is clearly given at Singapore Airlines destinations. The flight numbers are used in conjunction with a timetable in order to decode flights (WP:NOT#HOWTO). Additionally, by saying that the North American flights 'kickstart' the list because....., you are making unverified claims with this. The only thing which would explain what you are trying to do is PROSE, in conjunction with the destination list. And nice to see yet another attempted insult from you Huaiwei (*cough*bull*cough*sh***cough*), is that really the best you can do? LOL --Russavia 17:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For you to actually pick up that insult to react with animals sounds (quite primitive, it seems? :D), I suppose its effectiveness is already well demonstrated, eh? It is usually unnecesary to try too hard with relatively primitive species when it comes to this really, so too bad if you hadent had it good! Back to the gist of the issue. Lets talk about WP:NOT#HOWTO first, since you claim flight numbers used in confuction with a timetable can decode flights, and hence qualifies as a travel directory. Now lets see. The list shows a range of flight numbers, and there are is no information on which each individual flight number flies to, nor its flight scehdule, which would have been relatively close to what normal people would consider a "timetable". So without a timetable, and without a specific flight number, could you kindly tell us how your mother would use the information in this article alone to know how to get from Moscow to Singapore, and back? Yes I am expecting a full illustration of this, failing which you simply arent able to demonstrate this article's value as a travel guide! Next, indeed my "claims" are unverified at present. Hence they arent in the article. Duh. I do not need to verify my personal interpretation of facts presented in a wikipedia article, or do I? Every user who reads this article are free to form their own interpretations, or are they not allowed to? Lastly, could you perhaps give us verification to show that the destination list is the best indication of an airlines major destination markets? The number of destinations alone tells you how important a region is? I am sorry, but what kind of scholarly background do you have for you to actually ignore the importance of reading that information along with frequencies, capacities, yields, etc? Singapore Airlines happens to fly plenty of routes to the regional, Southeast Asian market, but is it a given that it is a more important market to Singapore Airlines compared to the much smaller number of destinations in Oceania, Europe, and the Americas, which incidentally are where its highest yielding markets are? Former SIA employee? Could you perhaps tell us in exactly which area where you working at? Cabin cleaner?--Huaiwei 10:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, do keep the codeshare and flight numbers. I think it is note worthy enough to be here on the Singapore Airlines page. As for the edit war, can it stop. People I know who work for Singapore Airlines consider Singapore Airlines Limited as the parent company for Singapore Airlines itself, Temasek is nothing but just a major shareholder of Singapore Airlines. If you consider Temasek to be the parent company for Singapore Airlines, would Silkair and the rest of airlines that Singapore Airlines Limited has a stake in be under Temasek? -le petit vagabond 13:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Russavia claims to be a former employee of Singapore Airlines, yet continues to wage war on this little aspect of the airline as thou he knew better. Perhaps now we know why he is a former employee of that airline.--Huaiwei 15:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

Can the edit wars stop?

Despite the article name, the article is written about Singapore Airlines Limited which is a publically traded company. So, Singapore Airlines Limited can not be the owner of Singapore Airlines Limited. Vegaswikian 05:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In actual fact, this article writes about both Singapore Airlines as a group, as well as Singapore Airlines as the parent airline company, both of which has the same entity with the same legal name. The "Parent company" field in this case should actually refer to the "group", but since the group is called "Singapore Airlines Limited" officially, than that is what stays in that field. If this is too confusing to the average reader (which I think so too anyway), perhaps you may wish to comment on a proposal[19] to edit the infobox, which includes the possibility of changing "parent company" to "majority shareholder" etc.--Huaiwei 06:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If Singapore Airlines Limited had its own article, it would cover all of its assets in an overview and include the top level company information. Since it is listed on the stock exchange and owns several major operations, notability should not be an issue. Even if it was, removing some of this information from the overlarge and confusing Singapore Airlines article would justify this action. So my suggestion is to create Singapore Airlines Limited where its majority stock holder can be noted. It would list the various operations as subsidiaries or companies or whatever is the correct heading for them. Then individual articles can cover the significant operations. Operations that don't merit an article can be covered in detail within the Singapore Airlines Limited article. Vegaswikian 06:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh no there we go again. Between creating two articles which has a grave danger of causing major confusions since they are assumed to be one by most people (and they are actually quite right), and simply amending a field in a wikipedia infobox, I would strongly believe the later choice is far more logical.--Huaiwei 06:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice try Huaiwei, first the article is about the airline, then it was about the brand, now it is about the group. Which one is it? If the article is now about the group, may I ask why Silkair and Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations and fleet numbers are not shown in the same infobox, because after all, it is about the 'Group' now, and not the airline (company). And I have changed it back to Temasek. --Russavia 13:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Perhaps you are the one who needs to enlighten me on that too. Could you care to explain why this article omits almost all data pertaining to Singapore Airlines Cargo and SilkAir, implying this article is about the airline aka parent airline company aka the brand, and not about the airline as a group, the later of which is majority owned by Temasek Holdings? If you are going to persist in forcibly reintroducing Temasek Holdings in that field, I am going to introduce information on Singapore Airlines Limited as a group of companies in the article. You jolly well stay consistent, not I.--Huaiwei 14:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The first reference that Russavia included in the infobox about Temasek is one that I do not accept as a reliable source since it does not appear to be accurate based on other information. Like with many companies, it talks about the major subsidiary and not the parent who is actually owned. They are confusing Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines. I'll repeat again, what we need is a clear understanding of the Singapore Airlines Limited structure! The only reliable facts we have is that Temasek is the majority owner of Singapore Airlines Limited which in turn owns, Singapore Airlines. We have a responsibility in the Encyclopedia to provide a clear and accurate overview of the corporation. Even when the corporation tries to obfuscate the facts. Vegaswikian 20:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Vegas, it isn't the IHT which has anything confused, honestly, they have it spot on. Temasek is the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited (d/b/a Singapore Airlines), making Singapore Airlines Limited (d/b/a Singapore Airlines) a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings. The structure you want is on page 146 of the annual report. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russavia (talk • contribs).

The IHT article does not use the word limited. So their statement that Temasek owns Singapore Airlines is not correct since they own stock for Singapore Airlines Limited. As I have said before. I have yet to find a copy of the annual report that will open. As a result, I don't know if that report supports any position. Vegaswikian 05:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes Russavia. The Annual Report of Singapore Airlines Limited, ie, the group of companies, clearly states that Singapore Airlines Limited, the group of companies, is a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, which holds 55.24% shares of the former, a point no one has actually disputed thus far. The same source, in the same page, identifies Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited as a "Substantial shareholder". At no point in time across the entire publication does it ever identify Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited as a "parent company", or even a "holding company" for that matter (there where a few references to "parent", all of which refers to Singapore Airlines Limited as a group of companies). It is further of interest to note, that the report identifies just one out of nine directors in the company's Management Board to be from Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited and considered non-independent (there is a second member from Temasek, but he was still deemed independent by the nominating committee due to his nature of work at Temasek). Since Russavia is into self-interpretation of sources, I would self-interpret the above as insufficient justification to support his thesis. That field gets corrected once again. And btw, I do stand by my word. If Russavia insists on changing that field one more time, I am going to begin turning this article into one on Singapore Airlines Limited - the group of companies!--Huaiwei 11:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, this follows on from what I wrote below, in that I don't believe you are understanding how companies are structured and how they work legally. Page 80 of the report states the following: Singapore Airlines Limited (“the Company”) is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore. It does not mention anything about group of companies, only ("the company"), which is relating directly to Singapore Airlines Limited (contrary to what you wrote above). You also mention that at no point in the entire annual report does it identify Temasek as a parent company, but of course it does. The same quoted text states that "The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek...". Please read the subsidiary page...a subsidiary is an entity which is controlled by another entity (in this case Singapore Airlines Limited is controlled by Temasek), which means, even though it is not stated explicity (because it doesn't have to be by definition of the word subsidiary), that Temasek is the parent company of the subsidiary, i.e. Singapore Airlines Limited. This is confirmed by the Singapore Companies Act [20]. Additionally it matters not if Temasek appoints any directors to the board, whether that be none or nine, 5(1)(a)(ii) (the link) negates that, in that the corporation (Temasek) "controls more than half of the voting power of the first-mentioned corporation (Singapore Airlines Limited)". It might also be noteworthy that Singapore Airlines Limited is the parent (holding) company of Singapore Airlines Cargo Private Limited, but the ultimate parent company of SIA Cargo Pvt Limited is Temasek, as per this definition, but this does not mean that Temasek is placed in parent company for SIA Cargo. Now to the annual report stating that Temasek is a substantial shareholder (which you are assuming means they are not a parent). The declaration of Temasek being a substantial shareholder is a legislative requirement. The definition in relation to Singapore's Companies Act is here. Temasek is the only shareholder in Singapore Airlines Limited which fulfills any of the definitions in this section of the Act. This definition comes into play in the Divisions and sections of the Act which are quoted. The entire Act is here. To put it simply, Temasek is required to declare themselves as a substantial shareholder (as per the above) for the protection of other shareholders in the company. So as you can see I have done no self-interpretation of any sources (which you seem to insinuate I have attempted to skew information to suit my own goals), but I have simply called upon knowledge gained in Business 101 of my BCom. My only goal is an accurate, professional, encyclopaedic NPOV article. I feel that I have now explained where I am coming from succinctly and more than adequately on this issue. And I tell you what. I'll leave this article alone for a few days, and as you have had the biggest problem with my edits on this issue, I will leave it up to you - if you have the same goals as myself, when I look at the article again in a few days, I would be expecting to see Temasek in the infobox. --Russavia 18:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As there is continual reverting of edits relating to the parent company in this article, I have requested outside opinion on this issue from the Business and Economics WikiProject here. The constant reverts are not good for the article, and as this is obviously going to have implications for the rest of the project, outside opinions are going to be needed. I will put it up for community review as well if needed, but hope B&E project members will weigh in with their opinions on this issue first. --Russavia 13:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have also added an accuracy dispute tag to the top of the article, and would ask that this not be removed whilst this dispute is active, and until such time as the issue can be settled for once and for all. --Russavia 13:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Could I beg your indulgence and ask you to remove the dispute tag for the time being? I would suggest this matter is a highly technical issue, and the tag may be interpreted as hostile and not being warranted at this time. There may be a work around that can be agreed on by all parties. I will post my view as to how this can be resolved in the Parent company section. --Gavin Collins 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Given User:Russavia latest reversion[21] to this article despite his "request for community review", and as per my earlier promise, I have commenced overhauling this article to one on Singapore Airlines Limited - the group of companies, instead of Singapore Airlines - the parent airline company. As this will need plenty of work, others are welcome to chip in. Cheers!--Huaiwei 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Could I request that both Russavia and Huaiwei refrain from editing this article before you have agreed on who is the parent company? The most productive way forward is to propose changes to the article on this page, and requesting comments on the proposals from other editors before further edits are made. --Gavin Collins 14:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You may also wish to note another wikiwar going on at Aeroflot. I suppose this would give people a better sense of just what is really going on here.--Huaiwei 15:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, how dare I delete text from an article which is put there only to push your highly NPOV opinion, having used a single opinion to try and formulate an encyclopaedic entry. --Russavia 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to assume good faith, Russavia, as you so like to preach yourself[22]. So while it is alright to use a foreign newspaper like the IHT to determine SIA's parent company, it is not alright to use a local newspaper like the Moscow Times to talk about Aeroflot's image. And while it is not alright to use "one single opinion" to talk about Aeroflot, it is perfectly alright to use "one single opinion" to talk about SIA. Double standards at its finest? No I shall assume good faith and leave the facts to speak for themselves!--Huaiwei 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I will refrain from editing this article for the time being. I would ask Huaiwei also to stop editing other articles, such as Melbourne Airport and using Sorry, but according to User:Russavia, Singapore Airlines is supposed to be on the SIA Group) and (The Singapore Airlines article is about the SIA Group, as per User:Russavia's insistence) as edit summaries, particularly as I have not insisted on any such thing, nor have I even implied such a thing. If one cares to read what I have written in everything above, it is the exact opposite. --Russavia 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't you find it rather tragic that I have to come to such ends just to stop you from wikiwarring in this article? The deal remains. If the Parent company reads "Temasek Holdings", than this article, and all articles which refers to this article, shall refer to Singapore Airlines as a group of companies, including all of its subsidiaries and shareholdings (good lord. Imagine the possibility of Virgin Atlantic being pulled into this dispute after being labelled as a subsidiary of the Singapore govenment!) If the Parent company reads "Singapore Airlines Limited", aka Singapore Airlines as a group of companies, than the article shall be restored to refer to Singapore Airlines as a parent airline company. There are no buts about it, and this has come to pass because of your own actions, Russavia, for you claimed no "opposite" at all with the kinds of edits you are actually making to this article.--Huaiwei 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This "deal" is entirely a figment of your own imagination, and if you persist on merging Silkair destinations into Singapore Airlines in other articles — which is obviously disruptive and a waste of everybody's time — I will file a WP:RFC/U. Jpatokal 02:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but kindly do not jump into this conclusion, especially when it is clear from the discussions above (and from your own comments below) why this has come to past. It is of no dispute that this article can refer to either the parent airline company exclusively, or the entire group of companies, which includes its various subsidiaries. Since we now have an article which actually talks about the airline group, could you explain if I have been diruptive in correcting all entries refering to Singapore Airlines as the airline, and not the group. I would demand that you retract your accusation if you do not have valid grounds to do so.--Huaiwei 10:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, it seems that you don't understand the way that corporate structures can and do work. Virgin Atlantic would not be involved by me calling them a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines, Temasek or any other entity (other than the Virgin Group), because this is not the case. Virgin Atlantic is not a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines, as SIA only owns a 49% share in the company, and does not hold a majority of votes on the board, hence can't be deemed to be a subsidiary of SIA. So as the article stand now (since your edits), this is what is wrong with it...

And just which accounting textbook are you reading, Russavia, to form that simplistic definition of a subsidiary company? Even that unsourced wikipedia article gives you plenty of hints that a mere majority stakeholding is not neccesarily the sole determinant. Could you care to explain why countless company choose to list any entity in which the company has a stake in, no matter how small, in their subsidiary company lists, Singapore Airlines inclusive, which states it has over 50 subsidiaries?--Huaiwei 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Tiger Airways in the infobox as a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines is incorrect; if anything Tiger Airways would be a subsidiary of Temasek, via the holdings of its own added to the holdings of its subsidiary, Singapore Airlines; however, without knowing what the voting rights attached to each Tiger Airways share is, this is only an educated guess, and I wouldn't be placing that it an article without having a verifiable source for it.

Care to explain why some sources cite Tiger Airways as a subsidiary of SIA? [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]--Huaiwei 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Singapore Airlines Limited is not also known as the Singapore Airlines Group. Singapore Airlines Limited (Singapore Airlines) with its subsidiaries, including SilkAir (Singapore) Private

Limited (SilkAir), SIA Engineering Company Limited (SIA Engineering Company), Singapore Airlines Cargo Private Limited (Singapore Airlines Cargo), etc, etc, collectively are known as the Singapore Airlines Group.

• This edit states your understanding that the annual report which I provided details from is for the Singapore Airlines Group. This is incorrect. The annual report is for Singapore Airlines Limited. They may make mention of "Singapore Airlines Group" in the report, in fact, on Page 8, the Chairman of SIA even states "I am delighted to introduce the Singapore Airlines Group’s 2006-07 Annual Report and Summary Financial Statements to shareholders.", but the entity which required to lodge the report (and also which is listed on the SGX) is Singapore Airlines Limited.

There are other points but these are the major as I see them. --Russavia 17:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• • This has got to be one of the most contradictory comments made by a single person ever. The same source, which specifically refers to itself as Singapore Airlines Group at some points within its annual report, isnt talking about Singapore Airlines Group? Is this severe selective reading, misappriopriation of facts, or an extreme case of basic logic deficiency? Singapore Airlines Group is Singapore Airlines Limited as far as the Annual report is concerned. Isnt this what you have been arguing all along, so why the contradiction?--Huaiwei 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• At the moment I can see that an end to this dispute is not yet in site. If this discussion continues as just an argument without hope of resolution, I can ensivage Singapore Airlines being nominated for inclusion in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, and I presume that neither of you want such a disgrace being brought upon an article that both of you have invested so much time. To resolve this, I think you have to do two things: turn your opposing positions around 360 degrees, and (a) desist from making statements or using language which you would consider offensive or annoying if you were in your opponent's shoes; and (b) consider that your oppenent may actually be correct, or at least in possession of information that is better than is in your possession. Now if both of you are correct (assume this for just a moment), then how could this article be best adapted to show this statement of fact? Please make your suggestions here, but in a style than is accomodating to an opposing point of view. --Gavin Collins 21:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Here's an idea. How about we keep this article's focus on Singapore Airlines the airline only, and list its parent company as Singapore Airlines Group. Then we create a new article called Singapore Airlines Group, which covers SQ, Silkair, SIA Engineering etc, and list its parent as Temasek (with footnote if necessary to untangle it). Would that make the two of you happy? Jpatokal 12:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is a constructive idea with practical application. --Gavin Collins 17:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• I wouldn't be supportive of such a proposal for the following reasons:

1. This article always has been, and always will be, about Singapore Airlines (the airline). It just so happens that this airline (as do most large airlines) has subsidiary companies.
2. Singapore Airlines Group and/or Singapore Airlines Limited as a parent of Singapore Airlines are not factually correct and are not verifiable. Temasek is verifiable (as has been demonstrated above), and does not meet the actual definition of a parent company of SilkAir, etc. It is an ultimate holding company, but it is not the parent. If verifiable and reliable sources for SIA Group or SIA Limited being the parent company can be provided, I may be supportive, however, this hasn't yet been the case (in regards to providing such sources). Any such move would therefore clearly go against WP:FIVE, in particular WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V.
3. It has ramifications for other articles as well, not only airline articles, but all company articles.
4. Subsidiaries, including some non-notable ones, are already covered at Singapore Airlines subsidiaries. If what is being suggested is a possibility that article is where it should take place. However, having said that, I would say that this does not mean simply that all 50 subsidiary companies can be listed, as that would likely go against WP:NOT, whilst it would still have to comply with all other policies (such as providing reliable sources, something that article still does not do).

I appreciate what you have suggested Jpatokal, but I do not feel that it would be acceptable as a compromise, as it would deviate too far from WP:FIVE. Having said that, if concensus from the community at large (without vested interest) says do that, I would have no problem with going with that concensus. So perhaps a WP:RFC is the best avenue? Or is there somewhere else that can be suggested. I will stay out of any such discussions, unless I am specifically asked a question to provide info, etc, as I believe my opinion on this matter would now be pretty clear? Cheers. --Russavia 20:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Russavia said "concensus from the community at large (without vested interest)" Could you elaborate on the factors which may qualify one to be in that category of "vested interest" individuals, and if you have anyone in mind to cite as an example?--Huaiwei 17:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Russavia, I think you're putting way too much emphasis on obscure corporate structure in favor of what people dealing with the airline/company actually experience. There is an airline called "Singapore Airlines"; there is a company called Singapore Airlines Ltd that runs Singapore Airlines and a number of other airlines too. Are you seriously claiming that Singapore Airlines Ltd does not own and operate an airline called Singapore Airlines? And I would suggest merging the material in Singapore Airlines subsidiaries into the proposed Singapore Airlines Group article. Jpatokal 02:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Jpatokal, this isn't being directed at you, or any other user. But the structure of the airline isn't obscure-it is basic business knowledge, and other non-airline articles handle this (not a) problem without having to type out an entire page of explanation as to what a holding/parent company actually is - this article, as well as other airline articles, are great if you are a 'plane goes up plane goes down' type person looking for basic info, and again great if you want to know the ins and outs of mundane marketing huff and puff, but of absolutely no use if looking for information on the airline business. As to am I seriously claiming that SIA Limited does not own and operate an airline called SIA. Yes, I am. For Singapore Airlines is Singapore Airlines Limited, and Singapore Airlines Limited is Singapore Airlines. It is no different to ABC Airlines Pty Ltd operating as ABC Airlines, or XYZ Airlines Limited operating as STU Airlines. I really don't see why this article is being treated any differently to other airline articles, and I don't think people should be bending over backwards to make an exception in order to satisfy a small group of editors. Remove the codeshare information (as per airline project guidelines), get rid of the flight numbers cruft which shows absolutely nothing on the market share or anything else on the airline operations, cut out a lot of the info which could easily have been written by Singapore Airlines Public Affairs department, and there is absolutely no reason why the corporate info of the airline can't be added to this article, like it is on other articles. --Russavia 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Russavia, could you tell us how many destinations does Singapore Airlines/Singapore Airlines Limited fly to, and how many aircraft does it operate? Quite a simple question really.--Huaiwei 10:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Huaiwei, I wouldn't be able to tell you that from looking at this article, as until you seemed to think that my providing verifiable info into this article meant that somehow I agreed that you could turn this into an article on a non-existent legal entity. I would have to go away to another source and look for that information unfortunately. --Russavia 10:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that you have to answer that question based on this article, Russavia. Go right ahead and answer this simple question with whatever source you can find. And just which "non-existent legal entity" are you refering to?--Huaiwei 17:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has always been a mix of the airline and the listed stock company. If you are going to propose splitting it somehow you need to address Singapore Airlines Limited which is the listed company in which Temasek has a majority holding. Vegaswikian 21:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely the idea. The Singapore Airlines Group article would cover Singapore Airlines Ltd as a listed company, including all subsidiaries. Singapore Airlines would concentrate solely on the airline of that name, not its corporate structure. Jpatokal 02:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, since Singapore Airlines Limited is the name of the company as listed on the Singapore Exchange, that should be where the article is built. The top level article should not be named Singapore Airlines Group. That does not mean an article about the group should not exist in addition to other articles if it is needed. Vegaswikian 05:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think using SIA Limited as a name would be confusing, but I can live with it. But what would be the point of splitting SIAL and SIA Group? Jpatokal 12:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what is wrong with the article at the moment as long as it explains the structure and has links to the subisidaries. I think the main problem is the concept of Temasak being the parent company, having just read the annual reports of Singapore Airlines Limited and Temasak Holdings it would appear that Temasak (a financial investment company) is just the majority shareholder not the parent company and not part of the corporate structure. Just looked at Singapore Telecommunications in which Temasek holds 56% (the same as the Singapore Airlines holding) it just mentions that it is majority owned by Temasak. So I would suggest remove the Parent company from the infobox and just a small tidy up of this article. MilborneOne 11:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Parent company states that A parent company is a holding company that owns enough voting stock in another firm to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors. Temasek is a holding company, as it does nothing but own other companies, and it has a majority stake in SQ, so yes, Temasek is the parent company of Singapore Airlines (and Singtel and many more). Jpatokal 12:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Singapore Airlines Limited is where Tamasek is investedand not Singapore Airlines. The problem is that we have an article that covers the stock company and the airline. I'm not sure of the corporate structure and the article as written does not help. That's why I think splitting is the right way to go. While it may create some problems, it would probably make for cleaner articles as long as we can source the material. Vegaswikian 18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No self-respecting wikipedian would actually quote an unsourced wikipedia article to argue his case in another wikipedia article. Do you have any evidence to show that Temasek Holdings has effective control of the SIA management board?--Huaiwei 18:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• If I understand the situation here, am I correct Singapore Airlines is the trade name under which Singapore Airlines Limited trades, or is this still speculation? I could step in here and say that potentially this could be a very interesting topic, but I don't think you will agree with my geeky premise. If Singapore Airlines Limited is the owner of Singapore Airlines (or at least the trade name), is there a reason why the airline has this unusual structure? Perhaps Singapore Airlines Limited was one of the earliest companies to have been incorporated in Singapore? I don't really know, but if there is an interesting story behind why then perhaps the registar of companies will have something on file. Is there any history behind the company structure. If not, then I suggest just put the Republic of Singapore as this sounds a lot more grandiose. --Gavin Collins 20:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would love to see an answer to those questions. Some of this is in the annual reports which I have been unable to display, that's my problem, but maybe others can decipher something from there. In various discussions, SA, SAL and maybe SAG have been considered as one in the same. Sometimes SA appears to be listed as the parent of SAG and in other cases as a member of the group. So, some good detective work is in order. With facts, an intelligent decision about how to proceed can be made for proper encyclopedic articles that take the mystery out of this. Vegaswikian 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes Gavin, it is basic business 101. A Limited company having a trading name, Singapore Airlines Limited operating as Singapore Airlines. They aren't separate entities, they are the same entity. It's that simple, and everything I've posted above explains it in more detail than what is really needed I think? --Russavia 10:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh sure at least in this regard, I too agree that there is in fact just one entity. You appear to have major problems answering a simple question of just how many aircraft it operates, and how many destinations it flies to thou.--Huaiwei 18:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Before I make my full statement here (someone is probably not looking forward to this), how about turning this present article into a disambiguation page, with a link to Singapore Airlines (airline) and Singapore Airlines (group)? We then move most of the content here to the former, and information pertaining to the entire group of companies to the later. I am suggesting half in jest, but this addresses the problem of a single name which actually means both an parent airline company, and a group of companies, irrespective of whether it is "Singapore Airlines" or "Singapore Airlines Limited" (although of course "Singapore Airlines Group" can only refer to the later). Then again, someone may not be happy coz he can no longer plonk his beloved Temasek Holdings" in the former page!--Huaiwei 10:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Temasek would be evident on both articles, as Singapore Airlines Limited is a subsidiary of Temasek, and Singapore Airlines Group is simply a descriptive term for Singapore Airlines Limited and its subsidiaries, with Singapore Airlines Limited still being controlled by Temasek. --Russavia 10:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That will obviously have to be depend on whether the first article is talking about the parent airline company, or the group of airlines thou. Are you attempting to suggest, that Temasek holdings does not have a stake in Singapore Airlines Group?--Huaiwei 17:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can do the same for Qantas (airline) and Qantas (group), Cathay Pacific (airline) and Cathay Pacific (group), Aeroflot (airline) and Aeroflot (group), etc, etc, etc. Splitting up articles on non-sensical lines isn't such a good idea when they are the same entity. That's just my opinion. --Russavia 10:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you are the one who has initiated the entire fiasco with that "parent company" issue, than its your onus to convince everyone that the above setup is the best step forward for all airlines in similar situations. In case you are not aware, Qantas is indeed moving towards a setup where it will split into four companies, all under the Qantas Group. You better pray that Qantas Group becomes a holding company, instead of being a parent airline company, because then we will have exactly the same problem all over again!--Huaiwei 17:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Response I don't think a seperate article is necessary, unless one of these companies has a notable history other than the airline itself. I had a look at the listing for Singapore Airlines on the Singapore Stock Exchange, where the company has a public listing as Singapore Airlines Ltd (stock symbol: SIA) which states:

“ The Company (SIA) was incorporated as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Singapore government through Temasek Hldgs (Pte) Ltd on 28 January 1972 as a public company with limited liability[28]. ”

I propose that the Info box show Singapore Airlines Ltd. to be the parent, but with the first reference/footnote of this article using the above the stock exchange wording. This way no-one can be offended, the wording comes from a familiar and recognised source, whilst this clears up any ambiguity about the parent without the need for a seperate article. All those who agree with this proposal, please put your signature below:

• --Gavin Collins 11:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would normally agree to having just one article for Singapore Airline under whichever setup it happens to be, as was the case since day one, but with specific conditions which I will elaborate later. The setup proposed by Gavin do fit my conditions somewhat, so its a support from me.--Huaiwei 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That quote belongs in the history of the listed company. Currently Temasek is the majority owner and not the sole owner. Mentioning that Temasek is the majority owner within the article is appropriate. If they continue to sell off their stock, this would become the largest shareholder. The same comment can be included in other articles where Temasek, or other company, thought multiple holdings, is the largest or majority owner of the stock. Board makeup is something for the articles of listed companies and this may or may not be important based on the members. Vegaswikian 19:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As per my reasons above, it is not verified and the assertion also could be classed as original research. Looking at the history of the airline/company, there is no doubt as to the assertion that SIA and SIA Limited are one and the same has been commonly accepted, due to the article having started of as Singapore Airlines Limited...is the national airline of Singapore edit from 27/11/06 edit from 22/11/05 for over 2 years. In fact, it was Huaiwei who back in July 2005 edited the article to add in Limited into the lead, and I fail to understand why, 2 years after the fact, that the addition of the verifiable parent company into an infobox is an issue that is Bigger than Ben Hur. This issue isn't akin to whether Macedonia has a right to call itself Macedonia, it is a very simply, basic verifiable fact of (Singapore) company law; that being; a company which holds enough voting stock in another company is regarded as the parent company of that company; as Temasek holds well over 54% of SIA stock, and each stock carries a single vote, it is the parent company under Singapore company/corporation law (referenced) above, a fact that even Singapore Airlines acknowledges. To state anything but is erroneous, and also implies that Singapore company laws, Singapore Airlines and reputable media outlets are all wrong. Within the article, there is already a structural point in the article where any explanation of the Singapore Airlines Group belongs, that being Corporate management. So that's what I am thinking, and I can't put my name to something which I don't believe would pass a verifiability test; I am all for compromise, but not where WP:V comes into play. Now Huaiwei asked me above about where one can find someone without vested interest to comment on this issue, that would be WP:RFC, and I still believe that it be sent there for a broader outside opinion on issues surrounding this article. So that's basically all I have to input on this issue as it stands, time now for me to step back and what course this takes. Cheers --Russavia 20:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How about we leave it at the version prior to the dispute while this is sorted out. It's obvious that both of you dont agree, so at least agree to disagree. Or look at outside editors not involved in the dispute, otherwise some editors may look at getting this article semi or even fully protected. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 10:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I just made a partial reversion as per the above, of course keeping the more constructive edits at the same time.--Huaiwei 16:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Falsified verification failure?

Russavia insists on tagging certain statements within the "Corporate Management" section as being unverified by the included source. Or so he says.

• Article text: Singapore Airlines is the parent airline company of the Singapore Airlines Group of companies
  • Source text 1: Group operating profit increased by $101 million (+8.3%) to $1,314 million, on the back of a strong performance by the Parent Airline Company.
  • Source text 2: The Company refers to Singapore Airlines, the parent airline unit. The Group comprises the Company and its subsidiary, joint venture and associated companies).

I have amended the second reference to address his issue more directly.

• Article text: The later of which (SIA Group) is a subsidiary of the Singapore government investment and holding company, Temasek Holdings.
  • New Source text: Singapore Airlines Limited (“the Company”) is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore.

I would like to remind Russavia not to use the {{failed verification}} tag just to indicate his opposition to the existing version of the article, while this talk page seems to suddenly become dormant. This is not mature behavior.--Huaiwei 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this fails verification for the following reasons, and was going to put a notice here as to why anyway, but seeing as you beat me to the punch, I will explain why those tags were put back in place:

1) The annual report is for Singapore Airlines Limited, the legal name of Singapore Airlines.

2) Are you claiming that Singapore Airlines is different to Singapore Airlines Limited, as you will revert any changes that I make which say this is so. I find it curious you have forecfully rammed home issues regarding Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines Group to Vegaswikian quite a few times; this being one such example, and there is no need to treat them any differently now, unless specific verifiable circumstances warrant it (such as when adding info about Singapore Airlines 'Group' financials). Might I add, my edits are completely sourced, and you are reverting back to unsourced material.

As to the rest Huaiwei, you can read below, and I have just about had enough of the time spent on this small but headache causing issue. I have explained in enough detail and provided enough sources on how Singapore Airlines (the company) is set up, providing sources for you at every demand, and I had it with having to explain every single edit that I make on this article in miniscule detail to yourself, whereas it seems you do not feel you have to do this for us. If you can't understand fully how this company is structured, then stop editing the article, go and study business/commerce at uni for 4 years, or read various business law/regulations, and get yourself up to speed.

Also, might I add, any sourced edits of mine are to be treated under WP:V, which explicitly states; The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Edits which I have made have explicitly said "XYZ is a subsidiary of ABC"; unfortunately your edits, whilst sourced are too vague, do not explicitly state what you have added to the article, and rely on the reader of that material drawing their own conclusions, which you have done above, hence those edits are also original research. So yes, your edits and sources have failed verification, and hence why I re-added those.

This is NOT about you, me or anyone else. This is about presenting an article which is in compliance with WP:FIVE, and whilst others may no longer be interested, hence I will continue, as much as it is a general waste of good time which could be spent doing other things. I am willing to have a discussion with you on these issues; the first question would be, what exactly do you see Singapore Airlines as being, in direct relation to this article? --Russavia 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think most of the points you are asking from me has aleady been addressed before, if not, in the posts in the following section. As for your sudden emphasise on being explicit (something which I have been calling for for quite some time already), I don't think you have addressed my earlier request for you to find us an explicit statement in the annual report which states that "Temasek Holdings is the parent company of Singapore Airlines (the parent airline company)" either, or have you?--Huaiwei 03:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines is a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Group

I do not know what you guys are arguing about but the refrences make it pretty clear that Singapore Airlines is part of the Singapre Airlines Group. What is the problem? --Blue Tie 12:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, since Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Limited are kind of the same company and one is the parent of the group, how can a parent also be a child? This is part of the problem in that the structure is confusing. Vegaswikian 19:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

After recent edits by other editors, I have just a few questions/comments/concerns/suggestions in regards to the article as it stands now (which is a total mess and these suggestions demonstrate precisely what is wrong with it):

• The infobox is entitled Singapore Airlines (SIA) with the parent company being Singapore Airlines Limited (SIA Limited). This is unsourced and needs to be sourced and verified for accuracy. Any reliable sources which states "Singapore Airlines is a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Limited" or Singapore Airlines Limited is the parent company of Singapore Airlines (or very close to this) should suffice for this purpose.
• SilkAir, SIA Cargo, SATS, etc are not subsidiaries of Singapore Airlines, but of Singapore Airlines Limited, which is also the parent company of Singapore Airlines according to the article. All subsidiaries need to be removed from the infobox, as ownership by SIA Limited is verifiable by the Singapore Airlines Limited Annual Report 2006/07.
• The infobox says that Chew Choon Seng is the CEO of Singapore Airlines. I have looked at the annual report for Singapore Airlines Limited and I see that he is also the CEO of Singapore Airlines Limited. Does this mean that Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines each have a separate board of directors? Looking at it from a perspective of the SIA Group as a whole, it could make for interesting prose as to why Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines have the same makeup of their board, yet other companies within the SIA Group have different executives in different positions. To me this sounds like Singapore Airlines Limited doesn't trust the Singapore Airlines board to make the right decisions and have the right type of stewardship of the airline, so SIA Limited makes all decisions for SIA, whereas Singapore Airlines Limited subsidiaries have much more independence, so it would seem? Or is there another reason this is the case? Also, I see that IATA has a small profile on Chew Choon Seng on their website. It would be interesting to include how he went from joining Singapore Airlines in 1972 and climbed the ranks to become the CEO of both Singapore Airlines and its parent company, Singapore Airlines Limited. Also, it's good bio to state when he was employed by Singapore Airlines Limited.
• The lead of the article states "Singapore Airlines Limited is the national airline of Singapore" - Singapore Airlines is the airline and Singapore Airlines Limited is just the parent company of that airline? Why is Singapore Airlines Limited in the lead?
• The link to the Singapore Stock Exchange only makes mention of Singapore Airlines Limited as being the company listed on the stock exchange, so the ticker symbol link should be removed.
• The second paragraph states 'The company is an industry bellwether for aircraft purchases'. The source for this statement doesn't mention Singapore Airlines buying any aircraft, but Singapore Airlines Limited, so Singapore Airlines being a bellwether for aircraft purchases needs to be removed as it [:Template:Failed_verification|fails verification] using that source.
• Can someone please check WP:RS reliability for the source of this statement in the intro, 'and ranks amongst the top 15 carriers worldwide in terms of revenue passenger kilometres', as I have visited the site from which the statement was made, and in the top right hand corner of the page I landed at I find article titled China Eastern agrees to sell 24% stake to Singapore Airlines, Temasek, with a link to the article which starts with this statement; Singapore Airlines and its parent Temasek agreed to purchase 15.7% and 8.3% stakes respectively in China Eastern Airlines, giving them a combined 24% holding valued at HK7.15 billion ($917 million).
• In the lead, this statement has been made Collectively, the Singapore Airlines Group (including SilkAir and Singapore Airlines Cargo) is the world's largest carrier by market capitalization. The link from which that statement is, allegedly, taken is no longer available, and hasn't been for some time (as I checked about a month ago). However, Singapore Airlines has been changed to Singapore Airlines Group in the last days by Huaiwei, and as they aren't exactly the same thing, this statement would require a Template:Or tag for further verification and sources.
• Corporate management section states 'Singapore Airlines is the parent airline company of the Singapore Airlines Group of companies' - how can this be? Singapore Airlines is simply an airline/brand, it isn't a company - this is information presented by Huaiwei above and via edits to the article. If Singapore Airlines is a company, can someone please provide their Singapore business registration number from here, as it is impossible for a non-registered entity to own other companies, particularly those listed on the stock markets, as this would be totally against every corporation law in the world, and I am certain this includes Singapore.
• This follows on with 'the later of which is a subsidiary of the Singapore government investment and holding company, Temasek Holdings' - I need this explained to me, so that I understand, as I have no doubt it is correct. If Singapore Airlines is the parent airline company of the Singapore Airlines Group of companies, then how can SIA Group be a subsidiary of Temasek, particularly as:

1) SIA Group is not a legally registered entity per se. If it were, someone needs to provide business registration data or other third party sources which establishes this.

2) If SIA Group is a subsidiary of Temasek, and Singapore Airlines is a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Limited, why does IHT, Singapore Stock Exchange, and a multitude of other reliable sources, and Singapore Airlines itself, claim that Temasek is the parent of Singapore Airlines? Are all of these sources totally incorrect, and this article (as it stands at the moment by Huaiwei) correct?

3) Virgin Atlantic is included in this 'SIA Group', by ways of definition of the group. Does this mean that we now have to change the VS page to show Temasek as the parent of Virgin, seeing as this article says it is so, due to its membership of this SIA Group? Is anyone willing to make this change on the Virgin Atlantic page, because this article is asserting that fact?

• In corporate management; warned the airline to cut costs, is sourced here. The article mentions Singapore Airlines Limited for the stock, but then mentions Singapore Airlines and its subsidiary SilkAir. But SIA Limited is the parent of SilkAir. What gives? Any explanation for this? Perhaps that should be included?
• I turn your attention to page 146 of the Singapore Airlines Limited Annual Report for 2006/07, to the section entitled Group Corporate Structure. At the left we have Singapore Airlines Limited - I can see such entities as SIA Engineering Company Limited, SilkAir (Singapore) Private Limited, Singapore Airlines Cargo Private Limited, etc, etc, but I can't find Singapore Airlines Limited owning a company called simply Singapore Airlines. Surely if Singapore Airlines Limited was the parent company of Singapore Airlines, this information would clearly be indicated here. But according to this article as it stands at the time I write this, Singapore Airlines Limited isn't the parent of these "Group of companies" but Temasek is the parent, why aren't they mentioned in this annual report at this point?
• In the section Operational investments, this statement is made, evoking a major rally in China Eastern's shares which rose 83.91% to hit 6.86 Hong Kong dollars a day after the announcement of the deal. This source is used for that statement. Can we please have someone verify the reliability of using Forbes as a source, as they also make this statement in the same article; For a price tag of 7.2 billion Hong Kong dollars ($923 million), Singapore Airlines, renowned as the best-managed airline in Asia, and its Singaporean government-controlled parent Temasek Holdings, are taking a combined 24% stake in money-losing China Eastern Airlines, China’s perpetual aviation laggard.
• Section frequent flyer program states Singapore Airlines and its subsidiary SilkAir, this is not correct as Page 146 of the Singapore Airlines Limited Annual Report 2006/07 states that SilkAir (Singapore) Private Limited is a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Limited, which according to this article is also the parent company of Singapore Airlines (again, a fact which has not yet been sourced and verified). I suggest removed its subsidiary from this part to stay consistent.
• The destinations section states It has a particularly strong presence in the Southeast Asian region, which together with its subsidiary SilkAir. Again, the SIA Limited Annual Report states that SilkAir (Singapore) Private Limited is a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Limited. Although, I can't find anything which affirms Singapore Airlines Limited being the parent of Singapore Airlines, as this article states this is the case, this statement needs to be changed and I suggest it be changed to which together with its sister airline SilkAir (NOTE: Sister is used to denote common ownership by the same company, as per an example, Sister station, whilst not specific to airlines, it can be used across industries, as can be found on a google search)
• Codeshare agreements states Singapore Airlines has codeshare agreements[78] with its fully-owned subsidiary SilkAir, Virgin Atlantic Airways in which it owns a 49% stake, again Singapore Airlines Limited owns SilkAir, not Singapore Airlines. And Singapore Airlines Limited owns 49% of Virgin Atlantic, not Singapore Airlines.
• In the fleet section, there is a list of aircraft operated by Singapore Airlines. The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore civil aircraft register states that the operator of these aircraft is Singapore Airlines Limited. It should be mentioned in this section if Singapore Airlines Limited leases these aircraft to Singapore Airlines for their flights? It is an interesting point in Singapore Airlines Cargo that its fleet was transferred at market value from SIA and all future fleet purchases are made on its own books, so it would be interesting to know also if Singapore Airlines is also made to pay its way by Singapore Airlines Limited or does it get a free ride? If SIA Limited leases the aircraft to SIA, these lease payments would be found in the annual report, but I can't find anything, perhaps I am looking in the wrong spot, or perhaps SIA Limited lets SIA operate the aircraft without charge? I can see aircraft purchases by SIA Limited in the annual report though. Anyway, it's an interesting point for inclusion in the article.
• Singapore Airlines subsidiaries perhaps should be renamed to Singapore Airlines Limited subsidiaries, as Singapore Airlines doesn't own a single company listed there.
• Why does Singapore Airlines Cargo has Singapore Airlines Limited as the parent company, and why it isn't Singapore Airlines Cargo Private Limited. The same goes for SilkAir and SilkAir (Singapore) Private Limited.

Does anyone have anything to add to this? Then we can make the necessary edits to the article. NOTE: The Singapore Airlines Limited Annual Report 2006/07 is located here and is independently audited by Ernst & Young, and complies with Singapore company laws. --Russavia 03:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the annual report obfuscates the names and structure of the company. It would appear on one hand that Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines are both used to refer to the stock company. It also appears that the company considers Singapore Airlines as a part of 'the group'. So the name Singapore Airlines is used as both the parent and child. I still believe that it is best to have an article only for the airline operating as Singapore Airlines and another article for the stock company Singapore Airlines Limited. Vegaswikian 06:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If Singapore Airlines were to obfuscate the names and structure of the company, and particularly as they are listed on the stock exchange, this would be in violation of countless number of corporation and company laws in Singapore, and Ernst & Young would not be giving the report their stamp of approval. The very simple fact of the matter is, is that Ltd and Pty Ltd companies (and variations there of) do not need to distinguish between XYZ Widgets Pty Ltd and XYZ Widgets as they are the same entity (the Ltd is their legal name, and the other is their name within the marketplace). The structure of Singapore Airlines is very clearly noted in their annual report, and has been referenced countless number of times on this very talk page. Many non-US airlines (and companies) have the very same structures and there isn't any dispute on those, just this one, why? --Russavia 07:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I read Russavia's first two points in this section, found glaring errors both in his interpretation of sources as well as his interpretation of what others are saying, and simply stoppped reading the rest of his garbage. I think the patience of many are wearing thin over one single individual's persistent attempt in forcing his personal interpretation into an article, via any means he thinks possible, including something as silly as inserting dispute tags just to draw people's attention to his antics. I am not sure if Vegaswikian has finally been able to read the Singapore Airlines Annual Report, but his comment on the company's name usage is more or less spot-on, although I wont use the term obfuscate to describe this. As far as the company is concerned, Singapore Airlines is the shorthand of both Singapore Airlines Group and Singapore Airlines Limited, and Singapore Airlines Group = Singapore Airlines Limited, as long as we are referring to the name of the company. But when the company is attempting to describe its operations or financial operations of Singapore Airlines sans subsidiaires, it will refer to this entity as the Parant Airline Company of the Singapore Airlines Group. If this article is attempting not to refer to itself as the Singapore Airlines Group (which Russavia condemns anyway[29]), then it should be on the Parant Airline Company (officially known as Singapore Airlines Limited), which is only one portion of Singapore Airlines Group. Is it therefore accurate to say the Parant Airline Company is a part of Singapore Airlines Group (officially known as Singapore Airlines Limited)? Yes, and the sources say so, even if they are both known with the same name. Is it "contradictory" for this article to sometimes refer to Singapore Airlines Group? No, if the article clearly differentiates between statistics/information which relates only to either entity. Under the "Corporate Management" section, for example, I made it a point to distinguish between the two, and display statistics which clearly relate to either one of these. Russavia couldn't stand the fact that I am actually using a primary source, couldn't comprehend that fact that he has assumed wrongly on just how I interpret the entire saga, and hence keeps planting WP:OR tags there. Let's see what other garbage he can throw at us, and in the meantime, check out what happens over at Aeroflot. My continued believe that this member is unable to edit objectively continues to be reinforced by his actions there, although I end up having to be a tad "disruptive" to illustrate this.--Huaiwei 15:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no excuse for being disruptive and your comment above consists almost entirely of ad hominem attacks.

As stated before, show your evidence of disruptive editing on my part. My comment above refers to the disputes over at Aeroflot, which continues to rage on. Given Russavia's self-proclamation of "expertise" in the Aviation field, particularly in the Russian market, and the high editing standards he attempts to reinforce, I went over to take a look at Russia's largest airline, Aeroflot, to check out the high standards Russavia would presumably display there. It turned out to be a dissapointing visit, and I went ahead and overhauled that article. Some may presume this to be a tit-for-tat action amounting to being "disruptive", but unless you can show I am doing this merely to prove a point with nonsensical edits there, I would again demand that you retract your accusation.--Huaiwei 01:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this. To remind you, this is the episode when you went ahead and replaced all references to Silkair and Singapore Airlines Cargo with "Singapore Airlines" in their destination airports, alleging that Russavia wanted you to do so, and commented that "Don't you find it rather tragic that I have to come to such ends". Well, yes, I do find it rather tragic and this behavior — intentionally going against WP:AIRPORT in dozens and dozens of airport articles to make a point — was highly disruptive. Jpatokal 02:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And just what point am I trying to make with those edits then? I think I have made my point very clear. This article is either one on the Parent Airline Company, or the Singapore Airlines Group. I have repeatedly reminded Russavia, that he is turning the article into one on the Group in one key component, and that I will have to amend the rest of the article if he insists on reverting, for the sake of maintaining as much accuracy as possible. And since the article is turned into one on the airline group, links related to the article must be amended as well, and I am doing this with full intention of keeping them that way. When I went ahead to amend the articles, there has been little dispute from other users, except Russavia who comes along a few days later and reverts everything back again. So again I ask. Just what point am I am making with those edits, and what disruption am I causing if they are actually correct? Enlighten me on this one.--Huaiwei 03:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT: State your point; don't prove it experimentally. Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. Jpatokal 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And there you have it. My edits were meant to be permanent, and are not an experimental exercise. My action was not exactly unilateral, since it comes on the heals of Russavia's edits, and I have forewarned him that his action must come with my edit as a single package.--Huaiwei 07:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So you now agree with Russavia, and are OK with permanently accepting his suggestions? Jpatokal 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That said, I actually agree with almost all of what you say: this article should cover Singapore Airlines the airline, and the "Corporate management" section should cover the structure of the entire group, which is pretty much the case already. However, as the first sentence of the article corrently defines "Singapore Airlines" as "Singapore Airlines Limited", it's patently absurd to list "Singapore Airlines Limited" as the parent company of "Singapore Airlines" — a company cannot be its own parent. On the other hand, the company's own official, audited annual report [30] states in perfectly clear English that Singapore Airlines Limited is a subsidiary of Temasek, and hence Temasek is its parent. Is there any dispute about this? If not, can we change the infobox title to say "Singapore Airlines Limited", and its parent then to be Temasek? Jpatokal 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The infobox is for Singapore Airlines, the parent airline company, and not for Singapore Airlines, the group. No one actually disputes Singapore Airlines Group (officially Singapore Airlines Limited, or Singapore Airlines for short) as a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings, as per the Annual Report. There is, however, a contention that the parent airline company is one. An infobox which says "Singapore Airlines Limited", and with most of its contents related only to the parent airline company cannot be confused with one on the airline group. Perhaps the best way forward is simply to remove that entry in the infobox.--Huaiwei 16:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Jpatokal 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty fast. Hope no one would see this as some kind of unilateral action and start revert warring again.--Huaiwei 07:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not agree to this, so I have reverted. I see no reason why this article is so special that we have to leave out info but leave it on thousands of other articles. This issue will be resolved for once and for all.--Russavia 13:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, leaving it there is indicative of the problems which this article has, so instead of hiding it and pretending all is ok, I would ask that it be left there, as I am STILL waiting for a source for Singapore Airlines Limited being the parent company of Singapore Airlines. Furthermore, Huaiwei's argument is that the infobox is for Singapore Airlines, the parent airline company. Does anyone have any idea what the operative is here? Company. What type of company is it? Of course, it is a Limited company. Meaning that the parent airline company is Singapore Airlines Limited. It can not be made any clearer than this, that is if the fifty thousand previous words I have written haven't made it clear enough as it is. --Russavia 13:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To have any meaning at all, the "parent company" bit has to link somewhere. It can go to a separate SQ Group article, or Temasek, but the current value is just wrong because a company cannot be its own parent and it should be removed. Jpatokal 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That is correct, and it has been my argument the entire time, hence why I have now written a thesis on this talk page as to why Temasek Holdings should be placed back there, for which it seems that you agree with, but will it stay there if this (example of) edit is re-instated? --Russavia 16:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So yet again Huaiwei, you are admitting to editing only to be disruptive, and that your edits have not been in good faith? I have no interest in pursuing any discussion with a self-admitted disruptive editor and will be taking that further. --Russavia 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You can infer your from my comments all you like, Russavia, for your own comments seem to suggest guilt on your part. Past history has shown that you are hardly a man of your words, for clearly this isnt the first time you said you are not going to have "discussions" with me, and look what happens a short while later? You demand to be talked to, failing which you think you have an excuse to revert. And I suppose that also means only "arguments" are permissable? That explains!--Huaiwei 01:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ownership Structure

The Singapore Airlines Group (of companies) is a holding name - it does not exist. What does exist is Singapore Airlines Limited. The trading name for Singapore Airlines Limited is of course, Singapore Airlines. The parent company of Singapore Airlines is not Singapore Airlines Limited because they are equal.

Taking this into account, I am going to remove the Parent Company section in the infobox.

Furthermore, if we really need to state the Parent Company, I say that Temasek Holdings is undoubtedly the major shareholder with over 49% of shares in Singapore Airlines Limited. If an accounting textbook describes Temasek as the parent company then so be it. If not, I suggest we revert to calling it "Major Shareholder" in the infobox. This small piece of information adds very little value to the article anyway. RomanceOfTravel 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to add this information as per Temasek to the infobox, but prepare to have the article owner revert it upon site, because he has no idea about company structures --Russavia 14:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I should have been bolder! RomanceOfTravel 19:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't know how to do it. RomanceOfTravel 19:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just who is the allerged "owner", may I ask?--Huaiwei 08:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Best word?

Hi Everyone! I'm a newbie here but would like to raise a little quibble: I recently changed the sentence: "Female flight attendants continued to wear the sarong kebaya dress" to "Female flight attendants continue to wear the sarong kebaya costume" because, for many varieties of English speakers, the word dress implies a garment that is either all enveloping or only hanging from the waist downwards. Of course all Singapore girls know that the sarong is the "dress part" and the kebaya our blouse.

If, as very prolific User:Huaiwei wrote when he changed my wording, '("custume" is less suited here)', can we come up with a better phrasing that is not just a teensy weensy bit misleading?

Perhaps: "Female flight attendants continue to wear the sarong kebaya as their uniform upon take off and at least until meal service is completed."

Is that wording OK or is there a better phrase? Alice.S 22:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, and thank you for raising this issue up here. To address the issue here, the sarong kebaya is basically the SIA FA's "uniform", which gives a more formal connotation than a "costume" would suggest. I changed it back to "dress", not because it is a tube- or cone-shaped garment, but because "dress" also means clothing in general. I am open to the option you proposed above. Thanks!--Huaiwei 02:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me such another big friendly welcome on my user page, Huaiwei, and for being open to discussion. Do you think it would be ok for me to replace the phrase with: "Female flight attendants continued to wear the sarong kebaya as their uniform upon take off and at least until meal service was completed.", then - or should I wait a week or so and see if there are any differing opinions? I really think uniform is the best word since it is SIA that supplies and mandates its use'

Do you ever fly the SIA route to Bandar Seri Begawan? Alice.S 02:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I arent sure what "upon take off and at least until meal service was completed" was supposed to imply. Do they change out of their uniform before take off, and after meal service? I dont recall this happening during my flights with them. Anyway, I hadent gone BSB, so I didnt have the opportunity to fly SQ there.--Huaiwei 04:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm too young to remember first-hand what the procedure was back in 1972 when SIA started up, but I should guess it was exactly the same as today: We always wear the sarong kebaya when we welcome passengers on board, for take-off and for at least the first meal service. Rules have varied after that as to when (and if) you can change out depending on flight routing, seniority and duties. Sorry if the reference to BSB confused you it was just to see if I could greet you if you ever flew that route.Alice.S 05:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Er I don't think I have ever seen them wear anything else other than the uniform for the entire duration of the flight. Do you mean they used to have such a policy before? What do they actually wear if they are not in the sarong kebaya? Anyway, you are flying as a FA with SIA?--Huaiwei 07:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My boyfriend's just reminded me to be careful what I say, but these two articles may interest you: http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=412&Itemid=34 and http://books.google.com/books?id=dPhtrKE8GDsC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=singapore+airlines+uniform+changing+rules&source=web&ots=_XYUziM_CH&sig=bZOgYQZpYKWrj9cKlevqgivs-xM#PPA77,M1 Email me if you want to chat further. Alice.S 09:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I tried reading through those sources, but somehow they dont exactly say what they wear other than their uniforms on board flights. Could you point me out to the specific section, or quote the text directly over here? Thanks!--Huaiwei 11:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from Russavia

A week ago I did a quick cleanup of different information in this article, which was basically reverted wholesale by Huaiwei; diff here.

I have a question which I would like Huaiwei to answer, in regards to the above diff, so that the necessary changes can be made to this article. In answering these questions, please take into account this diff from BOC Aviation which Huaiwei reverted:

SALE used to be jointly owned by four shareholders. Singapore Airlines Group....

was changed by Huaiwei to this:

SALE used to be jointly owned by four shareholders. Singapore Airlines....

with the edit summary reading:

(A non-existant company cant hold shares in another company)

The statement by Huaiwei Singapore Airlines is the parent airline company of the Singapore Airlines Group of companies[25], the later of which is a subsidiary of the Singapore government investment and holding company, Temasek Holdings[26]. was changed to Although Singapore Airlines is a subsidiary of the Singapore government investment company, Temasek Holdings,..., and was reverted back in the above diff by Huaiwei. If a non-existent company can not hold shares in (or own) another company, then a non-existent company can not be a subsidiary of (owned by) another company. This has been explained in minute detail on this talk page, and numerous inline templates were placed explaining that your statement failed verification and for quotations to be supplied and these were duly reverted, diffs: [31], [32], [33]

The misinterpretation of sources has caused more information in the article to be incorrect, failing WP:V. Unfortunately, everything I have written on this talk page has either 1) fallen on deaf ears with Huaiwei or 2) caused Huaiwei to be disruptive on purpose (as admitted by himself)

Additionally, I added a template to the following statement:

It has also restructured itself by hiving off operational units as fully-owned subsidiaries to maintain its core business as a premium passenger airline.

This is a case of WP:SYN (or WP:OR), as when a company restructures and it is to concentrate on its core business, it doesn't spin off units/divisions/branches as fully-owned subsidiaries, it offloads (sells) them completely. This syn template was also removed.

I am going to make the required edits to this article, and before any revision is done by Huaiwei, take into account the above information, and I will take this to WP:RFC/U if need be in order to allow non-verified edits to be removed without worry of having them reverted by an editor who seems to think he owns this article. --Russavia 03:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. Ever since my citation of WP:SYN, Russavia now plonks it into every argument he gets himself into, even thou his position (and that of his opponents) have not moved. Is this his latest excuse to revert war, and to insert a particular entry in a disputed field? I do not see a need to "answer" any of his queries above, because they have all been answered, several times over, and not just by me alone (and speaking of that, I am kinda wondering why he only addreses those questions to me alone. Is he aware that no one owns any article, even if they are one of the main contributors?) Someone else has completely removed all entries from that field[34], and I think that is probably the best course to take if no one could agree on just what should be displayed, a a result which has resulted in no more disputes except from Russavia. If Russavia has major problems accepting community concensus, and the very idea that his views may not be deemed correct nor acceptable to others, then by all means bring this argument to any dispute resolution mechanism he can think of, and we shall take him on there. Russavia's "threats" are certainly welcome, if that helps to cease his disruptive editing habits permanantly.--Huaiwei 10:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Height

So how high is the average adult? I suspect the 1.5m edit is vandalism, but I have not seen the specs. Any comments, or should that be reverted to a more generic "height of the average adult" and left unspecified? docboat 04:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply read Human height and select one from the table. Yes, there are a few variables. Vegaswikian 05:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Overhead storage

Is it really of encyclopedic significance that there is no overhead storage above the center seats in business class in one of SQ's planes? Jpatokal 16:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

One might ask the same question about many aspects of our coverage (Aircraft registration numbers or the recipe for cheesecake.

It's a judgement call and my judgement is that it would be one of the first things you would notice when you step into that cabin section in the A380 - before the in-seat laptop power supply or the width of the seats. As and when other airlines start flying the same aircraft it will probably cease to be notable, but until then...Oh, I see you've already deleted the "offending passage". (Perhaps it would be more productive if you would ask this sort of question before the act in future - unless you're going to self-revert, of course.) Alice.S 19:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose noting that in the A380 article, but I don't see the point of bragging about it for SQ -- other airlines will be flying the same plane in months. (And incidentally, cheesecake recipes fall under WP:NOT.) Jpatokal 02:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Months? About 23 I'd wager... Alice.S 17:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, Emirates will receive its first A380 in Q3 2008. Jpatokal 03:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think it will be closer to 23 than 9 months but we'll have to re-visit this topic late next year. What about me restoring the wording until another A380 flies in commercial service - if you're right then you'll be able to excise the part about the distinctive cabin orientation very soon? Alice.S 16:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to comment on this. The overhead bins not being above the middle rows in the Business Class cabin are not unique to the A380. The Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-300ER New First Class also has no overhead comparments. Furthermore, certain other airlines have ommitted overhead compartments to increase the feeling of space on certain aircraft in certain premium classes of service. I think there are many more features of the New Business Class that are worth mentioning apart from the cabin architecture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanceOfTravel (talk • contribs) 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The distinction was in Business Class, but if you say there are other airlines that have the same cabin configuration in business, then I guess that settles it - so I now agree that there should be no mention of bin position. Glad we could resolve the issue amicably. Alice.S 19:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Parent company

I have noticed that the parent company info in the infobox has been changed in the past and those edits have been duly reverted by other users. Hopefully, for once and for all, this can be cleared up. The airline commonly known as Singapore Airlines has the official name of Singapore Airlines Limited. As such, it is impossible that the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited could be Singapore Airlines Limited. Someone, or some entity, has to own Singapore Airlines Limited, and whether they be public or private investors can differ from company to company. To quote from Holding company:

"A parent company is a holding company that owns enough voting stock in another firm to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors. Examples are The Walt Disney Company and Halliburton.

A parent company can simply be a company that wholly owns another company, such as Quaker Oats being the parent company of Aunt Jemima."

As such, Temasek Holdings holds a 56.19% share in Singapore Airlines Limited, and as the majority shareholder in Singapore Airlines Limited can easily be classed as the parent company, particularly as it has a large enough shareholding in SIA Limited which can be used to influence management decisions without considering other shareholders.

I hope that this 'explanation' is more than suffice for those editors who doubt such edits being made to the article. If not, I don't know how any improvements can be made to this article as a whole when such a simple piece of information has been duly reverted on several occasions in the past. --Russavia 17:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually this has been discussed in the past along with the Singapore Airlines Group. There has not been any reliable sources that I recall being found to show this one way of the other. What we need is for someone to find the facts. If Singapore Airlines Limited has several owners and has been involved with more then the airline (for example, Singapore Airlines Group), then it should have an article. Likewise if ownership has changed or if it is a listed as on a stock exchange. Who owns and exactly what is Singapore Airlines Group? Previous attempts to split this out have been reverted as being unsupported. I strongly support an article for Singapore Airlines Limited that can be cited. In there, the components of ownership can be discussed along with the other aspects. I did revert your change. Lets resolve this here before making changes. Vegaswikian 18:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor point, if the parent is not known it is usual to put the full legal name in the parent field refer Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Airline Infobox. MilborneOne 20:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Which leaves me wondering why Russavia should not see a problem with that part of the WikiProject, and instead bringing himself to wikiwar in this article with testosterones ablazing. The biggest shareholders of British Airways, Qantas and Lufthansa are not listed as the parent company, despite them being known. Can he care to explain this decrepancy before attempting to push forth his changes?--Huaiwei 09:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My heartfelt applause for such excellent research work on the part of my dear friend Russavia (which dosent happen very often), but until he changes the said field for British Airways, Qantas, Lufthansa, etc, I am inclined to believe that he should bring this dicussion to the wider community since it affects all articles across the wikiproject, and not constantly nitpick on this article alone. Until than, perhaps I can upgrade him from being a petty, hormone-raging teen to a more measured, balanced, mature, and valued contributor to this site.--Huaiwei 09:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

MillborneOne, in this instance, the parent company is known and (now) referenced. And has been changed to reflect that. In all honesty, the only airlines which should have the legal name of the airline in the infobox are those shady operators in the UAE which run guns, etc in Africa (and a few additional ones I guess). Particularly when taking into account what the definition of a parent company actually is. --Russavia 09:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with only iffy airlines having the legal name in the infobox, but I have no axe to grind I just stated what is generally done in the rest of wikipedia airline articles. Perhaps it should be clarified in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Airline Infobox. MilborneOne 11:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Having the majority owner listed when this is a publicly traded company is simply wrong. That is not how it is done on the rest of Wikipedia. As an example, what would people say if MGM Mirage had the owner listed in the infobox as Tracinda? I still think that 'Singapore Airlines Ltd' needs an article. It is the company that is listed on the Singapore Exchange for the symbol S55. It is not accurate to list that as the exchanage symbol for only the airline. If there was a separate article, that that article could cover the ownership of the public company. I would like to have seen the S55 annual report, but the web copies refuse to load for me, some kind of an error in the file. But from what I have seen in other places, the reports appear to list the group as the main entity and Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo as members of the group. Bottom line for me is that we still need to clear this up with referenced material that is readable by all. However listing Temasek Holdings as the owner is completely false. Vegaswikian 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vegas, as per definitions of what a parent company are, Temasek more than fulfills that requirement. If Tracinda is also a major percentage shareholder in MGM Mirage as Temasek is in SIA, then having Tracinda as a parent company is not all that wrong. Having said that, there are several things in the infobox that I don't much like. Hubs/focus cities being two of them (they are US/Europe-centric and don't apply to all airlines). Parent company being another one. Perhaps parent company needs to be changed to Major shareholders. As to "Singapore Airlines Limited", it is correct to have this as the exchange symbol for the airline, because every other company in the SIA group is a subsidiary of the airline. It is in the same vein that we don't need articles for 'British Airways plc', 'QANTAS Airways Limited', 'Deutsche Lufthansa A.G.', 'JSC, Aeroflot-Russian Airlines', etc. --Russavia 05:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, this is exactly why this article will be like it is, because you are the petty, hormone-raging teen that you accuse me of being. Let's see, I am not the one who will go and revert fully referenced edits to an article (refer to any of your reverts of my (and others) edits on this article, Singapore Airlines Cargo and Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations. I am not the one who will wholesale revert an edit to remove something which you dispute, take a look at some of your reverts of the destinations of Singapore Airlines Cargo - have a look at the number of destinations which aren't served by both airlines to see exactly what I mean. Although the 'parent company' in the infobox was not referenced by myself, it is now fully referenced in the article (in fact, it was already in the article although it wasn't cited). Additionally, can you explain why you would revert my changes on this article, and then turn around and try (harder next time) to insult me by calling me a petty, hormone-raging teen (actually I am somewhat older than that for your info), yet you go and do this [35]? As to who the biggest shareholders of BA, QF and LH, if these are well known, then why aren't you changing them? As yet, I have not bothered to look these up, but if they are well known, then surely you can make the edit? Anyway Huaiwei, I have had enough of responding to your infantile remarks, I think my time is better spent on answering Vegaswikian's questions. But a question for you before I go - you make out that Singapore Airlines is the best thing since sliced bread, and requires articles for this and articles for that, even when there is no rhyme nor reason for it. If the airline is as great as you think it is, why isn't it a featured article? In fact, the question should be why it can't even get good article status? Perhaps the reasons can be found in the mediation which took place some time ago, but at which absolutely nothing was achieved. There's a common demoninator in all of that. And I can understand why most people simply give up in the end. --Russavia 05:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now its rather late in the night, but just the length of that response above tells me I have somehow hit the nail on the head or something, so what else is there to comment? ;) Time and again, you claim you shant waste further time on me, yet can't help wasting more of your precious time moments later. You continue to claim that I make unwarranted, unexplained reversions of your edits, yet appear to completely ignore the edit summary, or the relevant talkpage, choosing to equate anything you refuse to agree with as being basically non-existant. Spoken like a truely petty, hormone-raging teen indeed!

And seriously, kindly grow up, if my reminders arent frequent enough. You apparantly think I am some kind of a Singapore Airlines fanatic who is desperate to promote it via this website, and do so by highlighting every teeny weeny detail about it. Or so you think. And since you persist on believing that the primary contributors to this article, myself included, are just a bunch of egotistic fanatical company shareholders, you seem to think you have the legitimacy to remove every item you personally consider mediocre. You choose to nitpick on this article, find little faults with just about anything in it and make a big deal out of each. You question every attempt to add content to the article, by using low-quality, under-developed articles as benchmarks. Why all these? It all boils down to the fact that you have a major inferiority complex problem. If wikipedia is not the place for fanboyism, I sure hope it isnt a place for sourgrapes who just cannot get over the fact that Singapore Airlines is as successful as it is, proven by countless independent sources, and not merely by my imagination or displaced pride. Why this article is not an FA? Because it is not fit to be one. Simple as that. And I will oppose any attempts to promote it as one until it meets an acceptable standard as far as this site's FA requirements are concerned. After all your wonderous efforts here, could you even cite one example of elevating this site towards FA status? You boasted that you will rewrite the article to one which is, to you, the FA standard. How is that going, now?

Oh, and talking about insults. Now if you do not consider dismissing editor's contributions as "fanboyism" as an insult, than I suppose you are clearly beyond hope. The whole world dosent owe you a favour. I wonder what kind of upbringing you have to actually think it is ok to heap insults on others, yet do not think it fair to receive any in return. By that remark alone, you questioned my editorial professionalism, my impartiality, maturity in thought, my ability to adhere to the NPOV policy, and basically my legitimacy and contribution value to this site. Kindly reconsider the tendency of pitting blame on everyone else for any repurcussion which may occur as a result. (Meanwhile, I will certainly try very hard in this department, thank you. You can do better coming up with your own ingenious insults, btw, instead of blatantly plagiarising comments from others!)

It is interesting that you chose to rehash some of our past "grievences". Kindly note that you chose to ignore discussions on Singapore Airlines Cargo after I allowed your preferred version to remain, and if this persists, you can expect some rekindling of sorts. Second, kindly inform if any of the edits in [36] are not legitimate? And lastly, I asked from you a very simple request. Find the relevant sources before making an edit, even if this may appear implied in the article's content. You chose to revert my reverts instead. You finally made the honorable step of explaining your edits in this talkpage. I pointed out the fact that your "findings" are not universally applied in the airlines wikiproject, and that project actually legitimises this inconsistency. I therefore took you to task for attempting to enforce a change in just one article which was not at odds with policy, your failure to discuss with the community for an edit which may have much wider implications, and your blatantly obvious bias in choosing to be anal retentive in this article. Imagine the smile breaking across my face when you now ask me why I arent making those changes to BA, QA, etc. My deepest apologies, Russavia, but I absolutely hold no intentions to make the same mistakes which you did!--Huaiwei 18:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring some of the earlier disputes, could I suggest the definition of parent company should be re-evaluated, with the view of applying the principal of substance over form to this particular case. In a group of companies, there may be many parent-subsidiary relationships: for example a parent company may be owned by another parent company (and so on). In such a group structure, the legal form of such a group is that the parent company at the top of group is the parent, which is usually disclosed as the "ultimate holding company" in group financial statements. However, in the case of Singapore Airlines, the ultimate owner is not a company but the Republic of Singapore which is the owner in substance. Could I suggest that what you put that the Republic of Singapore as the "parent", rather than any of any of intermediate parent-subsidiary companies which it is owner, so as to make this point clear. --Gavin Collins 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Whilst ultimately Singapore Airlines is controlled by the Singapore government, the company is a direct subsidiary of the legal entity Temasek Holdings, not of the Singapore government, and as such, so as to be truthful to what an encyclopaedia is, to put Singapore govt as the parent is erroneous. --Russavia 15:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

subsidiaries

I've added subsidiaries in the info box. http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/content/company_info/siastory/subsidiaries.jsp lists Tradewinds Tour and Travel, SIA Engineering Company, and SATS which were missing from this otherwise fine article. I didn't leave a citation in the infobox for appearance, though you can add it.Archtrain 16:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited, Singapore Airlines Group

Vegaswikian, I hope this a useful explanation for you of the differences between Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines Group.

Singapore Airlines Limited is simply the official registered name of what we more commonly know as Singapore Airlines. It is no different to QANTAS Airways Limited and QANTAS. Or Lufthansa and Deutsche Lufthansa AG. All entities are one and the same.

The Singapore Airlines Group is not a legal entity, but is merely used when discussing Singapore Airlines Limited (the airline) and its subsidiaries (partly and wholly owned), most often seen when discussing financial statistics. It is possible that Singapore Airlines (Singapore Airlines Limited) makes a profit of $500 million, but the Singapore Airlines Group makes a profit of $1 billion. This is due to some SIA subsidiaries having their own profit centres. From [37]

"Note: The SIA Group’s audited financial results for the year ended 31 March 2007 were announced on 11 May 2007. A summary of the financial and operating statistics is shown in Annex A. (All monetary figures are in Singapore Dollars. The Company refers to Singapore Airlines, the parent airline unit. The Group comprises the Company and its subsidiary, joint venture and associated companies)."

There is no need for a Singapore Airlines Group article, as all companies within that group are subsidiaries, joint ventures or associated companies of Singapore Airlines (Singapore Airlines Limited), and would be dealt with as per other airlines.

To answer another question you had, SIA is a publicly traded company and is listed on the Singapore Exchange. Their details on the SGX can be found here [38] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 05:49, 7 July 2007

• Well, reading this release, is it clear that the company, I'm assuming this to be Singapore Airlines Limited treats Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo as entities in Singapore Airlines Group. Clearly Singapore Airlines Limited when it makes announcements like this does not consider Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines to be one in the same. Given that, we should not try to make them the same. However we need to accurately define the structure which means doing more digging. But at this point I think it is clear that we have several legal entities here. Vegaswikian 05:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I find it amusing that you need this much level of digging to find information on something as basic as a company's corporate stucture, all the more so that this is a company as major as Singapore Airlines. Kindly refrain from cherry-picking a small range of articles and make your own inferences from there. It has been mentioned before that in various circumstances, such as in its financial reports, the Airline do make references to the Singapore Airlines Group because it needs to distinguish between the financial performance of its primary airline operations, and that of its subsidiaries. This has nothing to do with corporate organisation. If Singapore Airlines Limited is not the same as Singapore Airlines Group, this should be obvious from its website at the very least. Have you not considered why this is simply not so?--Huaiwei 13:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Web sites are marketing tools. While the information there may be valid, it may not tell the complete and accurate picture. In the US we can look at the required quarterly and yearly fillings for public companies to get the facts that the web sites try to hide. However in this case, we don't have those available. Also the name of the company for the stock symbol is Singapore Airlines Ltd and not Singapore Airlines. For accuracy this needs to be explained. Also has been stated, Singapore Airlines Ltd does group the various names in different ways for different purposes. Sometimes trying to show Singapore Airlines as the company and other times not the company. Frequently, even in the US, companies will include information on the web site of their main brand. That does not mean the two entities are one in the same. However the companies last financial report on page 19 clearly states that the report is for Singapore Airlines Limited ("The Company") and its subsidiaries (collectively the "Group"). Vegaswikian 19:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If you can even cite me one good reason why Singapore Airlines should attempt to shy away from declaring "Singapore Airlines Group" as a holding company and a parent of "Singapore Airlines", I will take the rest of your comments more seriously. You seem to assume that Singapore Airlines have no shareholders to explain themselves to. And please avoid simply comparing everything with the United States. While I understand that there is a trend of US airlines having a holding company each, this practise may not be widespread on a global scale. Attempting to force the rest of the world into the American mould is something I would have thought more typical for the less-literate, ill-informed, and provincial folks.--Huaiwei 08:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I have never once suggested that Singapore Airlines Group is a holding company. What I am trying to understand is how Singapore Airlines Ltd is set up and what it is. So far the only finanical company releases I have found indicate that it treats Singapore Airlines Group and Singapore Airlines as sub entities and in different ways based on what is being announced. If trying to understand something is an indicator for being "less-literate, ill-informed, and provincial folks", then I am guilty. The entire world does not do things in one way. However when one small country is different, especially in how they release data about corporations, it is worth the effort to explain this to the large number of readers who may not be able to comprehend this without sources and explanations. As I said, all of the Annual Reports which might help have PDFs that don't work. Not much help in getting to the facts using a source. You seem very able to tell me I'm wrong but unable to help me find documents that support your position. Vegaswikian 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Either you have a major issue with one small country, or you obviously hadent researched adequately on major airlines all around the world, or that of major corporations to boot. Singapore Airlines is far from unique in this regard, and its financial information arent exactly debucking global trends either, if that is what you are suggesting. Get the facts straight. You are not doing a wonderous service to the "less-literate, ill-informed, and provincial folks", because I have yet to see anyone questioning SIA on its financial books, its website presentation, or even in this site except yourself. Kindly cite reliable sources illustrating confusions of the magnitude you portray. The PDFs you find problems with work very well on my computer, I am afraid. And if you feel I arent showing you documents to support my position, kindly realise that it is almost impossible to find sources to demonstrate the non-existance of a corporation, unless you can show me how this can be done. Although if you could, your issue would have been resolved already I suppose. And if you arent suggesting Singapore Airlines Group is not a holding company, kindly state what you imagine it to be, and just what exactly is Singapore Airlines?--Huaiwei 11:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I notice that you find the group and the Limited company confusing in your responses, so clearly there is some confusion. I did not accuse you of hiding information. I clearly stated what issues I am having accessing the PDF files on several computers. The fact that you can load and read them does not help me at all. Without sources, I can not get the facts. Without the facts I can not prove anything, including your position. So without access to sources, this discussion is going no where. Vegaswikian 18:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
              • How you could deduce my supposed state of confusion remotely is beyond me. I also fail to comprehend this "hiding of information" thing. What information is there to hide, unless you think I am an SIA employee who encodes SIA's pdf files such that they refuse to open to select individuals like yourself? My ability to open those files may not be of any assistance to you, but kindly refrain from using technicalities as excuses for failing to back up your viewpoint, which btw is your onus to do so. Meanwhile, I am still awaiting your views on just what Singapore Airlines Group is and its relationship with Singapore Airlines.--Huaiwei 01:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fleet image

I have removed an image from the fleet section because the file link was wrong. If anyone can find the file please feel free to reinsert it with the correct link.

Infobox updated again and removed 2 sects.

I have updated the infobox on several occasions to reflect that Temasek Holdings is the parent company of Singapore Airlines, and the reasons for doing so are explained by myself [Talk:Singapore_Airlines#Parent_company here]. Even though Temasek's majority shareholding is stated and sourced in the main article already, my edits on the infobox matter have been continually reverted by Huaiwei, due to being unsourced.[39] In order to satisfy this demand by Huaiwei, I referenced the shareholding in the infobox (as silly as it sounds to have to provide two cites for the same piece of information). An example of such an edit by myself is here. This has been reverted on several occasions. Examples of these reverts are:

• [40] Huaiwei mentioned that he reverted because concensus was not met on the talk page (although a couple of editors is not really a concensus is it?)
• [41] Huaiwei said the reason for the revert is that the IHT is not an authority on SIA matters, even though the IHT is highly regarded in the print media. If it is true that the IHT does not meet WP:RS (which it does of course), I am expecting Huaiwei to remove any and all citations on these pages which are attributed to the IHT, including one already on the

Singapore Airlines article to another IHT article.

* [42] Huaiwei mentioned something about the 'brand', these articles are not about the brand, but rather the company, and this is evidenced that the article starts as Singapore Airlines Limited, this indicates a company, not a brand. It also needs to be mentioned that when I reverted his edit which resulted in this revert, he was asked to provide sources to support his assertion that Singapore Airlines Limited is the parent company of Singapore Airlines. This was not done.

I now find myself having to cite as many sources as possible, so that the verifiable information for the parent company is not continually reverted by Huaiwei who is acting as if he owns this article. It is absolutely ridiculous to assert that the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited is Singapore Airlines Limited - and I will be pushing for this to be addressed at the infobox project also in the next couple of hours (relating to all airline articles, not just this one). A list of sources for Temasek being the parent company of Singapore Airlines:

• [43] - QUOTE: Singapore Airlines and its parent company, Temasek Holdings, may pay about $930 million for a stake in China Eastern Airlines, a deal that would expand the carrier's reach in the world's most populous nation, people involved in the talks said." - published by the International Herald Tribune, a media outlet for which there is no question as to whether they meet criteria for WP:RS.
• [44]

- quote: "Asia's most profitable carrier, Singapore Airlines and its parent company, the Singapore government's investment arm, Temasek Holdings Pte plans to use the 25% stake it acquires as a key to open the gates of China's aviation market." - originally published by China Knowledge, a site which more than meets the criteria for WP:RS

• [45] - QUOTE: "According to the plan, Singapore Airlines will buy 20 percent of the stake while its parent

company Temasek, a Singapore State-owned investment company, will buy 5 percent. The total of 25 percent is the maximum allowed by Chinese law." - originally published by the China Daily, yet another source which meets criteria for WP:RS

• [46] (PDF FILE - approx 70kb) - QUOTE: "Elsewhere, Singapore Airlines and its parent company, Temasek, were rumoured to be paying US$930 million for a stake in China Eastern Airlines." - this was published by Lloyds TSB,

the fifth largest bank in the UK, and is part of an investment update, and Lloyds TSB would more than meet WP:RS criteria.

So there are some links which are from reliable media and financial services sources which state that without a shadow of a doubt that Temasek is the parent company of Singapore Airlines, a statement which is verified due to the reliability of the sources from which they came.

Here is another source to consider:

• [47] (PDF FILE - approx 4mb) - QUOTE: "SIA Engineering Company Limited (the "Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore, which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Singapore Airlines Limited and its ultimate holding company is Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, both incorporated in the Republic of

Singapore." - this is found on Page 94 of SIA Engineering Company's Annual Report for 2006/2007 (page 96 of 160 in the PDF file). The only problem I can see with this statement is the use of the words "ultimate holding company" as there could very well be more than one (or more) parent companies between the two entities - even though is obviously not the case due to the referenced direct shareholding of Temasek in SIA in the SIA article.

And here is the last source:

• [48] (PD

F FILE - approx. 10mb) - QUOTE: "Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore." - this is found on Page 80 of Singapore Airlines Limited Annual Report for 2006/2007 (page 80 of 160 in the PDF file). This statement has been checked for accuracy and certified by the SIA auditors, Ernst & Young (E&Y definitely meet WP:RS)

But there is a major' problem with using the Singapore Airlines Annual Report to cite my edits of Temasek being the parent company.

Huaiwei has called into question the reliability of the International Herald Tribune and the ability of the IHT to write with any degree of authority on Singapore Airlines, so has therefore called into question, by default, the veracity of any claims made by any entity which makes the same contentious claim that the IHT makes in their article. And because this is such a contentious statement by the IHT, the same statement (assertion) made by the company themselves (Singapore Airlines) would be removed because it fails WP:SELFPUB; it also means that all information which is sourced from Singapore Airlines 'official' sources is impossible to verify and hence needs to be removed from the article, which would make for a very short article indeed (a positive of course is that it gets rid of the horrendous cruft which is in the article. On a sidenote, if you own stocks in any of these companies I suggest selling them as the ability of Ernst & Young to accurately audit and certify financial accounts of all of those companies has been called into question (looking at the list it could mark the end of all world economies).

Additionally, Huaiwei has in one of the above reverts made the claim that the parent company is whichever entity owns the "Singapore Airlines" brand. If this is the case, then why hasn't this been brought up before now? Perhaps it is because it is perfectly clear that the "Singapore Airlines" article infobox pertains to a company, not a brand, particularly when you have "parent company" wikilinked. Additionally, the lead paragraph mentions the Singapore Airlines, the airline, and Singapore Airlines, the company.

I will be re-adding Temasek to the infobox as per the above verifiable information regarding the parent company using the IHT source, to replace Singapore Airlines Limited which is not sourced. If a verifiable and reliable source can be found which would indicate that Temasek is not the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited, and that Singapore Airlines Limited (or any other company) is indeed the parent, I will stand by the newfound sources and will not change it back to Temasek. This is, of course, done in the interests of upholding WP:FIVE, which is my intent, and always has been. And we are all bound by these principles.

I would like to turn Huaiwei's attention to a couple of reverts of edits made by himself.

• [49] - Temasek was changed back to SIA Limited with the reason being unsourced. A fact tag could have been added, but SIA Limited should never have been put back, with WP:V#_note-2 being precisely why, but I digress, unsourced information can be removed at any time.
• [50] - Temasek (referenced this time) was changed back to SIA Limited again (and still unsourced). The reason used for the revert this time was that I had not gained concensus to include that information in the article.

Huaiwei has opened the door in using those reasonings for reverting my verified, encyclopaedic edit. If he expects me (and everyone else editing this article) to source information, gain consensus and a multitude of other 'demands' made when reverting others edits, because he does not own the article, then one would expect him to edit this article based upon those same 'demands', in order to uphold WP:FIVE.

Therefore, I have made the following edits at the same time as adding Temasek back into the article infobox, and will provide the reasons for those reverts here:

• The Codeshare agreements section has been tagged as unreferenced since May 2007 - some 3 months. If you look at WP:V#_note-2, the entire section should have been removed long ago. However, structure guidelines of the Airline project does state that codeshare agreements should be mentioned, but that destinations should not be listed. As I have been coming across articles, they have been trimmed down to fall squarely within those guidelines, and I know that others have been doing the same since day dot. So I am completely editing this section to update it with only current

codeshare partners and to provide sources for the information. The destinations will be omitted as per the WP:Airlines guidelines. The section should not be reverted or edited to include destinations, until such time as consensus is gained on this talk page, or preferably on the airline project talk page. This also includes the unreferenced prose which has been unreferenced also since May.

• Flight numbers this has been an issue for some time, as evidenced in the mediation from January of this year. There was clearly no consensus for the inclusion of these flight numbers, but rather the opposite, and even now there is no concensus for their inclusion in the airline articles. I am removing the section in its entireity for the following reasons. First, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, the source for the opening sentence in this section is the SIA timetable, and the flight number ranges are used as a "How to" decode the airline's flight schedules - as publishing the airline timetable on WP would breach WP:NOT#TRAVEL and WP:NOT#DIR, the flight numbers provide no context for inclusion in the article.

Consensus on these two sections in particular was never gotten, and in fact, most say get rid of it. And consensus should be gotten for them to be included. --Russavia 02:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of having to write bloated messages to support blatant cases of non-concensus edits, let me just touch on each one, demonstrating my relative ease in shooting every point Russavia could put up:

• Parent company: The definition of a Parant company is defined by law, in this case, defined by Singaporean Law. Not by some simplistic notion of "majority shareholding" alone, which has clearly been the sole criterion used by Russavia irrespective of the corresponding laws in force in that country. The Companies Act states that a "subsidiary company" is one if the holding company controls the composition of the board of directors of the first-mentioned corporation; controls more than half of the voting power of the first-mentioned corporation; holds more than half of the issued share capital of the first-mentioned corporation (excluding any part thereof which consists of preference shares and treasury shares); is a subsidiary of any corporation which is the Holding company’s subsidiary. In most cases, secondary sources are preferred, but when it comes to a formal designation such as a company structure, primary sources obviously takes precedence. Has Russavia found within documents issued by Singapore Airlines or Temasek Holdings explicitely refering to their relationship as one of "parent-subsidiary"? As long as this remains unproperly referenced, it will be removed immediately.
• Codeshare agreements: The relevant guideline in the wikiproject calls for non-mention of codeshared agreements within airline destination lists for obvious concerns. There is no guideline forbidding its inclusion in another format somewhere else in the article, as long as it is not presented in such a way that it causes little distinction between actual flights operated and codeshared flights. Russavia's own inclusion of sources actually nullifies his own claim that the list is unsourced presently, and even if so, there are not difficult to come by if it need to be re-inserted now.
• Flight numbers: Russavia claims there was no concensus to include flight numbers according to the Mediation cabel. He conveniently refuses to note from the mediation cabel, that the members has failed to come to concensus. Second, he fails to realise that the medication cabel in the first place is not meant to be binding. Third, the flight numbers formatting has actually evolved to its current state as a result of feedback to ensure it remains relevant, and there has since been no objections to maintain it.

Indeed, it can be observed from the above that almost all three items are either non-issues, or has no longer come under serious contention for sometime, until Russavia comes along and attempts to rekindle all past disputes for no better reason than his personal distaste towards "Singaporean fanboism", a statement he admits himself. Editing wikipedia to fulfull his personal agenda, mass editing articles to proof his point, and constant reversions without optaining proper concensus first are all signs of disruptive editing just to proof a point. The article gets reverted immediately because of the above.--Huaiwei 03:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly say that these are non-issues, after all these non-issues were one of the reasons for this mediation in January. You have demanded from me that I get consensus to make a single change to who actually owns Singapore Airlines Limited, yet you, Huaiwei, refuse to show anyone where there has been any consensus for the inclusion of codeshare destinations and flight numbers. Remember, you do not own this article. If this will not be discussed properly, and I am not talking about the inclusion of Temasek, but squarely about the listing of codeshare and inclusion of flight numbers, then this will have to be taken even further. And this is not about fanboyism, which yeah I have used in the past, but rather about getting rid of cruft out of this article, which is now being used as a precedent for inclusion in other articles. --Russavia 04:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not about fanboism now? You are the last person on planet Earth whom I would expect to hear that line from. Practically every reasoning you place in people's talkpages or article talkpage discussions includes at least one reference to that or its equivalent. Kindly refrain from using words like "cruft" without even obtaining concensus that those contents are indeed "cruft". They are so only in your opinion, and not amongst those who restored the information, as it has just happened twice over. If you have a major problem over Singapore Airlines being used as an "example article" for other airline articles, then its a problem you have to sort out youself outside wikipedia, not here. Wikipedia works out its standardisation guidelines via wikiprojects and concensus, not by habitually attacking the "offending" article alone. And kindly wake up to the simple fact that guidelines and just that: guidelines. They are not policies, and they do allow for exceptions. Most importantly, you jolly well report the situation accurately. I demanded that you seek concensus before mass-changing wikitemplates, reworking template entries across wikipedia, and defining just what a "parent company" is without first obtaining any concensus [51]. I demanded you to provide verification on just who is Singapore Airline's parent company[52]. So just where is the ownership element here? And now what? The issue is with supposed "ownership" now, and no longer about "fanboism"? Seriously, Russavia, if you are interested in accusing any other wikipedian of their "crimes" in wikipedia, please at least gather proper evidence first. Getting disruptive editing (now of coz that's my definition of your edits!) removed from an article constitutes as "article ownership"? Oh enlighten us all please! :D--Huaiwei 05:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, I don't have to seek any consensus to change a field on a template which is sources and verifiable, particularly when you read this. I do like how you have totally sidestepped the issue here:

1) You claimed that the IHT is not a source which meets WP:RS. What grounds do you have for reverting on that basis?

2) You have still failed to show me where there is any consensus for the inclusion of codeshare destinations and flight numbers on this article. --Russavia 14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Now how is this supposed to say anything about you being excempted from seeking concensus? If anything, I noticed this: "company_name=parent or holding company if applicable, otherwise repeat full airline name". So if its company name, and not parent company which is currently being displayed in the infobox, could you kindly explain your exercise to change all references to "parent company" instead of simply getting that field corrected without the need to mass rename articles? A minor amendment to an existing template is not a new template, which you attempted to confuse by abusing the newinfobox tag. You appear to have problems even admitting to commiting minor mistakes. It's no wonder you remain obstinate in bigger issues.
• So now lets discuss bigger issues. It appears that you have great problems understanding that the mere insertion of sources is not all there is to it. You took an interpretation of what the source says, despite its failure in explicitely specifying the information you are attempting to show. This is not accurate referencing work, and this isnt the first time you do such nonsensicle things too anyway. Just look at the mayhem over at Singapore Airlines Cargo for one. If there is a dispute over the interpretation of the same source, than clearly a concensus will need to be sought. Have you done that, Russavia?
• Next, sidestepping the issue? Let's see. You claim IHT is a source which meets WP:RS. I have stated quite clearly above that "when it comes to a formal designation such as a company structure, primary sources obviously takes precedence." I challenged you to show any primary source from Singapore Airlines or Temasek Holdings which specifies their parent-subsidiary relationship, which if you could, I would accept it as a legitimate claim. Unfortunately, you chose to ignore that too. Selective reading has apparantly done you a deservice this time.
• As for "concensus" for the inclusion of codeshare destinations, I suppose you are semi-blind once again. I said quite matter-of-factly that "The relevant guideline in the wikiproject calls for non-mention of codeshared agreements within airline destination lists for obvious concerns. There is no guideline forbidding its inclusion in another format somewhere else in the article, as long as it is not presented in such a way that it causes little distinction between actual flights operated and codeshared flights." The same guideline does not forbid the inclusion of flight numbers either, and as mentioned before, "the flight numbers formatting has actually evolved to its current state as a result of feedback to ensure it remains relevant, and there has since been no objections to maintain it." With no further objections for months, "silence equals consent". There was indeed consent for several months until you take it upon yourself to reopen old disputes with a apparant agenda, an agenda you admitted yourself. Still remember your own motivations, or do you need me to find the evidence for you?
• It appears that I have to do frequent copy-and-paste operations when talking to Russavia. I suppose this is neccesary when dealing with individuals who show an apparant difficulty in accepting alternative viewpoints other than his own, engages in selective reading just to avoid facing the reality that his viewpoints can be challenged, and continously disrupts wikipedia with his mass-edits in the hope of lending himself weight in his battle against his primary target...this article, thus resulting in similar comments sprouting in multiple talkpages, but all basically saying the same old points over and over. Yawn.--Huaiwei 15:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will answer all of your questions and respond to all of your comments Huaiwei.

• My exercise to change the infobox 'parent company' is nothing more than ensuring that articles are encyclopaedic in nature. One of the major pillars of WP is WP:V, and what was in the infoboxes did not meet WP:V. As you might have noticed I have put forward a proposal in getting extra fields to distinguish between 'parent company' and 'shareholders'.
• The infobox template asking for new infoboxes to be inserted was an error on my part, hence why you might have noticed that I did not do all that many articles. You are not assuming good faith on my part, as in the reason I did so was so that editors of those articles could insert the latest version of the infobox to the article, for example, the SIA article infobox was hopelessly outdated. Am I expected to change THOUSANDS of infoboxes myself, whilst at the same time ensuring that information in them is correct?
• Please do not say that I was non-sensical in the way that Singapore Airlines Cargo was updated. Even when it was clearly explained to you, you still insisted on self-published sources as they were written and perhaps couldn't see the distinction that I and others put forward to you.
• Can you show me where it says that primary sources take precedence over secondary sources when it is my understanding of WP:V that the opposite is true. Additionally, WP:PROVEIT, states 'All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.'. As IHT is a reliable, published source there is no need to quote a 'primary' source. The right thing to do would have been to question it on the talk page (either article or user), whereby I would have happily supplied other sources as I have above, but the reverting of referenced material from reliable sources, because one may not agree, or doesn't understand, only serves to get people's backs up.
• In regards to consensus on codeshare destinations, to claim that there has been no objection for months is a bit of an understatement. The way that I read this there was plenty of consensus, but yourself claimed 'Unrealistic expectations here may result in no resolution or improvement to the current impasse at all.' - which I interpret as, no matter the consensus, they are staying. this and scattered against other airline article talk pages and edits, codeshare destinations are removed, and they stay removed. All except this article. In regards to both the codeshare destinations and flight numbers, these are not old disputes as from where I stand, reading all over, the dispute has never ended, as people simply tire of continually hitting their head against a brick wall.
• I, as well as many others, fail to understand, just what purpose both the listing of codeshare destinations and flight numbers serves in this, or any article?

I would ask that everything else be forgotten, and let's simply concentrate on the answering of the last question. What purpose does the listing of codeshare destinations and flight numbers in the Singapore Airlines article serve? I am questioning their encyclopaedic value, and I believe it is unfortunately your burden to explain this. Once done, let's get consensus for once and for all, by opening this long-drawn out dispute up for community comment/review. --Russavia 22:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My concerns have gone unanswered for 3 days, hence I will remove the sections as they stand now. If the questions can be answered satisfactorily, discussion on reinsertion can then take place. --Russavia 03:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If I write a comment, expect a response in 3 hours and I didnt get it. I suppose that gives me an excuse to start reverting articles too? Wikipedians are not held ransom by your whimps and fancies, including the time taken for others to response to your nonsence, if it was ever worth the time to respond to that is when they are primarily regurgitations of past comments.--Huaiwei 06:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the codeshare and flight numbers. They describe the codeshare operation, market profile, etc, as discussed many times before. These are very concise summary of previous long versions, I don't understand why anyone would want to make a big fuss out of this. --Vsion 08:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Because they do not describe any market profile, give any indicators as to market share, or anything else. The flight numbers especially is pure cruft. There is no sound reason as to why they should be on such an article, particularly as flight numbers for "Unutilised" are present. What exactly does it show? --Russavia 13:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pure cruft? Enlighten us on this one. I find it hard to believe that a former employee of an airline and self-claimed expertise in the aviation industry can actually consider a profiling of flight numbers (kindly note that this is not an entire list of individual flight numbers and their respective destinations) merely as a "travel guide" (oh, so I suppose your mother actually checks up wikipedia for a range of flight numbers that could fly her from Moscow to Singapore, finds that flights to Europe are in the range of SQ300-SQ399, and proceeds to book her flight telling the staff "oh, please book me a flight to Singapore, and make sure if ranges from SQ300-SQ399!" And when she goes to the airport, hey! Thank God there is only one SQ flight number which begins with 3, so she would probably be safe and sound in Singapore. God bless her on her return trip thou!) I believe we have stated repeatedly before, that flight numbers do give an indication on the airline's major destination markets, and in some cases, even the priority placed on each region. SIA's North American flight numbers don't kickstart the list by coincidence. Flights to China dont begin with the number "8" for fun either. A range of unutilised numbers simply hints that the company is reserving those numbers for future markets. If you cannot even read this kind of information by glancing at those numbers, you dont deserve to be in the airline industry, and you dont deserve to be an employee of Singapore Airlines.--Huaiwei 15:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are not a complete listing of flight numbers (I believe that article was deleted after failing Afd). The list of flight numbers as they are in this article still do not assert what you are hoping they would. The best indication of an airlines major destination markets is clearly given at Singapore Airlines destinations. The flight numbers are used in conjunction with a timetable in order to decode flights (WP:NOT#HOWTO). Additionally, by saying that the North American flights 'kickstart' the list because....., you are making unverified claims with this. The only thing which would explain what you are trying to do is PROSE, in conjunction with the destination list. And nice to see yet another attempted insult from you Huaiwei (*cough*bull*cough*sh***cough*), is that really the best you can do? LOL --Russavia 17:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For you to actually pick up that insult to react with animals sounds (quite primitive, it seems? :D), I suppose its effectiveness is already well demonstrated, eh? It is usually unnecesary to try too hard with relatively primitive species when it comes to this really, so too bad if you hadent had it good! Back to the gist of the issue. Lets talk about WP:NOT#HOWTO first, since you claim flight numbers used in confuction with a timetable can decode flights, and hence qualifies as a travel directory. Now lets see. The list shows a range of flight numbers, and there are is no information on which each individual flight number flies to, nor its flight scehdule, which would have been relatively close to what normal people would consider a "timetable". So without a timetable, and without a specific flight number, could you kindly tell us how your mother would use the information in this article alone to know how to get from Moscow to Singapore, and back? Yes I am expecting a full illustration of this, failing which you simply arent able to demonstrate this article's value as a travel guide! Next, indeed my "claims" are unverified at present. Hence they arent in the article. Duh. I do not need to verify my personal interpretation of facts presented in a wikipedia article, or do I? Every user who reads this article are free to form their own interpretations, or are they not allowed to? Lastly, could you perhaps give us verification to show that the destination list is the best indication of an airlines major destination markets? The number of destinations alone tells you how important a region is? I am sorry, but what kind of scholarly background do you have for you to actually ignore the importance of reading that information along with frequencies, capacities, yields, etc? Singapore Airlines happens to fly plenty of routes to the regional, Southeast Asian market, but is it a given that it is a more important market to Singapore Airlines compared to the much smaller number of destinations in Oceania, Europe, and the Americas, which incidentally are where its highest yielding markets are? Former SIA employee? Could you perhaps tell us in exactly which area where you working at? Cabin cleaner?--Huaiwei 10:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, do keep the codeshare and flight numbers. I think it is note worthy enough to be here on the Singapore Airlines page. As for the edit war, can it stop. People I know who work for Singapore Airlines consider Singapore Airlines Limited as the parent company for Singapore Airlines itself, Temasek is nothing but just a major shareholder of Singapore Airlines. If you consider Temasek to be the parent company for Singapore Airlines, would Silkair and the rest of airlines that Singapore Airlines Limited has a stake in be under Temasek? -le petit vagabond 13:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Russavia claims to be a former employee of Singapore Airlines, yet continues to wage war on this little aspect of the airline as thou he knew better. Perhaps now we know why he is a former employee of that airline.--Huaiwei 15:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

Can the edit wars stop?

Despite the article name, the article is written about Singapore Airlines Limited which is a publically traded company. So, Singapore Airlines Limited can not be the owner of Singapore Airlines Limited. Vegaswikian 05:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In actual fact, this article writes about both Singapore Airlines as a group, as well as Singapore Airlines as the parent airline company, both of which has the same entity with the same legal name. The "Parent company" field in this case should actually refer to the "group", but since the group is called "Singapore Airlines Limited" officially, than that is what stays in that field. If this is too confusing to the average reader (which I think so too anyway), perhaps you may wish to comment on a proposal[53] to edit the infobox, which includes the possibility of changing "parent company" to "majority shareholder" etc.--Huaiwei 06:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If Singapore Airlines Limited had its own article, it would cover all of its assets in an overview and include the top level company information. Since it is listed on the stock exchange and owns several major operations, notability should not be an issue. Even if it was, removing some of this information from the overlarge and confusing Singapore Airlines article would justify this action. So my suggestion is to create Singapore Airlines Limited where its majority stock holder can be noted. It would list the various operations as subsidiaries or companies or whatever is the correct heading for them. Then individual articles can cover the significant operations. Operations that don't merit an article can be covered in detail within the Singapore Airlines Limited article. Vegaswikian 06:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh no there we go again. Between creating two articles which has a grave danger of causing major confusions since they are assumed to be one by most people (and they are actually quite right), and simply amending a field in a wikipedia infobox, I would strongly believe the later choice is far more logical.--Huaiwei 06:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice try Huaiwei, first the article is about the airline, then it was about the brand, now it is about the group. Which one is it? If the article is now about the group, may I ask why Silkair and Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations and fleet numbers are not shown in the same infobox, because after all, it is about the 'Group' now, and not the airline (company). And I have changed it back to Temasek. --Russavia 13:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Perhaps you are the one who needs to enlighten me on that too. Could you care to explain why this article omits almost all data pertaining to Singapore Airlines Cargo and SilkAir, implying this article is about the airline aka parent airline company aka the brand, and not about the airline as a group, the later of which is majority owned by Temasek Holdings? If you are going to persist in forcibly reintroducing Temasek Holdings in that field, I am going to introduce information on Singapore Airlines Limited as a group of companies in the article. You jolly well stay consistent, not I.--Huaiwei 14:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The first reference that Russavia included in the infobox about Temasek is one that I do not accept as a reliable source since it does not appear to be accurate based on other information. Like with many companies, it talks about the major subsidiary and not the parent who is actually owned. They are confusing Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines. I'll repeat again, what we need is a clear understanding of the Singapore Airlines Limited structure! The only reliable facts we have is that Temasek is the majority owner of Singapore Airlines Limited which in turn owns, Singapore Airlines. We have a responsibility in the Encyclopedia to provide a clear and accurate overview of the corporation. Even when the corporation tries to obfuscate the facts. Vegaswikian 20:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Vegas, it isn't the IHT which has anything confused, honestly, they have it spot on. Temasek is the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited (d/b/a Singapore Airlines), making Singapore Airlines Limited (d/b/a Singapore Airlines) a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings. The structure you want is on page 146 of the annual report. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russavia (talk • contribs).

The IHT article does not use the word limited. So their statement that Temasek owns Singapore Airlines is not correct since they own stock for Singapore Airlines Limited. As I have said before. I have yet to find a copy of the annual report that will open. As a result, I don't know if that report supports any position. Vegaswikian 05:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes Russavia. The Annual Report of Singapore Airlines Limited, ie, the group of companies, clearly states that Singapore Airlines Limited, the group of companies, is a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, which holds 55.24% shares of the former, a point no one has actually disputed thus far. The same source, in the same page, identifies Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited as a "Substantial shareholder". At no point in time across the entire publication does it ever identify Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited as a "parent company", or even a "holding company" for that matter (there where a few references to "parent", all of which refers to Singapore Airlines Limited as a group of companies). It is further of interest to note, that the report identifies just one out of nine directors in the company's Management Board to be from Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited and considered non-independent (there is a second member from Temasek, but he was still deemed independent by the nominating committee due to his nature of work at Temasek). Since Russavia is into self-interpretation of sources, I would self-interpret the above as insufficient justification to support his thesis. That field gets corrected once again. And btw, I do stand by my word. If Russavia insists on changing that field one more time, I am going to begin turning this article into one on Singapore Airlines Limited - the group of companies!--Huaiwei 11:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, this follows on from what I wrote below, in that I don't believe you are understanding how companies are structured and how they work legally. Page 80 of the report states the following: Singapore Airlines Limited (“the Company”) is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore. It does not mention anything about group of companies, only ("the company"), which is relating directly to Singapore Airlines Limited (contrary to what you wrote above). You also mention that at no point in the entire annual report does it identify Temasek as a parent company, but of course it does. The same quoted text states that "The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek...". Please read the subsidiary page...a subsidiary is an entity which is controlled by another entity (in this case Singapore Airlines Limited is controlled by Temasek), which means, even though it is not stated explicity (because it doesn't have to be by definition of the word subsidiary), that Temasek is the parent company of the subsidiary, i.e. Singapore Airlines Limited. This is confirmed by the Singapore Companies Act [54]. Additionally it matters not if Temasek appoints any directors to the board, whether that be none or nine, 5(1)(a)(ii) (the link) negates that, in that the corporation (Temasek) "controls more than half of the voting power of the first-mentioned corporation (Singapore Airlines Limited)". It might also be noteworthy that Singapore Airlines Limited is the parent (holding) company of Singapore Airlines Cargo Private Limited, but the ultimate parent company of SIA Cargo Pvt Limited is Temasek, as per this definition, but this does not mean that Temasek is placed in parent company for SIA Cargo. Now to the annual report stating that Temasek is a substantial shareholder (which you are assuming means they are not a parent). The declaration of Temasek being a substantial shareholder is a legislative requirement. The definition in relation to Singapore's Companies Act is here. Temasek is the only shareholder in Singapore Airlines Limited which fulfills any of the definitions in this section of the Act. This definition comes into play in the Divisions and sections of the Act which are quoted. The entire Act is here. To put it simply, Temasek is required to declare themselves as a substantial shareholder (as per the above) for the protection of other shareholders in the company. So as you can see I have done no self-interpretation of any sources (which you seem to insinuate I have attempted to skew information to suit my own goals), but I have simply called upon knowledge gained in Business 101 of my BCom. My only goal is an accurate, professional, encyclopaedic NPOV article. I feel that I have now explained where I am coming from succinctly and more than adequately on this issue. And I tell you what. I'll leave this article alone for a few days, and as you have had the biggest problem with my edits on this issue, I will leave it up to you - if you have the same goals as myself, when I look at the article again in a few days, I would be expecting to see Temasek in the infobox. --Russavia 18:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As there is continual reverting of edits relating to the parent company in this article, I have requested outside opinion on this issue from the Business and Economics WikiProject here. The constant reverts are not good for the article, and as this is obviously going to have implications for the rest of the project, outside opinions are going to be needed. I will put it up for community review as well if needed, but hope B&E project members will weigh in with their opinions on this issue first. --Russavia 13:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have also added an accuracy dispute tag to the top of the article, and would ask that this not be removed whilst this dispute is active, and until such time as the issue can be settled for once and for all. --Russavia 13:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Could I beg your indulgence and ask you to remove the dispute tag for the time being? I would suggest this matter is a highly technical issue, and the tag may be interpreted as hostile and not being warranted at this time. There may be a work around that can be agreed on by all parties. I will post my view as to how this can be resolved in the Parent company section. --Gavin Collins 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Given User:Russavia latest reversion[55] to this article despite his "request for community review", and as per my earlier promise, I have commenced overhauling this article to one on Singapore Airlines Limited - the group of companies, instead of Singapore Airlines - the parent airline company. As this will need plenty of work, others are welcome to chip in. Cheers!--Huaiwei 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Could I request that both Russavia and Huaiwei refrain from editing this article before you have agreed on who is the parent company? The most productive way forward is to propose changes to the article on this page, and requesting comments on the proposals from other editors before further edits are made. --Gavin Collins 14:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You may also wish to note another wikiwar going on at Aeroflot. I suppose this would give people a better sense of just what is really going on here.--Huaiwei 15:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, how dare I delete text from an article which is put there only to push your highly NPOV opinion, having used a single opinion to try and formulate an encyclopaedic entry. --Russavia 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to assume good faith, Russavia, as you so like to preach yourself[56]. So while it is alright to use a foreign newspaper like the IHT to determine SIA's parent company, it is not alright to use a local newspaper like the Moscow Times to talk about Aeroflot's image. And while it is not alright to use "one single opinion" to talk about Aeroflot, it is perfectly alright to use "one single opinion" to talk about SIA. Double standards at its finest? No I shall assume good faith and leave the facts to speak for themselves!--Huaiwei 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I will refrain from editing this article for the time being. I would ask Huaiwei also to stop editing other articles, such as Melbourne Airport and using Sorry, but according to User:Russavia, Singapore Airlines is supposed to be on the SIA Group) and (The Singapore Airlines article is about the SIA Group, as per User:Russavia's insistence) as edit summaries, particularly as I have not insisted on any such thing, nor have I even implied such a thing. If one cares to read what I have written in everything above, it is the exact opposite. --Russavia 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't you find it rather tragic that I have to come to such ends just to stop you from wikiwarring in this article? The deal remains. If the Parent company reads "Temasek Holdings", than this article, and all articles which refers to this article, shall refer to Singapore Airlines as a group of companies, including all of its subsidiaries and shareholdings (good lord. Imagine the possibility of Virgin Atlantic being pulled into this dispute after being labelled as a subsidiary of the Singapore govenment!) If the Parent company reads "Singapore Airlines Limited", aka Singapore Airlines as a group of companies, than the article shall be restored to refer to Singapore Airlines as a parent airline company. There are no buts about it, and this has come to pass because of your own actions, Russavia, for you claimed no "opposite" at all with the kinds of edits you are actually making to this article.--Huaiwei 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This "deal" is entirely a figment of your own imagination, and if you persist on merging Silkair destinations into Singapore Airlines in other articles — which is obviously disruptive and a waste of everybody's time — I will file a WP:RFC/U. Jpatokal 02:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but kindly do not jump into this conclusion, especially when it is clear from the discussions above (and from your own comments below) why this has come to past. It is of no dispute that this article can refer to either the parent airline company exclusively, or the entire group of companies, which includes its various subsidiaries. Since we now have an article which actually talks about the airline group, could you explain if I have been diruptive in correcting all entries refering to Singapore Airlines as the airline, and not the group. I would demand that you retract your accusation if you do not have valid grounds to do so.--Huaiwei 10:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, it seems that you don't understand the way that corporate structures can and do work. Virgin Atlantic would not be involved by me calling them a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines, Temasek or any other entity (other than the Virgin Group), because this is not the case. Virgin Atlantic is not a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines, as SIA only owns a 49% share in the company, and does not hold a majority of votes on the board, hence can't be deemed to be a subsidiary of SIA. So as the article stand now (since your edits), this is what is wrong with it...

And just which accounting textbook are you reading, Russavia, to form that simplistic definition of a subsidiary company? Even that unsourced wikipedia article gives you plenty of hints that a mere majority stakeholding is not neccesarily the sole determinant. Could you care to explain why countless company choose to list any entity in which the company has a stake in, no matter how small, in their subsidiary company lists, Singapore Airlines inclusive, which states it has over 50 subsidiaries?--Huaiwei 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Tiger Airways in the infobox as a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines is incorrect; if anything Tiger Airways would be a subsidiary of Temasek, via the holdings of its own added to the holdings of its subsidiary, Singapore Airlines; however, without knowing what the voting rights attached to each Tiger Airways share is, this is only an educated guess, and I wouldn't be placing that it an article without having a verifiable source for it.

Care to explain why some sources cite Tiger Airways as a subsidiary of SIA? [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]--Huaiwei 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Singapore Airlines Limited is not also known as the Singapore Airlines Group. Singapore Airlines Limited (Singapore Airlines) with its subsidiaries, including SilkAir (Singapore) Private

Limited (SilkAir), SIA Engineering Company Limited (SIA Engineering Company), Singapore Airlines Cargo Private Limited (Singapore Airlines Cargo), etc, etc, collectively are known as the Singapore Airlines Group.

• This edit states your understanding that the annual report which I provided details from is for the Singapore Airlines Group. This is incorrect. The annual report is for Singapore Airlines Limited. They may make mention of "Singapore Airlines Group" in the report, in fact, on Page 8, the Chairman of SIA even states "I am delighted to introduce the Singapore Airlines Group’s 2006-07 Annual Report and Summary Financial Statements to shareholders.", but the entity which required to lodge the report (and also which is listed on the SGX) is Singapore Airlines Limited.

There are other points but these are the major as I see them. --Russavia 17:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• • This has got to be one of the most contradictory comments made by a single person ever. The same source, which specifically refers to itself as Singapore Airlines Group at some points within its annual report, isnt talking about Singapore Airlines Group? Is this severe selective reading, misappriopriation of facts, or an extreme case of basic logic deficiency? Singapore Airlines Group is Singapore Airlines Limited as far as the Annual report is concerned. Isnt this what you have been arguing all along, so why the contradiction?--Huaiwei 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• At the moment I can see that an end to this dispute is not yet in site. If this discussion continues as just an argument without hope of resolution, I can ensivage Singapore Airlines being nominated for inclusion in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, and I presume that neither of you want such a disgrace being brought upon an article that both of you have invested so much time. To resolve this, I think you have to do two things: turn your opposing positions around 360 degrees, and (a) desist from making statements or using language which you would consider offensive or annoying if you were in your opponent's shoes; and (b) consider that your oppenent may actually be correct, or at least in possession of information that is better than is in your possession. Now if both of you are correct (assume this for just a moment), then how could this article be best adapted to show this statement of fact? Please make your suggestions here, but in a style than is accomodating to an opposing point of view. --Gavin Collins 21:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Here's an idea. How about we keep this article's focus on Singapore Airlines the airline only, and list its parent company as Singapore Airlines Group. Then we create a new article called Singapore Airlines Group, which covers SQ, Silkair, SIA Engineering etc, and list its parent as Temasek (with footnote if necessary to untangle it). Would that make the two of you happy? Jpatokal 12:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is a constructive idea with practical application. --Gavin Collins 17:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• I wouldn't be supportive of such a proposal for the following reasons:

1. This article always has been, and always will be, about Singapore Airlines (the airline). It just so happens that this airline (as do most large airlines) has subsidiary companies.
2. Singapore Airlines Group and/or Singapore Airlines Limited as a parent of Singapore Airlines are not factually correct and are not verifiable. Temasek is verifiable (as has been demonstrated above), and does not meet the actual definition of a parent company of SilkAir, etc. It is an ultimate holding company, but it is not the parent. If verifiable and reliable sources for SIA Group or SIA Limited being the parent company can be provided, I may be supportive, however, this hasn't yet been the case (in regards to providing such sources). Any such move would therefore clearly go against WP:FIVE, in particular WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V.
3. It has ramifications for other articles as well, not only airline articles, but all company articles.
4. Subsidiaries, including some non-notable ones, are already covered at Singapore Airlines subsidiaries. If what is being suggested is a possibility that article is where it should take place. However, having said that, I would say that this does not mean simply that all 50 subsidiary companies can be listed, as that would likely go against WP:NOT, whilst it would still have to comply with all other policies (such as providing reliable sources, something that article still does not do).

I appreciate what you have suggested Jpatokal, but I do not feel that it would be acceptable as a compromise, as it would deviate too far from WP:FIVE. Having said that, if concensus from the community at large (without vested interest) says do that, I would have no problem with going with that concensus. So perhaps a WP:RFC is the best avenue? Or is there somewhere else that can be suggested. I will stay out of any such discussions, unless I am specifically asked a question to provide info, etc, as I believe my opinion on this matter would now be pretty clear? Cheers. --Russavia 20:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Russavia said "concensus from the community at large (without vested interest)" Could you elaborate on the factors which may qualify one to be in that category of "vested interest" individuals, and if you have anyone in mind to cite as an example?--Huaiwei 17:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Russavia, I think you're putting way too much emphasis on obscure corporate structure in favor of what people dealing with the airline/company actually experience. There is an airline called "Singapore Airlines"; there is a company called Singapore Airlines Ltd that runs Singapore Airlines and a number of other airlines too. Are you seriously claiming that Singapore Airlines Ltd does not own and operate an airline called Singapore Airlines? And I would suggest merging the material in Singapore Airlines subsidiaries into the proposed Singapore Airlines Group article. Jpatokal 02:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Jpatokal, this isn't being directed at you, or any other user. But the structure of the airline isn't obscure-it is basic business knowledge, and other non-airline articles handle this (not a) problem without having to type out an entire page of explanation as to what a holding/parent company actually is - this article, as well as other airline articles, are great if you are a 'plane goes up plane goes down' type person looking for basic info, and again great if you want to know the ins and outs of mundane marketing huff and puff, but of absolutely no use if looking for information on the airline business. As to am I seriously claiming that SIA Limited does not own and operate an airline called SIA. Yes, I am. For Singapore Airlines is Singapore Airlines Limited, and Singapore Airlines Limited is Singapore Airlines. It is no different to ABC Airlines Pty Ltd operating as ABC Airlines, or XYZ Airlines Limited operating as STU Airlines. I really don't see why this article is being treated any differently to other airline articles, and I don't think people should be bending over backwards to make an exception in order to satisfy a small group of editors. Remove the codeshare information (as per airline project guidelines), get rid of the flight numbers cruft which shows absolutely nothing on the market share or anything else on the airline operations, cut out a lot of the info which could easily have been written by Singapore Airlines Public Affairs department, and there is absolutely no reason why the corporate info of the airline can't be added to this article, like it is on other articles. --Russavia 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Russavia, could you tell us how many destinations does Singapore Airlines/Singapore Airlines Limited fly to, and how many aircraft does it operate? Quite a simple question really.--Huaiwei 10:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Huaiwei, I wouldn't be able to tell you that from looking at this article, as until you seemed to think that my providing verifiable info into this article meant that somehow I agreed that you could turn this into an article on a non-existent legal entity. I would have to go away to another source and look for that information unfortunately. --Russavia 10:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that you have to answer that question based on this article, Russavia. Go right ahead and answer this simple question with whatever source you can find. And just which "non-existent legal entity" are you refering to?--Huaiwei 17:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has always been a mix of the airline and the listed stock company. If you are going to propose splitting it somehow you need to address Singapore Airlines Limited which is the listed company in which Temasek has a majority holding. Vegaswikian 21:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely the idea. The Singapore Airlines Group article would cover Singapore Airlines Ltd as a listed company, including all subsidiaries. Singapore Airlines would concentrate solely on the airline of that name, not its corporate structure. Jpatokal 02:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, since Singapore Airlines Limited is the name of the company as listed on the Singapore Exchange, that should be where the article is built. The top level article should not be named Singapore Airlines Group. That does not mean an article about the group should not exist in addition to other articles if it is needed. Vegaswikian 05:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think using SIA Limited as a name would be confusing, but I can live with it. But what would be the point of splitting SIAL and SIA Group? Jpatokal 12:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what is wrong with the article at the moment as long as it explains the structure and has links to the subisidaries. I think the main problem is the concept of Temasak being the parent company, having just read the annual reports of Singapore Airlines Limited and Temasak Holdings it would appear that Temasak (a financial investment company) is just the majority shareholder not the parent company and not part of the corporate structure. Just looked at Singapore Telecommunications in which Temasek holds 56% (the same as the Singapore Airlines holding) it just mentions that it is majority owned by Temasak. So I would suggest remove the Parent company from the infobox and just a small tidy up of this article. MilborneOne 11:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Parent company states that A parent company is a holding company that owns enough voting stock in another firm to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors. Temasek is a holding company, as it does nothing but own other companies, and it has a majority stake in SQ, so yes, Temasek is the parent company of Singapore Airlines (and Singtel and many more). Jpatokal 12:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Singapore Airlines Limited is where Tamasek is investedand not Singapore Airlines. The problem is that we have an article that covers the stock company and the airline. I'm not sure of the corporate structure and the article as written does not help. That's why I think splitting is the right way to go. While it may create some problems, it would probably make for cleaner articles as long as we can source the material. Vegaswikian 18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No self-respecting wikipedian would actually quote an unsourced wikipedia article to argue his case in another wikipedia article. Do you have any evidence to show that Temasek Holdings has effective control of the SIA management board?--Huaiwei 18:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• If I understand the situation here, am I correct Singapore Airlines is the trade name under which Singapore Airlines Limited trades, or is this still speculation? I could step in here and say that potentially this could be a very interesting topic, but I don't think you will agree with my geeky premise. If Singapore Airlines Limited is the owner of Singapore Airlines (or at least the trade name), is there a reason why the airline has this unusual structure? Perhaps Singapore Airlines Limited was one of the earliest companies to have been incorporated in Singapore? I don't really know, but if there is an interesting story behind why then perhaps the registar of companies will have something on file. Is there any history behind the company structure. If not, then I suggest just put the Republic of Singapore as this sounds a lot more grandiose. --Gavin Collins 20:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would love to see an answer to those questions. Some of this is in the annual reports which I have been unable to display, that's my problem, but maybe others can decipher something from there. In various discussions, SA, SAL and maybe SAG have been considered as one in the same. Sometimes SA appears to be listed as the parent of SAG and in other cases as a member of the group. So, some good detective work is in order. With facts, an intelligent decision about how to proceed can be made for proper encyclopedic articles that take the mystery out of this. Vegaswikian 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes Gavin, it is basic business 101. A Limited company having a trading name, Singapore Airlines Limited operating as Singapore Airlines. They aren't separate entities, they are the same entity. It's that simple, and everything I've posted above explains it in more detail than what is really needed I think? --Russavia 10:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh sure at least in this regard, I too agree that there is in fact just one entity. You appear to have major problems answering a simple question of just how many aircraft it operates, and how many destinations it flies to thou.--Huaiwei 18:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Before I make my full statement here (someone is probably not looking forward to this), how about turning this present article into a disambiguation page, with a link to Singapore Airlines (airline) and Singapore Airlines (group)? We then move most of the content here to the former, and information pertaining to the entire group of companies to the later. I am suggesting half in jest, but this addresses the problem of a single name which actually means both an parent airline company, and a group of companies, irrespective of whether it is "Singapore Airlines" or "Singapore Airlines Limited" (although of course "Singapore Airlines Group" can only refer to the later). Then again, someone may not be happy coz he can no longer plonk his beloved Temasek Holdings" in the former page!--Huaiwei 10:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Temasek would be evident on both articles, as Singapore Airlines Limited is a subsidiary of Temasek, and Singapore Airlines Group is simply a descriptive term for Singapore Airlines Limited and its subsidiaries, with Singapore Airlines Limited still being controlled by Temasek. --Russavia 10:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That will obviously have to be depend on whether the first article is talking about the parent airline company, or the group of airlines thou. Are you attempting to suggest, that Temasek holdings does not have a stake in Singapore Airlines Group?--Huaiwei 17:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can do the same for Qantas (airline) and Qantas (group), Cathay Pacific (airline) and Cathay Pacific (group), Aeroflot (airline) and Aeroflot (group), etc, etc, etc. Splitting up articles on non-sensical lines isn't such a good idea when they are the same entity. That's just my opinion. --Russavia 10:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you are the one who has initiated the entire fiasco with that "parent company" issue, than its your onus to convince everyone that the above setup is the best step forward for all airlines in similar situations. In case you are not aware, Qantas is indeed moving towards a setup where it will split into four companies, all under the Qantas Group. You better pray that Qantas Group becomes a holding company, instead of being a parent airline company, because then we will have exactly the same problem all over again!--Huaiwei 17:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Response I don't think a seperate article is necessary, unless one of these companies has a notable history other than the airline itself. I had a look at the listing for Singapore Airlines on the Singapore Stock Exchange, where the company has a public listing as Singapore Airlines Ltd (stock symbol: SIA) which states:

“ The Company (SIA) was incorporated as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Singapore government through Temasek Hldgs (Pte) Ltd on 28 January 1972 as a public company with limited liability[62]. ”

I propose that the Info box show Singapore Airlines Ltd. to be the parent, but with the first reference/footnote of this article using the above the stock exchange wording. This way no-one can be offended, the wording comes from a familiar and recognised source, whilst this clears up any ambiguity about the parent without the need for a seperate article. All those who agree with this proposal, please put your signature below:

• --Gavin Collins 11:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would normally agree to having just one article for Singapore Airline under whichever setup it happens to be, as was the case since day one, but with specific conditions which I will elaborate later. The setup proposed by Gavin do fit my conditions somewhat, so its a support from me.--Huaiwei 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That quote belongs in the history of the listed company. Currently Temasek is the majority owner and not the sole owner. Mentioning that Temasek is the majority owner within the article is appropriate. If they continue to sell off their stock, this would become the largest shareholder. The same comment can be included in other articles where Temasek, or other company, thought multiple holdings, is the largest or majority owner of the stock. Board makeup is something for the articles of listed companies and this may or may not be important based on the members. Vegaswikian 19:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As per my reasons above, it is not verified and the assertion also could be classed as original research. Looking at the history of the airline/company, there is no doubt as to the assertion that SIA and SIA Limited are one and the same has been commonly accepted, due to the article having started of as Singapore Airlines Limited...is the national airline of Singapore edit from 27/11/06 edit from 22/11/05 for over 2 years. In fact, it was Huaiwei who back in July 2005 edited the article to add in Limited into the lead, and I fail to understand why, 2 years after the fact, that the addition of the verifiable parent company into an infobox is an issue that is Bigger than Ben Hur. This issue isn't akin to whether Macedonia has a right to call itself Macedonia, it is a very simply, basic verifiable fact of (Singapore) company law; that being; a company which holds enough voting stock in another company is regarded as the parent company of that company; as Temasek holds well over 54% of SIA stock, and each stock carries a single vote, it is the parent company under Singapore company/corporation law (referenced) above, a fact that even Singapore Airlines acknowledges. To state anything but is erroneous, and also implies that Singapore company laws, Singapore Airlines and reputable media outlets are all wrong. Within the article, there is already a structural point in the article where any explanation of the Singapore Airlines Group belongs, that being Corporate management. So that's what I am thinking, and I can't put my name to something which I don't believe would pass a verifiability test; I am all for compromise, but not where WP:V comes into play. Now Huaiwei asked me above about where one can find someone without vested interest to comment on this issue, that would be WP:RFC, and I still believe that it be sent there for a broader outside opinion on issues surrounding this article. So that's basically all I have to input on this issue as it stands, time now for me to step back and what course this takes. Cheers --Russavia 20:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How about we leave it at the version prior to the dispute while this is sorted out. It's obvious that both of you dont agree, so at least agree to disagree. Or look at outside editors not involved in the dispute, otherwise some editors may look at getting this article semi or even fully protected. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 10:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I just made a partial reversion as per the above, of course keeping the more constructive edits at the same time.--Huaiwei 16:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Falsified verification failure?

Russavia insists on tagging certain statements within the "Corporate Management" section as being unverified by the included source. Or so he says.

• Article text: Singapore Airlines is the parent airline company of the Singapore Airlines Group of companies
  • Source text 1: Group operating profit increased by $101 million (+8.3%) to $1,314 million, on the back of a strong performance by the Parent Airline Company.
  • Source text 2: The Company refers to Singapore Airlines, the parent airline unit. The Group comprises the Company and its subsidiary, joint venture and associated companies).

I have amended the second reference to address his issue more directly.

• Article text: The later of which (SIA Group) is a subsidiary of the Singapore government investment and holding company, Temasek Holdings.
  • New Source text: Singapore Airlines Limited (“the Company”) is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore.

I would like to remind Russavia not to use the {{failed verification}} tag just to indicate his opposition to the existing version of the article, while this talk page seems to suddenly become dormant. This is not mature behavior.--Huaiwei 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this fails verification for the following reasons, and was going to put a notice here as to why anyway, but seeing as you beat me to the punch, I will explain why those tags were put back in place:

1) The annual report is for Singapore Airlines Limited, the legal name of Singapore Airlines.

2) Are you claiming that Singapore Airlines is different to Singapore Airlines Limited, as you will revert any changes that I make which say this is so. I find it curious you have forecfully rammed home issues regarding Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines Group to Vegaswikian quite a few times; this being one such example, and there is no need to treat them any differently now, unless specific verifiable circumstances warrant it (such as when adding info about Singapore Airlines 'Group' financials). Might I add, my edits are completely sourced, and you are reverting back to unsourced material.

As to the rest Huaiwei, you can read below, and I have just about had enough of the time spent on this small but headache causing issue. I have explained in enough detail and provided enough sources on how Singapore Airlines (the company) is set up, providing sources for you at every demand, and I had it with having to explain every single edit that I make on this article in miniscule detail to yourself, whereas it seems you do not feel you have to do this for us. If you can't understand fully how this company is structured, then stop editing the article, go and study business/commerce at uni for 4 years, or read various business law/regulations, and get yourself up to speed.

Also, might I add, any sourced edits of mine are to be treated under WP:V, which explicitly states; The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Edits which I have made have explicitly said "XYZ is a subsidiary of ABC"; unfortunately your edits, whilst sourced are too vague, do not explicitly state what you have added to the article, and rely on the reader of that material drawing their own conclusions, which you have done above, hence those edits are also original research. So yes, your edits and sources have failed verification, and hence why I re-added those.

This is NOT about you, me or anyone else. This is about presenting an article which is in compliance with WP:FIVE, and whilst others may no longer be interested, hence I will continue, as much as it is a general waste of good time which could be spent doing other things. I am willing to have a discussion with you on these issues; the first question would be, what exactly do you see Singapore Airlines as being, in direct relation to this article? --Russavia 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think most of the points you are asking from me has aleady been addressed before, if not, in the posts in the following section. As for your sudden emphasise on being explicit (something which I have been calling for for quite some time already), I don't think you have addressed my earlier request for you to find us an explicit statement in the annual report which states that "Temasek Holdings is the parent company of Singapore Airlines (the parent airline company)" either, or have you?--Huaiwei 03:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This RFC is impossible to comment on because the issues are not stated. --Blue Tie 01:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination?

I honestly cannot believe someone actually nominated this article for good-article status. The structure is horrible, and complicating! The page is very messy and I've had this discussion for many months to almost a year now! One day this page will look right, one day...--Golich17 01:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it would ever be a GA when it reads like an advertising website for Singapore Airlines ! MilborneOne 17:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Where's the nomination anyway?--Huaiwei 07:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge needs to be done

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KrisFlyer closed with a result of merging to this article. Actual merging from the history of that article is left to the editors of this article. GRBerry 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Advertisement Flavour

Having looked at British Airways and Cathay Pacific, it is difficult to see exactly where the Singapore Airlines article seems to be written as an advertisement. I would re-write the whole thing but don't have the time. Discuss. RomanceOfTravel 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Those two articles are nowhere near written to be an advertisement as this one does. Yes, there are issues with those articles, but this one reads like an advertisement from beginning to end. Of course, it is impossible to advise others of this fact, as people will add the 'advert' template only to have the article owner revert it on site, and then claim that they have to gather concensus on the talk page to even add that template on the article - hogwash. --Russavia 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot of SQ fanboyism here. Eg. the version before this edit of mine makes it sound like all planes have Wiseman 3000 and Connexion, while in reality you only get interactive IFE on the long-range planes and Connexion ceased to exist last year. Jpatokal 15:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are sections which are factually wrong, correct it. I would classify an article as controlled by "fanboyism" and a walking advertisement (oh what a word made famous by ahem!) if attempts to introduce facts, be it positive or negative, are controlled in such a way that only positive comments are allowed. Has this happened in this article? No. In fact, I seem to find myself one of the few who is introducing relatively negative comments! Are negative comments in SIA that difficult to find? If this is so, is it SIA's fault, and it is therefore a problem for this article to have less negative comments as a result?--Huaiwei 01:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually disagree. It doesn't look like an advertisement at all. The fact that Singapore Airlines has above average products and service (assuming this is the sticking point) and higher than average brand equity compared to the airline industry in general does not make reporting this de facto advertising. If anything there should be some kind of template. Also there are blackouts. For example, the Cabins section rightfully talks about the relaunch in October 2006 but to the average reader this could think that this was the only cabin relaunch to occur (forgetting 2001, 1998 etc...). Or do we only mention recent things? I don't know - opinions requested. RomanceOfTravel 19:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I would challenge anyone to kindly point out which aspects of this article would constitute "advertising", and if this article is any different from the bunch of airline articles out there. I certainly hope no one here wants to be seen as being particularly "anti SIA fanboyism", yet condones it elsewhere. It wont be pretty, as demonstrated by some who are obviously already in that category (by their self-declaration sometimes) and has gotten the heat ever since.--Huaiwei 01:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a newbie to Wikipedia, but when I read the intro to SQ reads..as "Singapore Airlines was ranked 17th in Fortune's World’s Most Admired Companies rankings in 2007[6]) and has built up a strong brand name[7] as a trendsetter[8] in the aviation industry, particularly in terms of service excellence, innovation, and safety,[9] coupled with consistent profitability. [10] It has won numerous awards and accolades, and is an industry bellwether for aircraft purchases.[11]"

Looking at the sources, the strong brand name sources to a webpage that is some sort of branding company's opinion of SQ. Simply because they say they have a "strong" brand identity does not make it so. In addition, the other sites cited as the point to support the assertion in this paragraph are mere opinions by random writers in some local newspaper. These sources are not credible, nor convincing enough to establish that SQ could be considered the "trendsetter." After all, some other airlines could certainly be considered trendsetters in their own right as well. I propose that some other sources be found which we all agree is a determinative authority or standard by which an airline "trendsetter" is identified. We should not be quoting random newspaper's opinions or commentary on an airline's services to make the point..simply because it runs the risk of all Wikipedians finding random subjective opinions on various websites to demonstrate the point.

Edits also are never "permanent" and merely working on this page does not make them "permanent." I would delete this paragraph and propose doing so, unless some other determinative authority is agreed upon to be some objective (not subjective, as is the SQ's citations currently exist) "standard" by which Wikipedians judge an airline to be a legitimate "trendsetter." Azntokki 04:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Azntokki

Now I wont consider someone with three months in wikipedia as new, but welcome to the project anyhow, and thank you for your comments. Lets get down to business now. Wikipedia is based on WP:V, and will report on any verifiable, reputable source to formulate its contents. Now lets see just how untrue this is with the above paragraph. Fortune ranks SIA the second most respected airline company in the world for the past two years. The The Wall Street Journal shows SIA coming out tops in a branding survey, and says "Among non-U.S.-based carriers, Singapore Airlines enjoyed the highest reputation quotient of any airline." Since when did the The Wall Street Journal become just another branding company, and was its comments the company's own, or that of its survey? You mention other sources are mere editors from some local newspaper. Which particular newspaper are you referring to, and are you unable to find similar comments from "global" newspapers? Have you done a google search in this regard before commenting? Can I therefore deduce that you are saying this article suffers from being an "advertisement", for no better reason thatn allerged bad-reputations of cites sources? I would like to hear your responses please. Thanks!--Huaiwei 09:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I consider that particular paragraph in the lead quite OK — SQ undeniably has been awarded a lot and has a strong brand, because hey, they're a pretty darn good airline.

My problem is with the meat of the article, esp. the sections on cabins and KrisFlyer, which — while indubitably factually correct and well referenced — often descend into hagiography, regurgitating gobs of thoroughly obscure trivia direct from the marketing department with little hype words here and there: "In a new innovation", "improved adjustable headrest", "International Culinary Panel" in caps, etc. We are told, among other things, that business class on the B777-300ER has coat hooks in every seat, that the cushions in the Suites are designed by Givenchy, that "premium" passengers may request extra virgin olive oil, and that Economy class passengers receive a pair of socks on long-haul flights. Is this stuff really relevant to an encyclopedia? If yes, should we also note that seat 53C on a B777-300ER has poor legroom or that the window next to 12K is misaligned? [63] Jpatokal 11:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you as a matter of fact that I don't particularly like the cabin and Krisflyer sections either. In particular Krisflyer, the contents of which were merged from its own article thanks to the usual suspect's attempts to delete it. It certainly needs a rewrite. As for the cabin section, there is far too much regurgitation of "this and that is offered" without telling us the significance of each, especially in comparison with its competitors. For example, the offering of AVOD for every seat is not considered an industry standard yet, so it is of encyclopedic interest if an airline can claim to do so for the majority of its services (I understand even SIA dosent offer this on every single aircraft). I have further problems with this overwelming discussion on what exists now, without any mention on the history of cabin refurbishment over the years, and the kind of innovations which has been introduced before (plus any pitfalls associated with any new products, of course. The withdrawal of the in-flight internet service comes immediately to mind). Far more noteworthy and encyclopedic, I would think.--Huaiwei 17:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. In looking at the citation for Fortune, the site appears to be a ranking from Fortune. Knowing the audience and the typical readership of Fortune, these rankings are not determinative of what constitutes an "admired company." This is Fortune's own editors SUBJECTIVE opinion as to the ranking they assign SQ. However, the problem is not the source--but the conclusions they draw and what we should read from it. A magazine's (though prominent it may be or even reputable) subjective conclusion that SQ is "admired," should not translate to Wikipedia knowledge which in its purest form, should be OBJECTIVE.

Second, as far as the Wall Street Journal is concerned, the article's data backdates to 2000 and SQ's ranking again, were based on a random sample of 20,867 respondents by Harris Interactive, a random call-you-up and ask you questions telemarketing agency of sorts. Though cited by the Wall Street Journal author Scott McCartney, this hardly constitutes objective conclusions. Their findings could be interpreted in a different light by any other researcher. The problem is that the article is not objective, since the conclusion you cite is that since the majority of respondents' conclusion rank SQ this way--therefore, this is the way we should read the data. The problem is that the methodology and the opinions culled from the sources are based on respondents' subjective opinions, NOT the Wall Street Journal's opinion per dicta. This runs counter to Wikipedia's citation rules that such data be verifiable and attributed to the source, not the source within the source. The problem lies with the conclusions we should draw from subjective data cited by the authority. Here, the Wall Street Journal's authority is not in dispute (to clear up misunderstanding), but the conclusions we draw from a flawed methodology.

Third, as far as "excellence" is determined, the Seattle Post Intelligencer is a local newspaper and appears to be written like an ad in its truest form. Citing a local journalist's viewpoint as to why SQ is an excellent airline hardly qualifies to be substantive objective material wherein we should conclude that SQ should be labeled as such.

Fourth, as far as citation 9 is concerned, it comes from Venture Republic, which appears to label itself as a "strategic advisor on brand excellence" and calls itself a "specialist firm" based on branding expertise. It is based in Singapore and the quote cites lies in its own view of SQ under its website section called "Resources." Their conclusion of SQ comes from a parochial commercial viewpoint of what they subjectively believe SQ's brand to be. Again, this hardly constitutes objective data from which we should firmly conclude that SQ should be a strong brand, etc. A local business' conclusion as to what SQ brand is should not form the basis of encyclopedic knowledge.

All these sources quoted come from the conclusions we should draw from them to cite in support of SQ. These sources cited are all based on subjective data and the problem all lies in the implications we should interpret from them. FYI, I do actively google everything which I strive to comment upon. Please don't assume that I haven't looked up information before I have commented. In any case, I still propose to delete that paragraph unless some conclusive, verifiable and OBJECTIVE sources can be cited in support of the conclusions--rather than some random opinions from telephone respondents, a branding consulting business or some local newspaper journalist based in Seattle. Azntokki 17:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Azntokki

After glancing through your comments, here's my short reply: I think you need to take time off and re-read WP:V and let the information sink in, if you have not already. After this, we shall talk further. Thanks.--Huaiwei 18:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I need to read it--I recommend that you take your own time and re-read POV. In any case, this is why Wikipedia is a waste of time and an inappropriate place for people to label it as an "encyclopedia" of sorts. Thanks anyways. Azntokki 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Azntokki

And which part of POV would you like me to point my attention to? Kindly bring up WP:V, and read the opening line: Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We in wikipedia are in no business to discuss at length on flawed methodology in the research methods of utilised sources, particularly when the said publications' notability are not called into question. This reminds me of Russavia's past attempts in censoring out any mention of Skytrax ratings in airline and airport pages, just because he thinks Skytrax's methodology is screwed up (and which I agree, btw) and despite its obvious notability. Wikipedia is not an attempt to tell the world who's survey is correct. It is about reporting what notable surveys are saying. I hope we can at least get this plain fundamental clear before we move on.--Huaiwei 02:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For once I agree with Huaiwei. There is no such thing as an "OBJECTIVE" source, especially when it comes to fuzzy things like brand quality, all Wikipedia can do is summarize subjective opinions for verifiable, notable sources. Jpatokal 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's all be nice. RomanceOfTravel 16:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For flying is romantic? :D--Huaiwei 16:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've just given the in-flight service section some serious lipsuction. Jpatokal 09:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A tad too serious, I have to say. It is one thing about avoiding advertising prose. It is another when it comes to completely removing information irregardless of style. Your complete deletion of the First Class Suites section (and your attempt to downgrade it as First Class despite the airline's distinct class designation) is particularly eye-popping, and I am quite sure the same information can be presented minus the peacock terms.--Huaiwei 10:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Beyond first class" is IMHO marketing propaganda and nobody except SQ themselves seems to be taking it seriously; see eg. the gentle mocking in this article and Airbus CEO Leahy's reference to "mini-suites in first class" here. If it's really not first class, then why doesn't A380 have a "first class" in addition?

And if you think something of significance was lost, put it back. I continue to assert, though, that coat hooks and socks are not of significance, and much of the previous text was lifted more or less directly from SQ's website. Jpatokal 10:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that you could be agreeable to the basic concept of verifiability, not truth, commit the exact same mistake moments later, and be unabashed about it. The primary Singapore Airlines source classifies them as a distinct class, further underscored by their assignment of a different class letter (R). If you can find verifiable, credible sources stating that SIA was "wrong" in its classification, then this article will still have to report the fact that "XXX consider's SIA's classification as wrong", without actually showing bias by removing a class section altogether in reaponse. Of course class designations are a marketing compaign. All classes of travel are. Shall we remove all discussions on cabin classes then? And why should "A380 have a "first class" in addition" (whatever that means)? Is any airline obliged to offer you a range of classes without skipping any of them? Finally, let me enforce the fact that you dont consider something insignificant by the value of the item in itself. Socks are cheap, no doubt. But if they are (hypothetically) offered to an entire class of passengers in a way very few other airlines do, then that is worthy for mention. Headphones are cheap, but when SIA offered them to all classes decades ago, it was a big deal. Therefore, kindly do not simply say "coat hooks and socks are not of significance". Are you very sure these are industry standard service items to begin with? If so, remove them. If not, do not just give the value of these items as your sole excuse for deletion.--Huaiwei 16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The "First class travel" article states, and I quote, "First Class travel is the highest quality travel class available that is offered by passenger airlines". Thus, if Suites is the highest quality travel class offered by SIA, it is by Wikipedia's definition "first class".

Anyway, I've changed the rather loaded "claimed by SIA" to "designated by SIA" and noted that Suites uses a different fare class. (Incidentally, Fare class categorizes "R" as as first class code, although it was previously best known as the Concorde fare class on BA/AF.)

As for the rest, if you think coat hooks and socks are of significant and you can find a non-primary source that thinks so too, then put them back in. Jpatokal 03:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That statement is from a wikipedia article, and is unsourced. I would think this is glaringly unsuitable for citation. I could very well go right there and correct it now if I want. The "R" code was used only by Concorde, which markets all its seats as "first class". SIA is the first to use the "R" code for something else, so why depend on an article now rendered outdated (and also unsourced)? Finally, don't worry. I arent gonna start reintroducing details without some market research at least.--Huaiwei 12:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source for you, which I've just added to First class travel: the American Heritage Dictionary defines "first class" as The most luxurious and most expensive class of accommodations on a train, passenger ship, airplane, or other conveyance.. Dictionary.com has 8 definitions that pretty much all say the same thing.

And oh, as fare class states, "R" is also used for deeply discounted economy tickets (eg. by Continental and US Airways), or on AA for eco-to-biz, or on Delta for FC awards, etc etc. So, no, it's certainly not "only" a Concorde code, nor is SQ the first other airline to use it. Jpatokal 04:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Now obviously the current souces out there are going to say First class = highest class of travel. Do you expect dictionaries to update themselves that quickly, and as fast as a non-paper publication like wikipedia? If you want to keep using outdated definitions, then may I ask what shall we call SIA's current First class then, since they are no longer the most luxurious class of accommodations for the airline? This is getting a tad ridiculous. As for the "R" code, my bad. I was refering to its usage in First class only. I suppose the article is still correct that no one uses it in first class anymore, for SIA claims it dosent!--Huaiwei 08:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think SIA's marketing department supersedes the AHD as a reference for what "first class" means, you're welcome to argue that point on First class travel — and a section on "Beyond first" in there might interesting, as I'm sure SQ's only fired the first shot in a long war to come.

Also, the definition states that "First class is the most luxurious class of accommodation on a[n]... airplane", not an "airline". So the Suites are "first class" on the A380 (as already noted, the A380s don't offer a non-suite FC), and traditional FC is "first class" on the rest. Jpatokal 14:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hwaiwei, why do u waste your time on acting like you "own" SQ's wikipedia page and act so possessive about the edits that you make? As you well know, no one owns this page--so to be so petty and so blatantly rah-rah SQ cheerleading is annoying and your defensive mode when anyone makes suggestions and edits is tiresome at best. Go find a life. I think SQ sucks, despite your "fanboyism" about SQ. Not everyone shares your POV on SQ, so I suggest stop being so defensive when anyone edits SQ's page. You may think SQ is fabulous, but not everyone in the world thinks so. Singapore is hardly the most noticed country in the world and on top of that, we don't need pro-SQ minions at the University of Singapore to cheerlead an over-priced, crappy airline resting on its laurels on an irrelevant website. Geez, go find a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.39.249 (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If anything, being the polar opposite doesn't bring you much credit to the table either does it. Naughty. RomanceOfTravel 21:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey anon, you are probably right that I should go find a life. Unfortunately, I did find a life in wikipedia! :D--Huaiwei 12:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Today, User:Vegaswikian made this edit, marked it as minor while writing this edit summary: "m (rv removal of tags. Discuss on the talk page about how these issues have been resolved)".

Please would any interested editor (obviously including Vegaswikian) nominate here below those particular sections of our article (if any) that are presently thought not to be "written like an advertisement".

To start the ball rolling, I nominate these entire sections as currently avoiding inappropriate puffery:

1. History
2. Corporate Management

Alice^✉ 02:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Today the advert tag was removed, apparently referring to this discussion. Yet no one was able to list sections that do not read like advertising. So how does this discussion support removing the advert tag? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's my fault on two levels:

Firstly I forgot about this (relevant) section and had in mind the current last section of this discussion page. Sorry about that, my edit summary was imprecise.

Secondly, it was my own edit that removed this tag.

Do you wish me to stick it back at the top of the whole article or just at the top of a (few) chosen section(s)? Alice^✉ 06:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it applies to so much of the article, I'd say only one tag right now at the top. If there is a major cleanup, then it can be moved down into a few sections. Also at the top is in order since there is the discussion on how to cleanup the lead. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just reverted myself. Alice^✉ 09:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is plain clear that in this entire section, no one has actually list sections which do read like advertising either (except in two sections which are then worked on as per above discussions). Not from anyone, and not even from Vegaswikian. If this persists for a few more days, I will remove the label myself. Kindly do not plant labels and expect others to read their minds, and expect self-perceived problems to resolve on their own. Some pro-activeness will be much appreciated.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: most of my previous concerns have been addressed, and IMHO the only problematic remaining section is "Frequent flyer programme". I'd be happy to move the tag there until it's worked over. Jpatokal (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be helpful. Precision is better in an encyclopedia. You are aware, of course, that this particular section was only (stupidly) amalgamated here from being a separate article recently? Alice^✉ 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it wasn't any less an advertisement as a separate article. Jpatokal (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm I am not sure if my actions in moving the contents from the KrisFlyer article to this article wholesale may be mistaken as an act of stupidity, but my intention was to preserve the whole chunk of information and store in here, with the hope that it be trimmed down and presented in an encyclopaedic fashion later. Well that day did not come as soon as expected, so yeah, Alice is probably right about my lack of intellect and intuition. :D--Huaiwei (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Huaiwei, my language was imprecise and ambiguous. Please accept my apologies if I have caused offence. I think it was correct to try and preserve the information here but that it was stupid for the separate article to have been deleted in the first place. I think that (given the many trivial articles which we have and the cheapness of storage space) it is well overdue that we replaced notability with a combination of maintainability and utility as inclusion criteria.

That said, it would be appreciated if Russavia (as the proposer of the AfD) would have a go at kicking the section into more encyclopaedic shape. Personally I think it difficult to describe any marketing project such as a frequent flyer reward program without it sounding a bit like an advertising blurb...

PS: Within the current notability rules, Russavia was correct to propose deletion, but I still wish he had turned a blind eye. Alice^✉ 16:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like a case of misunderstanding from each of us then! Didn't realise you are actually referring to the deletion process! My apologies also if this caused discomfort to you in turn, and please accept my reassurances that I am not taking this to heart at all. With regards to the deletion itself, you may wish not to expect individuals with vested interests to actually ignore any "signs of sins" which offends them greatly. I personally felt that KrisFlyer as a programme may itself be a very specialised article, but it does have its fair share of notability, especially in light of the recent public outcries over its membership criteria revision etc.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Advertising Flavour: FFP

Greetings,

There seems to be an advertising box on the KrisFlyer section. Could someone indicate what the actual problem is specifically so that one can take action?

I can't see anything wrong with it. So I am going to assume that someone doesn't like the elaboration of benefits for KrisFlyer Silver, KrisFlyer Gold, PPS Club and Solitaire PPS Club members. Correct?

Thanks. unsigned, but by User:RomanceOfTravel 2007-12-04

I have two problems with it. First, yes, the elaboration of benefits is, um, too elaborate. Compared to American Airlines#AAdvantage, which is the world's largest FFP, and covers its benefits with the following single sentence: "The most active members, based on the amount and price of travel booked, are designated AAdvantage Gold, AAdvantage Platinum, and AAdvantage Executive Platinum elite members, with privileges such as separate check-in, priority upgrade and standby processing, or complimentary upgrades".

My second problem is an often subtle but consistent bias: it's all written like marketing hype, not an encyclopedia entry. There are meaningless privileges like "Priority phone service" (what does that mean?) and countless fluffy statements like "Earning 25,000 Elite miles in a year qualifies a member for Silver", instead of just stating that members who fly 25,000 miles receive Silver status.

So I think the privilege listings should be stripped, but with PPS (an SQ-only feature) given a few sentences of explanation. Jpatokal (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your first point. There are clear section headings and nobody reads an encyclopaedia like a novel from end to end - the reader can just skip the detail if they're not interested.

I can see some merit in your second point - houzabout you give it a bit of a de-fluff? Alice^✉ 07:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to say, if you have a problem with it then be Bold and change it yourself and then we can discuss it again? RomanceOfTravel (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my preferred approach would be to compact the whole thing into about two paragraphs of prose, and I'd be happy to go do it -- but I'm not sure others would agre, and indeed Alice doesn't seem to. So that's why I'm asking here before I go strip out 80%... Jpatokal (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Having just reviewed the FFP section. I have no problem with it and vote for it to stay. It doesn't smack of advertising at all. I disagree that the statements are fluffy and non-neutral. The sentences are benefit are quite clear and convey what they are trying to say appropriately. Nevertheless, in an attempt to take everyone's views into account, I shall go through the section in more detail later with a thesaurus. I suggest the debate on this issue continue but this is my stance. RomanceOfTravel (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have sinced edited the FFP section - any comments, views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanceOfTravel (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it still sounds like an ad. Well, the best is to write everything in prose instead in point form. For example, the privileges for all Elite and PPS members should be written in one sentence. And for EG and PPS, then there is one sentence (for each) about the extra privileges Star Alliance Gold (Elite Gold, QPP, TPP) members have. And maybe talk about the recent changes to the PPS programme. Just my two cents. Terence (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to have the opinions. But this seems to be dragging out. Maybe we can all agree to some date as to when this issue needs to be sorted out? I propose 15 January 2008 as that's a nice date and we have around four weeks to sort it. Barring that - an arbitration? RomanceOfTravel (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. Alice^✉ 22:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Er I dont think we actually need an arbitration for this issue. Practically all of us agree that this section needs a rewrite. It is just a matter of when, because few are taking the initiative just yet, including myself!--Huaiwei (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph Alterations

I have / am editing the lead paragraph as there is some stuff that is not as pertinent as it should be. Kindly comment. RomanceOfTravel (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the changes you have made, both to the lead and the FFP sections, tighten up the article and generally make it better. The only possible reservation I might have relate to the excision of this sentence from the end of the lead:

"Singapore Airlines owns regional airline SilkAir, 49% of the British airline Virgin Atlantic Airways and 49% of Tiger Airways."

I realise that we already mention earlier both Tiger Airways and Silk Air, but I do feel the stake in Virgin is important enough to be mentioned in the lead. Rather than have an isolated sentence only relating to Virgin, perhaps a slightly punchier, portmanteau sentence: "SIA has a 49% stake in both Tiger Airways and the British airline Virgin Atlantic Airways." ?

If that were thought acceptable, then the earlier sentence: "The airline also responded to the threats posed by the low-cost sector by investing a 49% stake in Tiger Airways." could perhaps be shortened to "SIA also responded to the threats posed by the low-cost sector by investing in Tiger Airways".Alice^✉ 00:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead too long?

Does anyone else think that, like Topsy, our lead section or introduction has grown a little too large? Alice^✉ 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yea. On a part of this, how encyclopedic is a blow by blow change list of who's on top of the market capitalization today? I think all of that discussion should be dropped. It can change significantly overnight and one bad earnings report or a significant accident can affect this. So we probably should just drop that information. Vegaswikian 02:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that ephemera or material that constantly (and/or predictably) changes should not be incorporated in the lead - unless that constant change, of and by itself is notable.

I think we can summarize that SIA is a world class (and, in many case, world beating airline) but without going into so much nitty gritty there. Let's save the minute detail for the sections so we're not continually edit-warring over the lead.

Perhaps we could each create a user area page with our own idea of the lead and compare them to see if we can find common ground? Alice^✉ 03:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you refer to WP:Lead, an article of this length can actually support up to four paragraphs. If you feel each paragraph is too long, check out our WP:FA, and you will see its length is actually rather average. The detail on market capitalisation is kinda necessary in the lead since it is common for the mass media to refer to SIA as such, albeit wikipedia provides a more current measure of it. Market values may change overnight, but unless anyone can provide evidence here that SIA has leapt up and down the tables every so often, I will not consider this as volatile enough for complete removal.

The current lead as it is is pretty simple actually:

• Para 1: The airline's operational background.
• Para 2: The airline's corporate background
• Para 3: The airline's service standards

These are the primary information one would expect from an airline article introduction, especially paras 1 and 2. Para 3 is added for SIA due to its service reputation. If anyone can offer a more logical lead layout, fire away.--Huaiwei 04:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, the lead should only include paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 only. The paragraph 2 can either be ommited or integrate with section 2: Corporate Management. I agree with Huaiwei to keep Para 3 as SIA is famous for their service excellency. Jannisri 05:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As is usual, Huaiwei makes some excellent points. I've no difficulty with Paragraph 1, but I am worried that there is a tendency for visitors to want to cram everything into the lead when the detail belongs in the relevant subsequent sub-sections first and only then, and if it is essential, should a précis or even a glancing mention go into the introduction.
Rather than discuss things in the abstract, I would be very interested if any editor could show us (presumably, in their user space, a better introduction). If not then, my point is moot. In other words - put up or shut up time - because I really would like to remove the {{advert}}<!-- added 10/2007 --> template which is beginning to annoy me! Alice^✉ 06:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, but I would still love to hear from the rest of you. ;) The template is certainly annoying, especially when it seems to be placed there by one editor, yet not having bothered to really point out specifically which problems need rectification. Back to the lead. I was the one who was largely guilty for writing most of the current introduction, although this has been the nth version already, and has tried very hard to cram the same amount of information in just three paragraphs. If the current versions seems to cram too much info, perhaps it will be good for us to list down each point and consider them one by one. Here we go:

Paragraph One

• Alternative names
• SGX Code
• National airline
• Operational base
• Major markets served

Paragraph Two

• Industries diversified into
• Major subsidiaries
• Company size

Paragraph Three

• Company reputation
• Service quality
• Safety

Is this information too overwhelming, or just right? Comments please!--Huaiwei 09:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Paragraph One - OK
• Paragraph Two - The diversification info could be moved to the history section
• Paragraph Three - The service quality bits could be moved to the top of Services

Just my thoughts. MilborneOne 17:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Putting up, instead of shutting up, the intro has been changed by myself on several occasions only to have them reverted wholesale. Additionally, changing the intro is hardly going to be enough to be able to remove the advert tags from this article (mind you, it is the opinion of many editors this article is marketing for the airline as evidenced by the change logs) - remove flights numbers (as per concensus), bring codeshares inline with airline wikiproject (as per concensus), cut right back info on KrisFlyer to only that info which is encyclopaedic, and then one may be on their way to removing the advert tag. Additionally, I have on occasion changed the part to referring to capitalisation of the company, as Singapore Airlines Group is not the 2nd largest (formerly largest) airline by market capitalisation, Singapore Airlines Limited is. The link which apparently validates the statement is no longer available for viewing, and requests for providing of a direct quote from that article which would validate the Group being capitalised have been removed by one editor repeatedly. If removing the advert tag is the purpose of this particular discussion, then I would suggest looking at the incredulous use of a quote from an SIA employee to attempt to validate a claim that the airline is looked at by other airlines when reviewing fleet purchases. Anyway, here's just one exmaple intro to this article which I tweaked and which was reverted. Additionally, and this is not limited to this article but many airline articles, too much emphasis is being placed on IOSA audits, it would appear that there is little to no understanding what these audits actually are, and before too long for an airline to maintain IATA membership it will have to be IOSA accredited; that's just one example of a piece of information which serves no real purpose rather than PR. --Russavia 16:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It intrigues me why you continuously wax lyrical over your supposed "victimisation" in this article. Kinda ironic, but this seems to be a sign of WP:OWN? Let me just state quite clearly that edits which are not factually supported, which are POV-laden, and which are not inserted in good faith have every reason to be removed. Do not attempt to paint an inaccurate picture of supposed "concensus" just because you are sore about not getting your way. Do not attempt to mislead newer contributors by indoctrinating them with supposed "widespread views" over as absurd a charge as this article being a marketing vehicle for the airline.

If you can read basic English, this section is about the length of the lead section. If you have issues over advertising (which obviously you do, yet didn't bother to comment earlier), kindly add them to the correct section(s). If you have content issues over SIA's corporate structure, kindly revisit past discussions and reflect on them.

Kindly tell us if there is a better substitute to evaluate an airline's safety other than the IATA's Operational Safety Audit Programme? Can you cite a more neutral, non-PR means of indicating that an airline has met stringent safety requirements? Considering only two Russian airlines has passed and obtain this certification, could you tell us if its value is not worth mentioning? If not, kindly do not discredit sources just because you don't like them for some unknown reason (just like that vendetta against Skytrax in recent times) and assume ignorance on the part of those who write about it.

Oh and I wonder what's your beef over that quotation from an "SIA employee". Perhaps you will be much more accommodating if that employee was you. Since you do not wish to acknowledge the well-known fact that SIA's aircraft purchases are closely watched in the aviation business, a huge quotation which directly points this out is probably painful to your eyes. If there a good things to say about anything in wikipedia, and it is adequately sourced, this information will be included. It is convenient to slap any "good news reporting" as a sign of advertising (but strangely "bad news reporting" doesn't seem to draw as much attention), particularly when the said individual has issues with particular airlines being much more successful than the ones they root for. Childish, isn't it.--Huaiwei 01:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you two are having a .... tiff. But anyway, a quick search revealed that there are numerous sources saying that SIA is a bellwether aircraft purhcaser. Among them include the New York Times, Bloomberg and the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation. These seem to confirm the SQ GM Gulf's quotation. A definition of Bellwether is on Wikipedia. RomanceOfTravel 19:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.191.175 (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, IOSA is not an accurate way to evaluate an airline's safety, as it does not take into account causes of any accidents; IOSA accreditation simply means that various operational safety instruments have been implemented on paper; it doesn't give reasons for pilot error, terrorism, adverse weather conditions, miscommunication between aircraft and ATC, mechanical failure; aviation safety is too complex to simply say that because an airline has IOSA accreditation it is safe; that it has achieved accreditation is somewhat important, but it isn't the be all and end all of aviation safety. As to your little sideswipe at the Russian airlines, there are 3 Russian airlines which are IOSA registered - Aeroflot, Siberia Airlines and Volga-Dnepr Airlines - it is not necessary for all airlines to be IOSA accredited and registered - it is only going to be mandatory for those airlines which are members of IATA - in Russia there are 6 IATA members, those being the 3 aforementioned airlines, Rossiya, Transaero and Vladivostok Air - all 3 of which I know are currently undergoing the audit process - which of course will be necessary for them to retain IATA membership. Additionally, the lead of an article is supposed to give a brief rundown of what people will read in the article, but the IOSA registration is not mentioned anywhere else in the article - in fact, most of the lead seems to be a mish mash of PR-spin with trivial information which really doesn't belong, or if it does belong, not so much information in the lead is required. --Russavia (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ultimo Minus" debacle

Can RomanceOfTravel, or for that matter, anyone, please give me evidence to suggest the oldest SIA business class product has changed name from "Ultimo Plus" to "Ultimo Minus". It sounds somewhat like someone didn't enjoy their experience in the old seats... RomanceOfTravel, I'd love to see a link referring to the new name. Good luck! Besancon (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultimo refers to the product launched on 11 September 1998 on board the Boeing 747-400. UltimoPlus was a slightly enhanced product with a lounging position launched on the Boeing 777-200ER (to Chicago?). UltimoMinus is what is found on the vast majority of Boeing 777-200s and Boeing 777-300s. UltimoPlus and UltimoMinus are internal names. I would accept Ultimo when referring to the Business class seat found on the vast majority of Boeing 777-200s and Boeing 777-300s but UltimoPlus, it is not. RomanceOfTravel (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe RomanceOfTravel is correct in this analysis. (I've taken the liberty of, unusually, correcting a couple of typos in your statement above - just revert me if you think this was unjustified!) Alice^✉ 16:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will change the name to Ultimo to make it more accurate. Thanks for the explanation. Besancon (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to this article's discussion page! Alice^✉ 08:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

World's largest airline by market capitalisation?

moved from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlice&diff=180363685&oldid=180354508 to this more appropriate venue I recently restored some sourced speculation and User:WhisperToMe was kind enough to respond on my talk page, thus:

Why the edit doesn't belong there

Okay, regarding the Air China lead not lasting:

• Even with a source, you still have to state who believes that the Air China lead may not last? To not provide the "who" may imply POV
• Even then, remember that the article is mostly about SQ, so you can say Air China took the lead, but does speculation about Air China belong there?

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in principle, with your first point. However, I think we should assume that some of our readers are perceptive enough to follow the cited reference to the cited International Herald Tribune article dated 11 October 2007, entitled: Around the Markets: Airlines Face Challenges at http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/11/business/sxasia.php and read that this is their opinion.

As to your second opinion, then I have no strong feelings one way or the other but this is a better forum to discuss the contents of the article and achieve a consensus than my talk page.

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to raise both these issues and I hope you will forgive the impertinence of bringing the discussion here? Alice^✉ 05:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that line certainly belongs here. Singapore Airlines has, for quite some time, been known for being large on a market capitalisation basis, albeit in later years Southwest became larger. Air China's sudden upswing is still relatively unknown (just check around current media articles), so it does serve a purpose to highlight that for now, especially when the referenced source also states that the phenomena may be temporary. When things become more stabilised later, the sentence can always be cleaned up.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice, please be careful using the International Herald Tribune as a reputable source, as if you refer to [this edit], it is disputed by Huaiwei that the IHT is a reputable source on matters relating to whether SIA is a subsidiary of Temasek (meaning that Temasek is the parent company of SIA) (and even though dozens of other media sources state exactly the same thing), so I can't see how the IHT could be seen as a reputable source of information on matters relating to Air China, particularly when info on the parent company is current, and info on Air China is merely speculative. --Russavia (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, Russavia. I agree that it is better to consider multiple sources. I do not have an informed opinion one way or the other as to the ultimate ownership issue; sometimes accountants are (need to be?) very crafty for reasons of tax avoidance, etc. Alice^✉ 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Frequent Flyer

Hi, I've edited the frequent flyer portion to remove the ad flavour. Pls comment. For the rest of the article, my feel is that it is not sufficiently summarised. There is a lot of information that is at risk of becoming a red herring and not do justice to the entire article. Just a thought. mark (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This sounds rude and dismissive, but I feel that the frequent flyer section now sounds less like an advert because your edits have almost entirely removed the benefits of membership. One could have achieved the same results by removing the section entirely.

I think editors need to decide whether our readers are interested in what benefits this program offers and whether it is useful to include sufficient information for comparison with other FFPs. If it is, then your edits should be reverted and if it isn't, then the section can be deleted (or de-merged). Alice^✉ 20:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Elite Silver/Gold are now linked to Star Alliance#Premium_status, which explains the perks, and I've added two sentences that explain what PPS/Solitaire PPS are about. Jpatokal (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

May want to take a look at British Airways Royalty Programme for comparison. We have to remember that the Wiki is not a website and the contents should not be promotional. There should be a reasonable degree of detail in the information on what the Krisflyer Programme is about but not to the extent of the original text which came across as promotional. mark (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Layout

Once again, I would like to make it clear that this page is way too long, disgustingly layed-out, and dominated by select editors. I have not edited this page for some time now due to the fact that this page has much ownership with select editors. Wikipedia Airlines has a prefered layout that I like to follow, and many pages now have that layout. The reason why it is preffered is that many editors have come to a conclusion that it would be the best way to layout the page. However, some pages, like Singapore Airlines, choses to be the odd one out. If I had my hands on the page for one hour, I can make wonders happen... but it is very unlikely that I will even get a second, let alone an hour!--Golich17 02:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Kindly be more specfic with your comments. What does "disgustingly layed-out" refer to? Who is "dominated by select editors" refering to? If you claim you can do "wonders", can you show us the best of your work anywhere in wikipedia to demonstrate it? As for article length, its quite funny, but since there are folks who keep insisting on deleting supplementary articles created precisely to reduce this article's length, perhaps you would like to bring this matter up to them instead?--Huaiwei 04:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the layout could be improved. Will look at the Wikipedia Airlines template later. RomanceOfTravel 08:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have edited the fleet section, and hopefully it will NOT be reverted because I try real hard to keep the airline pages looking good and CONSISTENT. This page puts a gap in the consistency of the airline articles. I have made the table layout more simple and more common to other fleet tables for other airlines. I would like you to implement the information I have removed into the actual fleet article, but keep this looking simple. If you choose to revert my edits without considering the changes that i've made, I will revert it back. Please discuss my edits and your theories to keeping this article simple and in a well-designed layout.--Golich17 19:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See my comments for the string of reasonings behind removing some of your rather silly edits. If you need to be reminded that dates are to be wikilinked and that you do not switch between British/American English as a deliberate move, you gotta go back to reading basic guidelines. The content which is to go into the Singapore Airlines fleet article has yet to be decided, so do not remove information from here until it appears somewhere. It is a tonne of work having to find deleted information from edit histories, thank you very much, so just as you plead for people not to remove your work due to your "sweat and toil", perhaps you may wish to exercise some consideration for others as well. Interestingly, there has been hardly any response when I called for comments over there, after so much "interest" in the last AFD. Where did all the participants go?--Huaiwei 19:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to help you merge a few things in the article for Singapore Airlines fleet in an effort to make the table and layout in the Fleet area simple and consistent with other pages. My reasoning as to having the Historical Fleet near the bottom is because it does not have as much significance to the fleet than what they have at this time. Also, the reason why I changed the name to "Retired" is because the fleet is simply removed or sold, and bears no historical signifcance, other than the actual aircraft operated. I renamed the Current Fleet area to Passenger because the fleet does operate with passengers, but Current is fine too, but the word "fleet" can be omitted since it is a sub-section to the fleet section. The registrations and engine types need to go, meaning move them to the Singapore Airlines fleet page. Also, class codes can be omitted by simply placing the words "First/Business/Economy" under the word Passengers, which generally makes everything easier to read in the table. Hopefully I can help you with these edits to make this page be the most reliable page in Wikipedia. I love to edit this article because Singapore is a very "advanced" airline. They maintain a young fleet while implementing new things to the industry. Sorry I simply edited the area without prior discussion, I just wanted to see if people liked it.--Golich17 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you've highlighted something of importance, Golich17; prior discussion will usually be better and encourage a more collegiate atmosphere more collegiality - I'm sure folks really appreciate your hard work and knowledge but it would be better to reach a consensus for any changes here first - especially when those tables are such hard work to improve incrementally. Thanks for listening! Alice^✉ 03:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I made some decent edits. I moved engine information to the Singapore Airlines fleet page and I also omitted the class codes as they are also displayed on the Singapore Airlines fleet page.--Golich17 23:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, User:Golich17, that I didn't check my link to "collegiate" more carefully - I do hope you don't think that I was implying that your edits were in any way juvenile or not thought through. (I hope the link I've changed above is now more relevant...) It's just that my understanding of Wikipedia (and I'm brand new here) was that we should co-operate and discuss any major or controversial changes to achieve consensus before we make them. I'm too stupid to comment on the merits of your changes but I just wanted to compliment you on raising your concerns on this article's discussion page rather than edit warring. Thanks again for listening! Alice^✉ 23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No harm ha ha. I did not know exactly what the word meant, and evidently I did not see the wikilink. Why thank you for your compliments and I hope to see your beneficial edits soon!--Golich17 22:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Golich17. I don't think you are new to this dispute, but I am glad that there seems to be a change in your "rules of engagement" this time, and I appreciate that. I agree that the fleet table probably looks rather untidy since it is so wide (but to be honest, it looks relatively ok on my screen coz my screen is wide enough! :D), but I still see it as a temporary measure. My personal intention is to remove the "routes" and even the "notes" column, both of which could be better presented elsewhere. Class codes should remain, because you cannot expect readers to somehow figure just what class they are, when not all aircraft offer all four classes which SIA now markets. The existance of registration numbers have been explained before: it is to distinguish between those which have derated engines and those kept as is. It also helps to identify one leased aircraft from MAS. When the B747s leave the fleet eventually, that column should hopefully look much neater progressively.--Huaiwei 01:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as a warning. This article has been a flash point for a while now. The issue is between those who are trying to preserve a common look for articles in this encylopedia and those that believe this article needs to be unique. Vegaswikian 01:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this sums up one of the primary reasons for all the bad blood motivating actions being played around over here. Suggesting that the wikiproject is attempting to "preserve a common look", while degrading others for having an agenda of keeping this article "unique" is grossly naive and a tad childish even. I do not know about the rest, but my primary effort in this article is to make it useful for all: casual, academic, technical and enthusiasts alike. Is this against the spirit of wikpiedia? I doubt so. Has the said wikiproject been merely trying to "preserve a common look"? I arent sure, when it has obviously gone beyond merely deciding on asthetics. Jesus, why does this feel kinda like a situation in Myanmar or other similar uprisings? :D--Huaiwei 01:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I strive to be perfect. When everything has some sort of commonality, it gives the impression that Wikipedia is a reliable source due to the fact that everything has a smooth, easy-to-understand layout, while still focusing on what needs to be in the article and what doesn't. The reason we make extra articles, like Singapore Airlines fleet is because we simply cannot fit the amount of desired text into a reasonable space. By removing such text (registrations and class codes), we make it easier on people who aren't aware of what the codes may be. That's why under the word passengers in the passengers column, we place small text stating the classes offered. Asterisks can be placed if there is an exception (i.e. Northwest Airlines/KLM both operate World Business Class on International routes and First on Domestic routes). I understand this article has alot to say, but at the same time we need to realize we need to manage all this information in a reasonably small space (whatever that may mean).--Golich17 20:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you aim is for the aviation-related articles to be considered a reliable source under the veneer of "professionally-consistent appearances", you will be sorely dissappointed. Many aviation experts who congregate at sites such as Airliners.net continously berate wikipedia for its less-then-perfect information. I frequently notice users, when forced to cite wikipedia, would go something like "well, this is from wikipedia, but that's the best source I could find..." or even "its from wikipedia, so be warned". Exerts arent fooled by asthetics. And if you are going to use asthetics to cover up the obvious fallacies of these articles, than you are doing a major disservice to relatively ignorant users who may assume higher reliability in these articles than they actually are. Wikipedia is not just for perfectionists. It is also for responsible educationalists.

Censorship is not the best way to educate people. You do not remove information just because you think they wont know or understand it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an encylopedia is to educate. This is not some kind of time capsule solely to capture and present stuff people already know. People do not know what flight numbers, aircraft registration numbers, and class coes mean? Explain what they are. Show them what they mean. Sometimes, less is more, but not when you need to be precise. A text which shows "F30/Y80" means nothing to folks who do not know class codes, but means something to those who do. "30/80" means nothing to everyone, laymen and experts alike.

Finally, I think it is about time people quit citing the old refrain of articles being "too long" as excuses to delete information. Please be updated and realise that article size is no longer a major technical requirement now. Exeptions have been made, and fairly often too, even amongst many of our featured articles.--Huaiwei 02:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the demon, I chanced upon this thread in airliners.net today. Check out the comments made once someone breathes the word "wikipedia". I would be ashamed to mention that I am a contributor to aviation-related articles in wikipedia, let alone mention I am part of a wikiproject attempting to "give the impression that Wikipedia is a reliable source"!--Huaiwei 14:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Woo...moments after I post this comment, that threat was already trashed. Tragic indeed.--Huaiwei 14:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with you is that you are ALWAYS negative. You never seem to agree with anyone. I read Airliners.net daily and I can give to damns what they think about Wikipedia. You need to realize that you will not always seem to get your way no matter what way you elaborate it. You continually change the subject, because you do not want to deal with criticism from other editors. Wikipedia is supposed to be a user-friendly, easy to read and understand site, while providing useful information. Class codes are NOT useful to me because i'm never going to say, "I'm sitting in Y class today!" No one says that but the airline employees, which also tend not to use that code.--Golich17 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you even give concrete evidence to support your statement that I "never seem to agree with anyone"? BTW, people who know me in real life actually often find me an exceedingly positive person. It is a pity that you should feel otherwise! :D--Huaiwei (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)