Talk:Changi

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Changi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/content/company_info/careers/AirlineGroundPositionFAQ.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100123000209/http://infopedia.nl.sg:80/articles/SIP_245_2004-12-15.html to http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_245_2004-12-15.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of notable attraction in article
Several unregistered users have made a series of edits on the article to which I find the edits questionable. This include the removal of the section on attractions in Changi. These attraction are notable within Changi, Singapore and should be mentioned in the article. The WP:NOTTRAVEL has stated that "Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria" thus it further supports the inclusion of such contents on the Changi page. I am hoping to seek third party views on the issue and resolve it civilly. I have also raised the issue to WP:3O. If you are the unregistered user do come forward to reason the edits made. Greateasterner (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The very title of the section is problematic. Encyclopaedia articles do not list attractions. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. The places concerned may warrant a mention somewhere in the article; a list in a section called "attractions" is clearly not encyclopedic.
 * Additionally, the items themselves are extremely badly written, with grammatical errors aplenty, unidiomatic phrasing, simply lazy use of contractions, and unnecessary use of HTML markup
 * Finally, "infamously" is not neutral, bold face was incorrectly used, and "continues to be" instead of "is" is pointlessly verbose. No reason was given for restoring those errors to the article. 82.132.220.32 (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The title is not problematic, they are for lack of other terms, an attraction is an attraction. If attraction is a wrong word to attribute to the section, feel free to change or seek consensus. Abrupt removal of entire section is not the current consensus now. For the need of copyediting, do feel free and help to copyedit the article. Also, negative connotations are acceptable if they are reliably sourced and is a commonly held view. I had edited it away with edit summary indicating the rationale. Your edit summary needs to be clearer on the rationale behind your changes. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The use of the word 'attraction' is neutral for any reasonable tourist destination, as long as we avoid writing like an advertisement. A lot of this article needs clean up. For example, there is a list of hotels that doesn't provide any pertinent information. I do agree with the removal of "infamously" and "continues to be", as those are needless editorializations. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)