Wikipedia

Talk:Singapore Airlines/Archive 3

< Talk:Singapore Airlines
Latest comment: 4 years ago by SounderBruce in topic GA Review
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Online booking system issues

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

At 02:14, 15 July 2011 I added a new section to the modern history of this article covering issues with SIA's booking system. This edit was reverted by an unidentified user 202.156.10.15 on the ground that the edit was not notable or permanent. I have reinstated the edit on the grounds that:

a) the history covered is a significant event in the history of an airline for which customer service is a major market differentiator because the disruption has been significant. Customers have been unable to check and modify bookings; other customers have been billed thousands of dollars in error.
b) I challenge the argument that because the event is not permanent it should not be referenced in this article. The event covered in a previous section ('17 aircraft cut from fleet') is not permanent either: aircraft could be re-instated at any time.

User 202.156.10.15 please confirm that you have no connection to SIA. For the record I have no connection to any airline. Hugh Mason (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest i agree with the IP user. --JetBlast (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't. It's a notable screwup that has made the papers [1] [2] (search Google News for plenty more), and the CEO even sent an apology to all KrisFlyer members just a few days ago. Jpatokal (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with User:JetBlast it really isn't important to be noted in the airline's 'history'. Qantasplanes (Talk with me) 11:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • @Jpatokal: Now, that I can confirm. Surprise? Anyway, its just a programming glitch, we should note that last time the website went through a similar revamp, something similar happened, this has much to do with... oh, I work for SIAEC, sorry... COI. Honestly, all I can say is, programming glitch and no harm was done, not permanently as you've said. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks all for spending time to debate this. I guess my core point is that today an airline is all about maintaining quality of service and doing what it does reliably. If this was a one-day glitch in a website, fair enough. But it's far more widespread than that. It has so dented the reputation of an airline that rarely makes mistakes that its CEO was forced to make a public apology and the time taken to deliver that apology has attracted comment from market analysts. Even the CEO thinks this is notable and he's right in the midst of it. Hugh Mason (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion on this, Dave. I read loud and clear your opinion that the website glitches are not notable. Would you agree that a CEO taking the step of writing to all customers to apologise is notable? How about we record this episode in SIA's history that way? Hugh Mason (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

History section needs serious expansion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The pre-2000s history section needs some serious expansion. As it stands at the moment, it is very thin on information. I have two photos upload, one of which could probably be placed in the article, but seeing as the article doesn't even mention it, I don't see the point of putting either of these two into the article. Refer to:

Please expand the pre-2000s history section with quality information, and then perhaps add one of these 2 photos. --Russavia Let's dialogue 19:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

SIA 747 tribute site

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

SIA has a B747 tribute site http://www.siajourneys.com/ WhisperToMe (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Transpacific flights?

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Which flights of SQ are transpacific? Most of their flights to Europe and North America go due North over Siberia and North Pole. I doubt they ever flew over the Pacific at all. Leo (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made the trip to California with SQ dozens of times over the last 20 years. ICN-SFO, HKG-SFO, NRT-LAX, and TPE-LAX (no longer being flown) would usually fly a more southern route across the Pacific in order to take advantage of the prevailing winds and catch the jet stream. On the westbound return legs of those journey's they often would still fly across the Pacific although more often than not they would take the northern routing. 124.148.227.201 (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over letters to use in the fleet table

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

JetBlast (talk · contribs) and I have been having a dispute over what the abbreviation letters should be in the fleet table for number of seats in each cabin class. I think they should just be S, F, B, and E for Suite, First, Business and Economy respectively because they are the abbreviations for the names of the cabin classes. JetBlast reverted my changes here and here, claiming that the original letters are the "official fare classes." To that I say "big deal who cares?" I don't see what is wrong with having the letters correspond to the abbreviations of the names of each cabin class. That makes the most sense to me, and I don't see why there is such an attachment to using a non-sensical set of letters. Thoughts? —Compdude123 00:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont see why change them for the sake of changing them. There is nothing wrong with what is there, you hover over the fare code it tells you what type of seat it is. The majority of airline articles are like this. --JetBlast (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't really figure the issue out. One way or the other, each letter has an explanation when pointed over with the mouse. Guys, I appreciate both of you. Please stop this silly discussion.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Fine then, whatever. Perhaps there's no reason why I need to be making such a big fuss over this. Nevertheless, my preference for abbreviations remains the same. —Compdude123 17:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Nomination

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed this article has been nominated for Good Article status, however it currently has several tags identifying sections that need in-line verification and/or could use expansion. The existence of unsettled tagging is one of the quickfail criteria for GA, but I thought maybe there might be some context on if this issue was temporary? CorporateM (Talk) 04:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Title Sponsor For F1 Singapore

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is this notable? Singapore Airlines To Be Title Sponsor Of Formula 1 Singapore Grand Prix
http://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/press_release_news/ne140415/

♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 09:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I note the section in the main article: "The livery of Singapore Airlines includes the "bird" (also known as the Silver Kris) logo on the tailfin, which has remained unchanged since Singapore Airlines' inception, but the logotype and stripes used since 1972 were changed in 1988 to the ones still in use today."

I have just read "Mr SIA Fly Past", a biography of Lim Chin Beng who Managing Director of Singapore Airlines after the split from Malaysia-Singapore Airlines and who was responsible for the uniforms and the airline's logo. The book was published by World Scientific and its ISBN is 978-981-4596-44-2.

Chapter 4 page 26, on the logo, it reads "The choice- which was Mr Lim's favourite- was the distinctive silver kris, reinterpreted as a golden bird, on a dark blue tail. The distinctive dark blue and golden stripe alongside the side of the aircraft has remained pretty much the same as it was conceived and selected in 1972.

Therefore I propose that it would be clearer if the current article text above be reworded as follow:

The Singapore Airlines logo is a bird inspired by a silver kris[1] which comes from the keris, a dagger from Southeast Asia prominently featured in the region's myth and folklore. The keris is central in Singapore Airline's branding such as the Silver Kris lounge and the Kris World entertainment system.

The logo is featured on the tailfin and in the airline's collaterals and has remained unchanged since Singapore Airlines' inception from the split of Malaysia-Singapore Airlines. However the logotype and stripes underwent a minor tweak in 1987[2] "

[1] "Mr SIA Fly Past: Introducing the life and times of a legend- Lim Chin Beng- who was instrumental in the creation of Singapore Airlines" (2015) by Ken Hickson; ISBN: 978-981-4596-44-2. Chapter 4 page 26

[2] "Mr SIA Fly Past: Introducing the life and times of a legend- Lim Chin Beng- who was instrumental in the creation of Singapore Airlines" (2015) by Ken Hickson; ISBN: 978-981-4596-44-2. Chapter 4 Foreword Daetius (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Singapore Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems like somebody hacked the article overview with some unknown indian buying the airlines.

Destinations chart

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAdria_Airways_destinations

The above AFD determined that the Singapore Airlines Destinations article is to be deleted. Since it was a sub-article, it is being reproduced mostly (but not fully) in this article.

Similarly, there is a History of Singapore Airlines sub-article link in this article. Were the history sub-article ever to be deleted, Wikipedia would not be void of Singapore Airlines history but a summary of the history would then be written for this article instead of having no history.

I, personally, feel that the sub-article is long enough that it qualifies as a sub-article and then the large chart would not be in this article. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Krisflyer data leak and the seatback-camera covers

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Two points need clarifying in the article;

  • In 2018 Krisflyer frequent flyer customer database became partially compromised, with thousands of accountholders data being leaked, including some residential and billing details, but also in terms of past travel itineraries. It was a relatively minor leak globally speaking, but then again, given the size and population of Singapore, it`s actually quite huge.
    • Sorry, the news reports were not only of the data being leaked, but also airmiles were stolen and laundered on the darkweb. Apparently, the cybercriminals somehow managed to steal the digits and then (like money laundering or "fencing" stolen goods, they sold them at auction to perhaps unsuspecting bidders)160.86.225.226 (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The seatback camera uproar is back in the news this week, and Singapore Airlines has announced that some sort of (lense?) cover is being readied to resolve that potential "privacy" problem.160.86.225.226 (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Singapore`s CNA news noted (May 15) that a statement from Panasonic clarifies that the cameras are in fact connected, but the (entertainment?) system has not yet "enabled" the cameras; no talk of covers.

In-flights services: incredibly over-detailed

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was reading part of the Suites subsection and thinking: why is there *so* much detail here? And it just goes on and on thru the classes. Surely the incredible amount of detail is unjustifiably excessive. Boscaswell talk 10:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Singapore Airlines/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 07:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


I'm afraid I will have to quick fail this GAN, as the article is far away from meeting GA standards. See the comments below:

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 20, 2020, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article mixes promotional language and awkward, un-cohesive prose that is hard to read.
2. Verifiable?: Many paragraphs lack inline citations, and the citations used elsewhere are heavily reliant on primary sources from the airline themselves or substandard sources like blogs and semi-clickbait news websites.
3. Broad in coverage?: The history section has been split away, but a summary-style section has not be re-added to the parent article.
4. Neutral point of view?: As stated above, this goes uncomfortably into promotional territory.
5. Stable?: Recent spam issues aside, this article seems to attract regular vandalism and would need to be under protection.
6. Images?: Heavy on the planes, but not much for the headquarters, flight branding, or facilities in general.


When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— SounderBruce 07:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singapore_Airlines/Archive_3&oldid=1177859701"