User talk:Optakeover/Archive/2014/March

Lesvos insted of Lesbos
Good afternoon sir I am just trying to correct something for the sake of my homeland I changed the name of the islasn from Lesbos to Lesvos beacause in greek the name is pronounced as Lesvos ( in greek 'Λέσβος') and not as Lesbos which in greek is 'Λέσμπος'. I think it's important to make this differentiation for the sake of naming our island with the proper name that has been for more than 2500 years. Sincerely yours Ioannis Sitaras — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioansita (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Ioansita, thank you for helping to improve Wikipedia, and thank you for your message. I understand what you are trying to do. However, Lesbos is the English spelling and pronunciation of the name. We have already written the Greek word and pronunciation at the beginning of the article (Lesbos (Greek: Λέσβος, Lesvos; Greek pronunciation: [ˈle̞zvo̞s]), which is good. But as this is English Wikipedia, and "Lesbos" is the English word for "Lesvos", the English one should be used. Please read Talk:Lesbos and GREEK to find out why the English version "Lesbos" should be used. Optakeover  (Talk)   15:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edits on SIA
I've reverted your own reversions, since they don't add any content and is superfluous to the understanding of SIA. An inclusion of a haven't-taken-off SIA-Tata venture (which in the saturated Indian market - may break anyday despite them getting approval already), is like including the same numerous ventures that AirAsia is going into with all the other airlines. Not to mention it's quite hilarious that the venture was actually added when SQ's former involvement in ANZ and current involvement in Virgin Australia.

You might want to note such poor edits (the quality of the sentence was rather poor for a Wiki article) - are usually done by people in the South Asian subcontinent which only persist on adding content tangentially related to the article but focusing on stuff originating from the sub-continent - like the TATA ventures or what not, which are written poorly (lack of capitalisation, etc) - evident in many other articles too, that I might have edited out before, or not depending on time constraints.

Also removed the addition on "national football team" - AFAIK, SQ doesn't sponsor the football team at all.

Regards
 * Hi Tingmelvin. I am confused on your statement regarding the content's notability. I don't get how it is superfluous to the understanding of SIA, as this piece of information clearly talks about SIA's recent business actions. It also concerns two very large and very notable organisations: Singapore Airlines and Tata Group, which is not the same as AirAsia and its dealings. There have been multiple news reports on this business deal (of which satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources, including 1, 2 and 3, all of them written independently by different people). As far as I am concerned, the text in the article you removed satisfies WP:NOTABILITY, and I understand what you think about it not having taken off yet, but since it has been formally announced and verifiable sources exist that talks about it, it passes WP:CRYSTALBALL; indeed if the business deal fails, then it is right that in future it could be written that the deal had failed, but either way, this deal would have started from this point anyway; if it is notable to talk about it then, it should be now, especially because it has been documented in reliable sources. Thus, this subject satisfies WP:ORIGINAL. As such, I do not understand your sentiments regarding the removed information, because clearly it has weight from independent, reliable sources, and the fact that it is a deal that concerns two extremely important and notable organisations. Optakeover  (Talk)   17:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have just taken a look at your latest edits. Thank you for keeping and improving the information you originally removed. I hope you understand my point of view. Optakeover  (Talk)   18:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, I understand where you are coming from, but my reasoning for removing that is because using such a reasoning would have virtually allowed people around here to add everything into the intro paragraph, which was to give people an overview of SIA. By that argument, SIA's Boeing 787-10 first customer launch, its former involvement in Ansett & ANZ (which I mentioned above), current involvement in Virgin Australia (part of Virgin Group, a notable organisation) should be included (WP:DUE?, don't think it's more of WP:NOTABILITY). Anyway, in future, it would be appreciated if you did a simple edit to source the article rather than just providing the link in your revert. However given that the style of writing was haphazard and does not flow from the rest of the intro, I suspected WP:PROMO too and so I removed it since it was already covered below, hence removing any possibility that undue weight has been given to the venture in the intro, while other equally significant events aren't covered. To combat any future confusions though, I might change around some stuff in the article to make the delineation clearer (ie the intro paragraph, History vs Future - including Tata, B787-10 launch customer, A350?) and include more of SIA's History pre-2000 to make the article easier to read and easier to see what's should be included where, but anyway, thanks for providing your POV. Tingmelvin (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am a vandalism patroller most of the time, I usually don't stay around to improve recent edits, although I try to do so whenever I see the absolute need to. I understand your worry that it'll allow people to post indiscriminately, but that's where WP:NOTABILITY comes in: this is a test for whether something can be included in Wikipedia, but it's not the rigid following of this rule, but through the eventual discussion and community consensus that determines how this guideline applies in not only this, but every other situation. Precedence is never set, that's why you shouldn't think so squarely that a prior decision or lack of action means acceptance as how things should or must be done. Additionally, it is exactly as per your point that dealings with Virgin should be included, as far as I see, especially when it has already been formally announced. You know, does such deals happen so often that we are spoilt for choice with the number of SIA dealings to add to Wikipedia? And finally, yes, I do assume good faith, and I don't write off content on grounds of disruptive activity too quickly. Optakeover  (Talk)   06:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)