Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Singapore Changi Airport
Status	Closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Thadius856
Parties involved	Jpatokal, Huaiwei, DB, Thadius856, Betacommand, Rifleman 82, Heligoland, le petit vagabond, wangi, physicq210
Mediator(s)	User:Chacor, User:Hunterd
Comment	Recently Closed

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Singapore Changi Airport]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Singapore Changi Airport]]

Request Information[edit]

Request made by: thadius856_talk 23:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Singapore Changi Airport, Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

Who's involved?

Jpatokal, Huaiwei, DB, Thadius856, Betacommand, Rifleman_82, Heligoland, le petit vagabond, wangi, physicq210

What's going on?

A long-winded dispute over whether or not to keep the name in all five languages within the first sentence of the lead, which I'm afraid might turn sour and lead to personal attacks sooner rather than later. The discussion has been on-going for about 5 weeks as of this writing without any meaningful consensus and is currently hovering around the 35kb mark. I have tried to get some outside opinions from other users and admins who have not contributed to the article, but they seem too squeamish to jump into the fray.

What would you like to change about that?

Some outside feedback would be a very nice thing. I personally feel that some contributors, who will of course remain nameless, seem to be getting overly attached to the article due to massive contributions and have lost sight of the overall picture. I fear that I may have gotten overly involved myself, though I can't be sure, so it's best to be safe and ask advice for all of us.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

It is likely best to be done in the public view.

Mediator response[edit]

I'll have a look at the details shortly. For the sake of clarity, I am Singaporean, but to my knowledge have never touched the article on Changi Airport. I have asked for a second mediator to avoid any possible claims of bias. – Chacor 09:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers[edit]

Here are the options I see today, although only the second can be seen as a compromise:

1. Keep all languages listed in the first sentence. (That is, status quo.)
2. Keep English and Chinese, remove Malay and Tamil from first sentence. Keep all languages in infobox.
3. Remove all alternate languages, keep them in the infobox. (The original change proposal.)

Unfortunately I don't think the compromise is going to satisfy anybody, as one of the main reasons for keeping things as is seems to be that all four official languages deserve to be listed prominently, and listing only Chinese would elevate that language above the rest. Jpatokal 11:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd think that "Remove all alternate languages, keep them in the infobox" would be more of a compromise, at least if you consider the other end of the spectrum to be "Remove all alternate languages, remove them from the infobox". Regardless, I'm sorry to say that I get the same feeling as you, Jpatokal, in that there isn't much of any other compromise viable and available (that we've found so far). thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 02:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think option three is fair, as this is the English Wikipedia, not the Chinese, Malay, etc. etc. version of WP. Keep the alternatives in the infobox. Another reason for this is that, as was stated by someone else, the alternate language versions are merely translated versions of the English name, and therefore do not provide any extra information to the non-traveling reader. However, for the reader who is traveling, then the translations are in the infobox. The Duke of Mediation Cabal/Cases 10:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds only fair to me, considering Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Thanks for jumping into the fray, Hunter. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 16:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on option 3. As has already been mentioned, this is the English Wikipedia. If all official languages should be included, where should the line be drawn? As I mentioned before, some countries have quite a few, so that would imply that every single one needs to be in the opening sentence. DB (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

</indent> It seems that we've reached the end of this case's usefulness as its growing stale without new comments and having reached a general agreement with all involved parties who have responded. Would it be safe to assume that since participation in this mediation is voluntary, we've reached the 22 day mark, and all parties have been notified of this case's existence that we've established consensus on the matter? If so, it'd be awfully nice to close it before we've reached the month-old mark. Any objections? thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 04:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh my God! I won! lol. The Duke of Mediation Cabal/Cases 22:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I'd like to help out with this case. This will be my first mediation, so you'll have to walk me through it, but I'm happy to help and in know way have a care about Changi Airport, so I am free of bias (in theory). The Duke of Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all parties, could you please indicate your stand regarding the dispute, and why you think the names should stay/go? I'd also appreciate if the parties did not reply or hit out at others, this is purely for the mediators to get a sense of where this dispute currently stands. Thanks. – Chacor 02:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence to support the listing of (just) the English and Chinese names in the lead, and the other official names in the infobox/footnotes. However no compelling reason has been given to do so, and standard practise on other Singapore related articles is to have all the official languages in the lead. I do not see this as an urgent need for mediation, nor a barrier on getting the Singapore Airport article to FA status. Thanks/wangi 05:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I was the one who unwittingly stepped into this little hornet's nest. My stand on this specific case remains the same as it was on day one: the huge list of names makes the lede illegible and does not provide any critical information, thus going against WP:LEAD. In addition, as the alternate names are already listed in the airport infobox, which has a standard place for this kind of info, there is no compelling reason to duplicate them in the lede.

For the overall case, I think the practice of having all four official languages in the lede makes many other Singapore articles equally illegible and have suggested that, when no suitable generic infobox exists, a Template:Koreanname-style infobox be created for storing this info. Most of the time, including Changi Airport, the names in alternate languages are just word-for-word translations and provide no interesting etymological or historical information. (Exceptions, like Tekka Market, should be treated on a case-by-case basis.)

I agree with wangi that this is fairly a trivial issue, but since a lot of virtual ink has already been wasted, we might as well bring it to a formal conclusion and actually settle it. Jpatokal 07:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting for readability...

I stumbled upon the article somewhat by accident. From the moment I saw it, the length of the lead has always bugged me. Aside from recent bloat the lead has gained, it has always (as long as I've worked on it) had the languages in both the lead and the infobox. While the lead obviously needs some trimming (per WP:LEAD), the alternative languages were the first thing that struck me as needing to go.

Would this increase readability any? Yes, I think so. Does it remove the names from the page entirely? No, they'd still be present in the infobox at the very top of the page. Do the names in other languages provide any other useful information about the airport (other than its other names, of course)? I can't say as they do.

It seems that some of us may have taken ownership over the article and thus become so familiar and protective of the article that we've missed the ultimate goal — to improve the article. While there's a fair amount of WikiLawyering going on, thankfully it hasn't turned into an edit or revert war. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just stumbled on this article and I have always had a problem with the lead sections of many Wikipedia articles and their inaccessibility. This article seems like one of the worst examples I have seen. I would plead with everyone on all sides to try to come to some compromise which will improve the readability. I do not know what languages and texts should be kept in the first sentence, aside from English. I would suggest that only one language besides English be retained in the first sentence for readability. The others can be found in the information box or relocated lower in the text.--68.49.201.13 02:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per User:Hunterd's suggestion:

• "I think option three is fair, as this is the English Wikipedia, not the Chinese, Malay, etc. etc. version of WP. Keep the alternatives in the infobox. Another reason for this is that, as was stated by someone else, the alternate language versions are merely translated versions of the English name, and therefore do not provide any extra information to the non-traveling reader. However, for the reader who is traveling, then the translations are in the infobox. The Duke of Mediation Cabal/Cases 10:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case closed by The Duke of Mediation Cabal/Cases 10:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]