Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Singapore Airlines[edit]

Resolved:
Closed as stale.
This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

Involved parties[edit]

  1. Russavia (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Huaiwei (talk · contribs)
  3. Jpatokal (talk · contribs)
  4. Vegaswikian (talk · contribs)
  5. Butterfly0fdoom (talk · contribs)
  6. Hawaiian717 (talk · contribs)
  7. Yilloslime (talk · contribs)
    Colonel Warden (talk · contribs)
    Golich17 (talk · contribs)
  8. RomanceOfTravel (talk · contribs)
    Dave1185 (talk · contribs)
  9. Planenut (talk · contribs)
    SQKevin (talk · contribs)
    Sq a380 (talk · contribs)
  10. Mcarling (talk · contribs)
  11. MilborneOne (talk · contribs)
  12. WhisperToMe (talk · contribs)

Articles involved[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted[edit]

Issues to be mediated[edit]

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Temasek Holdings is added as the parent company of Singapore Airlines, along with multiple, reliable, verifiable sources, which is removed, and has been continually removed since 12 months ago.
  • The inclusion of lists of flight numbers has been discussed at WP:AIRLINES which an editor refuses to recognise that concensus has been reached for its removal and continually adds back in this list.
  • There is concensus on WP:AIRLINES that articles should not list destinations covered by codeshare agreements, but only the airlines with which the airline has codeshare agreements with. When removed, this is reverted.
  • There is concensus on WP:AIRLINES that sprawling lists of aircraft registrations, as can be seen at Singapore Airlines fleet, are more aircraft-spotter orientated, and are not encyclopaedic so not suitable for Wikipedia. There is agreeance within the project that some fleets are notable and may require additional information to be provided (such as Western Pacific Airlines), but concensus is that Singapore Airlines does not have a notable fleet which requires sprawling lists.
  • It is my opinion (and perhaps others also) that these articles are too promotional in flavour, and perhaps this is due to the over-existence of references to the airline itself, and also sources which are either commercial or don't fit the definition of a reliable source, and perhaps this needs to be looked at also, if editors as a whole think this should also be included?

Additional issues to be mediated[edit]

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

Parties' agreement to mediate[edit]

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Disagree. Россавиа Диалог 23:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Agree. Note: Do to personal issues, my computer time will be extremely limited over the next 3 weeks, so I may not be able to participate much. Yilloslime (t) 00:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Agree. Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Agree. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Agree. Jpatokal (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Agree. Huaiwei (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Agree. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. Agree. Planenut (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. Agree. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. Agree. Mcarling (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. Agree. RomanceOfTravel (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Note: Apologies for the late reply, however I am willing to go forth as long as we stay on the issues and put aside "feelings" and "emotions" which are irrelevant and should be suppressed.
  13. Disagree. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
Note: In the party list above, I have indented four users who are relatively inactive in editing Wikipedia. This is merely to signify that while they are more than welcome to take part in this mediation, their failure to note agreement will not be a barrier to the Committee accepting this case. While normally all parties need to agree, given the large number of parties in this case, a diverse enough range of views will be present and it can be presumed that more recent debate has not included the users I indented. Therefore, if the acceptance of Colonel Warden (talk · contribs), Golich17 (talk · contribs), and Dave1185 (talk · contribs) is received, this case will be accepted. I encourage one of the parties to go and ask these users to note whether they agree or disagree to mediation as soon as possible, so that this request can be actioned. In the mean time, this request will be extended for a reasonable period beyond the seven days (which expires tomorrow) to try and get an explicit response of "agree" or "disagree" given the large number of parties.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Upon a study of the last 500 contributions by Golich17 and Colonel Warden, I have indented their names on the list of parties as they haven't been significantly involved recently. As above, these users are free to agree and join the mediation at any time, but if they don't it won't prevent this case from being opened. The only signature therefore required is Dave1185 (talk · contribs), who from recent contributions has been significantly involved.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I have indented Dave1185 per his comment here; the same provision about being free to join mediation at a later date noted above applies.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Accept.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)