Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Singapore/2012 archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grace Fu

Hello all, there is an ongoing dispute on the article on Grace Fu. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Grace Fu. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Fighting from a different timezone..... But looks like we are too late to get involved.Zhanzhao (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
No, the dispute is ongoing. I have responded to your comment on the discussion page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Lonelydarksky

Hello! Today I would like for you to honor the hard work of User:Lonelydarksky, a Singaporean Wikipedian fluent in English and Mandarin Chinese - He helped translate Chinese sources in order to help me prove the notability of Qian Zhijun and improve related articles. His works have been enormously helpful, and I gave him a barnstar in light of these efforts. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) contact me (聯絡) 05:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome - You earned it.
I want future Wikipedians to learn from example that if there are issues regarding notability of a subject from a society that is not English-speaking, it would be in your interest to not only say "But X sources show he's notable" - Find a person who understands the language, find sources that are in that language, and then ask him or her to help (please don't make him or her do all the work, but do as much as you can, and ask him or her to assist you) you prove and show it. Write the sections and show them in the AFD/DRV/whatever discussion. That way everyone can see what the article would look like, and what the sources involved are.
Also, in general, if you put hard work and effort into your efforts to prove the notability of a subject, you are more likely to prove the notability of your article subject. Even though, as a user pointed out, hard work does not automatically mean that a proposed article will be kept (Notability and verifiability are the guiding criteria) I believe there is a strong correlation between hard work and success.
If/when your efforts do pay off (or even if they don't), do not hesitate to show gratitude towards the person who assisted you. The English Wikipedia benefits from having people from many cultural, national, and ethnic backgrounds, and promoting international cooperation and friendship is the strength of the English Wikipedia and all Wikimedia Foundation projects. If people like your efforts and award you barnstars, etc., say "Thank you, but also honor so-and-so because his/her help was instrumental in me proving X's notability"
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Good work, Lonelydarksky! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-write of Vivian Balakrishnan

Hi all, I came upon this article last night and rewrote parts and sections to properly address WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:UNDUE issues with the biography article. As per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, articles on living persons should be written conservatively and dispassionately, and should not read like tabloid news.

My edits are open to review by interested users, and I welcome help with developing this article. This article is currently placed on article probation due to previous disputes. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Names of article subjects in Chinese

I think it would make sense and save lead paragraphs of articles from clutter to decide whether to use simplified or traditional Chinese characters instead of including traditional and simplified characters, along with pinyin and wade-giles. Comments? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the Singapore has adopted simplified mandarin we should do the same thing as well and not use traditional characters. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 14:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Singapore may officially have adopted Mandarin, but it's not the native dialect for the vast majority of Singaporean Chinese and their names reflect that. Mandarin plus dialect transcriptions are thus usually necessary. Wade-Giles isn't, but (AFAIK) we already don't use it.
One thing we should do, though, is stop duplicating information: eg. Lee Hsien Loong has his Chinese name repeated both in the lead and in a separate box. The box alone should suffice. Jpatokal (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment at Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore's ongoing peer review!

Fellow SGpedians, I humbly present my latest contribution to this project, an article about the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore! MINDS turns 50 this year and getting their article to GA status would be a great way to appreciate their support of intellectually disabled Singaporeans. Could you support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by commenting at the article's ongoing peer review? Hope you enjoy reviewing this short, but interesting, article, as much as I enjoyed writing it. Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Old Changi Hospital

Old Changi Hospital is listed as an article to create on the notice board, but Changi Hospital is already an existing page. Can this be removed? Chocohall (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if they are the same, then they should be removed. You can also re-title the article if you feel that Old Changi Hospital is more appropriate. See Wikipedia:Article titles for more information. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • List of hospitals in Singapore#Defunct Hospitals
  • Changi Hospital was renamed within Singapore Government gazette as the old Changi Hospital after the merger with Toa Payoh Hospital, following its subsequent move to the new location as Changi General Hospital (aka New Changi Hospital) in 1997. As such, I'm going to create a redirect of Old Changi Hospital to the former and New Changi Hospital to the latter, hope this will help to clear up the confusion here. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds excellent, thanks for taking care of this. Chocohall (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight to ministerial salary

There has been a bit of a storm in a teapot over variants of the following sentences in Lee Hsien Loong, a biographical article about the present prime minister of Singapore. The current proposal reads:

As of 2012, Lee has a salary of S$2.2 million (US$1.7 million) a year.[1] Despite a 28% pay cut, described by the Wall Street Journal as a post-election response to "public discontent over ministerial wages"[2], Lee remains the highest-paid premier in the world.[3]

One side is arguing that inclusion of this in any form anywhere in the article is WP:UNDUE, because "there is no place in the article for a view that is either out of context or insignificant in the longer scheme of things", "UNDUE because this incident does not pertain to LHL specifically", and -- my personal favorite -- "impertinent". (See the talk page for full context.) I, obviously, think this is poppycock, as this is thoroughly and reliably sourced, a majority view (in fact, pretty much the sole view, as I'm unable to find any other theories for why the salary was cut), and directly relevant to the person whose salary is being cut on his own instructions. But additional opinions would be very welcome, either here or on the talk page in question. Jpatokal (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than spending so much time fighting to get that mention in, why not make your time more constructive and use it to beef up the existing 2012 Ministerial salary cut article, then linking from the Lee article to that more relavent one? It seems that you seem to be particular hard-up on highlighting and drawing particular attention to this issue. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

MRT Station Article Progress

Since the other section is getting really cluttered, I decided to create a new section for the progress of the clean up exercise. Please have a look and let me know what more can be added to improve them. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 01:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Completed

Ok. Seletar is in disruptive editing mode. He keeps reverting my edits and he has so far not popped by this talkpage to explain his motives despite being invited over. ANI? - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 11:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Jpatokal has left him a warning on his talk page. If he continues to revert without discussion, he may be blocked. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I left another message on his talk page. He seems very ignorant to the improvement edits and continues to add duplicate information. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 07:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I will take a short hiatus. Work cropping up in the office. Can't do much edits for the next month or so. Hopefully one of you will continue to spearhead this. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 05:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Remy Ong

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hey guys, Please help to keep an eye on vandalism on his page due to a very recent incident! Thanks! --Xaiver0510 (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected till 22 February. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General elections articles

This concerns the three articles listed below. I propose renaming them to "Singapore general election, (<year>)".

There are precedents for this as well. For instance, all the UK elections are individually titled as United Kingdom general election, 2010, United Kingdom general election, 2005, United Kingdom general election, 2001 and so on. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure. "United Kingdom" is not a very good comparator because there is no distinct adjectival form of the term (like *United Kingdomish). On the other hand, if you look at categories relating to other countries, you will see that the adjectival form is often used. See, for example, "Australian federal election, 2010" and "German presidential election, 2010". — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Or United States presidential election, 2008, United States presidential election, 2004. Looks like we don't have a standard. I would personally prefer these articles to have the year before the name, like: "2011 Singapore general elections" etc, so we can get rid of the commas. With regard to the UK, I think they may have a reason or two for not using "British general election". — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Because "United Kingdom" ≠ "Great Britain", probably. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Media

Hello, all. Since November 2010 I have been involved, with help from a few other editors, in curtailing disruptive editing taking place on various articles pertaining to Singaporean media. Initially the dispruption consisted of date linking and extreme over-linking by anonymous IPs. These IPs are very dynamic and the individual(s) behind the IPs never responded to any attempts at establishing a dialogue. There was a brief attempt at editing from registered accounts to circumvent page protection until it became apparent, I assume as there have been no more instances, that blocking registered accounts restricted their activities.

The IPs have recently avoided the date linking/overlinking disruption and have been resorting to list bloating and insertion of unsourced text that appears to be machined translated. The current trend avoids the more egregious disregard for WP:MOS compliance but appears just as disruptive.

I give you this background to explain my motivation for asking if there could exist a consensus that these articles be indefinitely semi-protected. Definite semi-protection periods have been effective in the short term and my only motivation in requesting opinion on the change to indefinite is that this disruption is apparently not going to cease. I understand that it is very possible that my stance on this matter is not shared by a majority, or even a few, of my fellow editors and am willing to abide by any consensus reached here. That includes accepting any consensus that my actions with regard to these articles to date have been unwarranted and a willingness to step away from the articles if the community feels that necessary.

The list of the articles and their links can be found here. Thanks for your time Tiderolls 15:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Singaporean by-election, 2012

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Following discussions, article was deleted and then subsequently restored.

I see someone has created the article already. The by-election is not confirmed when and may not even happen. AfD or article rename? --Xaiver0510 (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think an AFD would make sense here. Care to do the honours? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Done. My first nomination after so long. lolx. Hope I did it correctly =P --Xaiver0510 (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
You did, and after 6000+ edits, you better. :p — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A deletion review is being made on the AFD, appreciate your comments on it again. Deletion Review. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odex

Hi all, I'm currently working on the "Odex" article, and it's a part of the WikiProject Anime and Manga. It's a somewhat controvesial topic especially for the Singapore anime community and that's why I think it's a good place to start a Wikipedia project, since it has an impact on privacy and copyright laws too. There's a page on Odex's actions against file-sharing and it's promoted to Good Article and I hope I can make this article to at least a B class article. I'm still a new Wikipedian so please let me know if I made any mistakes. Please send me a talk in the Odex's talk page or my talk page if you have any suggestion or interested in this project, thank you.--Vaktug (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Walter Woon/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Article has been rated GA.

I recently completed a review of Walter Woon for GA status, but the nominator has been off Wikipedia for a few weeks now, and nobody has picked up the review. It won't take much work for it to pass, but I'll have to fail it if nobody does anything for a few more days. As this article is relevant to this project, I hope somebody heeds the call. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I handled this since I did a major expansion of the article a while back, though I wasn't the GA nominator. Anyway, the article is now GA. Yay! — Regards, Truth's Out There (speak the truth) 18:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Singapore Schools

I can't understand why the schools have been decided to delete. If it is feasible for deletion, it could have moved everything to Singapore Schools Wikia, together with the Malaysian schools that some had been deleted. Wish that every school that is not-notable need to be transferred. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

MRT Article/MRT Station Articles - Incidents & Other Bits N Bobs

Hi,

I have been reviewing the 100+ MRT Station articles and I noticed that quite a significant amount of incidents which are newsworthy but otherwise not notable have been posted. Examples include minor issues of trains breaking down (not the major disruption), owls in the station, gas leak (unless it's a sarin gas attack it's probably not notable).

On to other bits and bobs; there is a significant amount of original research in all the articles. This definitely goes against one of the five pillar policies - WP:NOR. I have been cleaning up the articles bit by bit more I would definitely appreciate additional help. For the time being, I'm going to let some of it slide but I'm removing information that goes against WP:NOTGUIDE which covers the list of shops and nearby facilities which are not notable. Please chime in and share your thoughts. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 13:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, all these station articles will be differentiated between Wikipedia (with foreign talents) and I hope you understand.Wikia (localised). Those on SGTrains Wikia will be able to benefit while Wikipedia is different. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for replying but I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Please explain. My concern is only with articles on wikipedia and whether they are verifiable (WP:V) and not original research (WP:NOR). Whatever is posted on the sgtrains wikia is none of my concern. Thanks. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 17:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the more importent point to note is the policy concerning NOTNEWS and trivia, and if the content is encyclopedic. Mentioning at owls were discovered in the station IMHO should be removed based on these 3points. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Would you be so kind enough to assist me in doing the article cleanups? - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 04:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the disruptions, personally I would summarize the disruption incident into a one-two linerand add a link to the train line (either SMRT, North-South line, etc) article which already describes the disruption in detail. The disruption was a fault with the line, not the station, and to have the large chunk of identical text appearing in EVERY single station is redundant. Imagine if every airport that was affected by an airline strike had a detailed writeup of the strike in the airport's article. And strikes happen quite frequently. Ridiculous? Thats whats happening here. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind me shifting you replies up to higher levels. This is one of my concerns as well. I do feel that the incidents mentioned have to affect a large number of users. A train failure of 7 minutes also has a mention which is certainly not notable at all. There's so much redundant material being posted. I shall leave a talkback on the editors involved to get them to drop by this discussion. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 05:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the sample layout of the "ideal" MRT Station Article. Probably easier to navigate when compared to the current state of clutter. Do use generic terms. Remember it's not only for Singaporeans. The rest of the world also accesses Wiki!!!

Sample MRT Station Layout
Intro Paragraph
History
->Incidents (Assuming they are notable. Most of the stuff at the moment don't conform to WP policies)
Architecture (If any and valid - e.g. Expo Station by Sir Norman Foster)

Remember wikipedia is not a travel guide. There's wikitravel for that. So for the case Chinatown Station "This station serves the historic district of Chinatown." in the introduction paragraph. There's no need to waffle about "It is directly below and serves the district of Chinatown" and "Located in the heart of Singapore's Chinatown, there are many cultural buildings surrounding it".

Another example will be Dhoby Ghaut station which has waffle - "The Atrium @ Orchard is directly located above the station. It has 10 floors on one building and six on the other. Temasek Holdings, MTV Southeast Asia and HSBC occupy the building as its major tenants. Restaurants are located on the ground floor." Wiki is not a building directory!

A final example will be Jurong East. The whole section on nearby landmarks is redundant. These are far from notable locations as per policy. So there are a couple of articles with nearby schools and such which is very much redundant. Exceptions will be for newton circus at newton station - it has been frequently mentioned in foreign editorial material - bbc travel/cnn travel/etc - so it's so what notable. You don't see xxx primary school being mentioned as a notable place of interest. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 07:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

On the sample article layout, having sections on station layout and exits sounds too much like a directory or a guidebook to me. Also, such content is unsourced and hard to verify; it can even be considered as original research. Therefore I think it should not be included. — b3virq3b (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that these are unnecessary as per wiki guidelines as with the transport connections section but for now, it will probably be a good idea to leave them as it is instead of removing wholesale and cause an all out edit war. We will hit WP:3RR for 100+ articles in no time. In due time these can be removed but not now. Unless we have a consensus, it's not a wise move. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 12:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

We will need to have a consensus on what constitutes a NOTABLE incident. I noticed 2 updates today which focuses on a train disruption this afternoon (didn't bother to read through) but all these edits are really insignificant. Every rapid transit network in the world will have track incursions or train breakdowns no matter what. If all these bits of news are allowed on to their respective articles, London Underground will probably be bloated with news. Here's what I propose - Notable incidents like train collision (think there was one back in the early 90s) and the recent massive system failure gets included. Everything else goes. See (WP:NOT#NEWS). - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 11:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems fair to me, though I think there will always be differences of opinion about what is notable and what isn't. I agree that serious accidents, particularly if they involve severe injury or (touch wood) loss of life, are probably going to be notable (though more discussion may be required to determine if every single incident of someone jumping in front of a train needs to be mentioned). Furthermore, any incident that leads to statements from officials and debates in Parliament, or (perhaps) significant debates in the mainstream media (not just a handful of news reports in the media), may be notable. Also, in addition to the architecture of stations, notable artworks that are part of the Art in Transit programme should also be mentioned. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Referring to the wiki inclusion criteria - Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. - The news reports of misadventures on the MRT network will probably be classified as routine regardless of the severity (See: WP:ROUTINE). From my perspective, the inclusion criteria defines the parameters of what's notable and what's not and a consensus is not really needed when policy is applied. Wikinews might be a better place for such information. I agree that issues raised in parliament would be worth looking at and worth considering for inclusion. The link you shared is definitely very useful in plugging all the statements in articles with missing citations. Thanks! - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 04:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Consensus Needed:
b3virq3b highlighted that the Station Layout, Exits, Transport Connections sections do not conform to wikipedia's policies. However, I feel that a consensus is required before we enforce this ruling as a matter of formality. Please chime in and state whether you agree or disagree with reasoning to the proposed changes! Refer to the sample layout for the new revised layout which is a "radical" revision. Thanks! - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 02:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Since no one has voiced discontent. I will take it as everyone is agreeable to the proposed changes and they will be implemented. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 13:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hold your horses there, sonny, I don't see anything approaching consensus for radical changes. First, what are these "wikipedia policies" and "enforced rulings" of which you speak, and second, can you demonstrate the changes you plan to make on an actual article? Jpatokal (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
As highlighted earlier, much of the station articles are strongly focused operational data - like lunch time shuttle service, how the doors open, which side they open, service hours, last train, the platform layouts, exits & bus services - which are very much travel guide material and unencyclopedic. There was even a section on what shops were in the station; 7-11, doughnut store, cake store etc. There's insufficient useful information which has been conveniently overlooked - history/artwork/design. Don't you agree? Moreover, they have no reference sources and very much original research - e.g. perpetual updates of progress of HHSPD installations. There's so much focus on the progress that the various editors have largely ignored the reasons why these doors were installed in the first place. There's no defined standard for incidents as well, everything is classified as a "major" incident. Even a delay of 7 mins due to train failure becomes a "notable" incident. The changes to the articles as demonstrated include adopting a uniform layout for easy viewing (most of the articles at the moment have new sections just added to the bottom and not organised); adding citations to the material; adding a "Nearby Landmarks" section for notable nearby structures rather than naming every single building in that location. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 13:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
My view in a nutshell: I am OK with removing shops in stations, service hours, last trains and minor disruptions (although the bar for inclusion in an article is and should be much lower than that for a separate article). However, I am most emphatically not OK with removing station (platform) layouts, as this is about as fundamental attribute of an MRT station as it gets and of considerable interest to us anoraks who care about metros.
Also, WP:NOTTRAVEL does not wash as an argument, since none of this stuff is appropriate for Wikitravel either (it does not cover individual stations). Jpatokal (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
What would be an idea station layout for you? At the moment, there are editors who are intent on adding even miniscule detail of the platform. Compared to the Current State, will this be acceptable to you? i have omitted the doors opening/operational terminators/service frequencies. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 23:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
L1 Street Level Millenia Walk
B1 Concourse Faregates, Ticketing Machines, Station Control
B2 Platform B
{{SMRT lines|Circle}} towards  CC1  NS24  NE6  Dhoby Ghaut (←)
{{SMRT lines|Circle}} towards  CE2  NS27  Marina Bay (→)
Island platform
Platform ? Future Downtown Line platform
B3 Platform A {{SMRT lines|Circle}} towards  CC29  NE1  HarbourFront (←)
Island platform
Platform ? Future Downtown Line platform
Agree with the new layout, it's much cleaner this way. Feel that the station layout is important in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylife2702 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm also happy with this format. And sorry if I came across as snippy earlier, your efforts are appreciated and the MRT station articles will be much improved if you go through with this! Jpatokal (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
No worries. It's pretty minor when compared to the threats and harassment from the editors who have adopted the MRT articles as their "babies". I will need someone to assist with the verification of the station layouts. I just went through the edit history of Promenade and there are at least 2 distinctly different layouts. One has the platforms listed as islands the other has them listed as single platforms. I don't commute by rail in Singapore so I'm not sure which is the correct version. Thanks! - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 01:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the EMU stock pages for the MRT network? I don't seem to be able to find much reference sources for the material that is posted on those articles apart from technical specifications and documents from the Land Transport Authority of Singapore. Is anyone able to assist? - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 16:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Planenut for taking the initiative and (if I may be honest and direct) helping to get rid of all this unneeded information (operation hours, station facilities, exits, etc). To some extent, I would call for station layout to be removed too, and simplified to what you usually see on other pages, but I am comfortable with what has been suggested. If I may (and I have brought this up before a few years back), "events" like people slipping on stairs or trains being delayed by 5 minutes are non-notable, and are common-place throughout the world. And not to be insensitive, but suicides shouldn't be on the wiki either, and are unencyclopedic as well. Events like Exercise Northstar, or the recent closure of half of the NSL are more in line in what is considered significant. Thanks once again! Sandstormtalk 11:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments! I hope more editors will be able to help out as pruning 100+ articles is not an easy task - although it helps me keep my mind off work. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 16:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
it seems that Peter92542007 has been reverting my recent edits. Can someone please drop him a message? I'm in the middle of a business trip at the moment and Wikipedia is taking ages to load. Thanks! - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 10:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I let a message on the talkpage of Peter92542007 and invited him to join the discussion. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 09:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am also deciding to reorganise the bus depot information, including you need histories, the fleet information similar to all bus operators' pages. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am also would like to to take an active role in working on the articles related to Singapore's MRT system. Sni56996 (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As a guide, let's streamline the station articles to contain the following info:

  • Information in the Template:Infobox station
  • Significant architectural components
  • History (if significant enough), heritage (if any), etymology
  • Art in Transit (although I'm hesitant because every new station being built now has a new work commissioned for it. A new wiki page for the program might be in order)
  • Significant events during construction (e.g. Nicoll Highway collapse) and operation (e.g. 2012 shutdown of NSL which resulted in the CEO leaving SMRT, Excerise Northstar V, oil leak near Clementi, significant train collisions resulting in large loss of life)
  • Simple station layout as noted above
  • I'm hesitant to include connecting bus services as previous iterations of it have resulted in tables occupying half the page! Timothyhouse, if you are adding them back in, please make them as simplified as possible. Condense them into one section, and enable hiding.
  • References

I take it that we can be agreeable on this? Sandstormtalk 17:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What we should avoid
  • Minor train stoppages causing inconvenience lasting less than a few hours.
  • Small accidents causing minor injury.
  • Separate headings for platform screen doors, which can be assimilated into a history section, of which a couple of lines is sufficient (construction and operation dates). The main purpose of the doors can even be linked to here. The speeding up of construction (like in the case of the Thai girl losing her legs at AMK) would be considered significant, and lends to the argument on why these gates should have been built.
  • Connecting bus routes
  • List of nearby landmarks

I notice a few enthusiastic Wikipedians have been reversing many of Planenut's edits, please read this discussion to understand where we are coming from. Sandstormtalk 13:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I will omit the bus services as none of the information serves any encyclopedic purposes. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 09:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I suggest that artworks in MRT stations that are part of the Art in Transit programme be mentioned as well. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Am in the process of implementing the Art in Transit sections. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 09:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I am having an issue with Peter92542007 on the following pages. So far my messages left on his talkpage have all been removed. Any suggestions? ANI will probably be the last resort. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 16:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
If you have already directed Peter92542007 to this discussion and he is not responding, then I think ANI is the way to go. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I noticed most of the articles have a phrase - station managed by smrt/sbs. Do we want to keep this? - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 16:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I think do keep it as it provides a quick information on who manages it for those who are looking at a specific station. Else a mention in the infobox (if there is an appropriate parameter for it) will suffice. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I've looked at the station template and there is indeed a operator parameter. I'll definitely put this in during my edits. Thanks for the idea! Sandstormtalk 13:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Remember the SSOE as follows -

  • Incidents should be okay, as such if there is 'PSD', that means you can reduce to, constant 'number of disruptions'
  • Station layout will always be simple, but it will be different than SGWiki.
  • Nearby landmarks and facilities will never be listed, this is off-topic.
  • Bus services for all stations must be removed, because it looks like it is rubbish. It is not useful in the moment. However, transport connections under rail will stay survive.
  • Exits will always stay, however this will need to enlarge information.
  • History whereby it will need to conduct research throughout the Wheeling in the Years.

Timothyhouse1 (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, this thing has been closed. We will migrate over to Hong Kong MTR, stations; as if, are bus connections neccessary too? Timothyhouse1 (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sample MRT Station Layout
Intro Paragraph
History

Incidents (most probably u have to put 'number of incidents' in the platform screen doors)
Architecture (If any and valid - e.g. Expo Station by Sir Norman Foster)
The advanced and simple station layout
Exits

Transport Connections - Only Rail, that is useful. No rubbish please!

TODAYOnline and other websites

I have noticed that there are numerous dead links to TODAYOnline which appears to remove the content after some time of publication. I suggest that editors use webcitation.org to archive the content permanently so it can continue to support assertions on Singapore-related articles. I think we should propose the creation of a "grey list" of websites that can warn users when links to those websites which are likely to remove content in a few weeks post-publication are used. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree absolutely. Today Online articles can be archived (unlike Channel NewsAsia and Straits Times Online ones), and they should be as they expire after a while. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Foreign Sports Talent Scheme and Singapore Foreign Talent Scheme

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Deletion review of "List of Foreign Sports Talent Scheme Athletes" closed: no consensus for deletion.

I believe there is no Singapore Foreign Talent Scheme and it probably existed because of some mistake due to articles writing "... Football Association of Singapore Foreign Sports Talent Scheme ..". I intend to merge both articles but it will come off a very long article and focused on the FAS FTS only.

I am thinking of transferring the current list of athletes to List of Foreign Sports Talent Scheme Athletes and then merge the erroneously named Singapore Foreign Talent Scheme into a subsection of Foreign Sports Talent Scheme, probably just titled as Football.

Any suggestions? --Xaiver0510 (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Make sure you've got some references. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The new list List of Foreign Sports Talent Scheme Athletes has been nominated for deletion, if you have any opinion, feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Foreign Sports Talent Scheme Athletes. Thanks! -Xaiver0510 (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Member of Parliament

Should we link Singapore "Member of Parliament" to List of Singapore MPs, Member of Parliament (this is very broad though), Member of Parliament#Singapore or Parliament of Singapore?

I have seen links on different pages linking to various articles and is just thinking, should we have a consistency to link to a particular article to allow easy referencing. Any choices/opinions? of course if you have a choice of another article to link to, do share here also. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest "Parliament of Singapore#Members of Parliament", as this is where the term is most fully explained. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it should depend on the context. In some circumstances, "List of current Singapore MPs" may be more appropriate. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Bukit Timah Monkey Man

I happened to come across this page last night. Can someone acquainted with Bukit Timah investigate whether this is a hoax or not? Most of the sources either do not qualify WP:RS or are unavailable on the Internet. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment at Ya Kun Kaya Toast's ongoing peer review!

Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present my latest contribution to this project, an article about Ya Kun Kaya Toast, a Singapore-based food business! All members of this WikiProject are invited to support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by commenting at this article's ongoing peer review to help it achieve GA status! May you enjoy reviewing this short, but interesting, article, as much as I enjoyed writing it! Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Future developments in Singapore needs updating

{{Future developments in Singapore}} seems to be rather out of date ... — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

MV Dromus

I've recently created an article for MV Dromus, a Royal Dutch Shell oil tanker that was badly damaged by a fatal explosion and fire at Pulau Bukom in 1951.

There are good photos of Dromus online but I have not yet found non-copyright ones that could be copied to Wikimedia to illustrate the article. I would be grateful for any help with this.

I have pieced together a narrative of the disaster from numerous articles in The Straits Times and other newspapers but there is a degree of journalistic error in at least some of them. They don't even agree on the number of people killed: this is variously cited as 24, 25 or 27. In February 1952 the British Singaporean authorities published a judicial report into the incident. This should be a more authoritative source to use, but I have been unable to find a copy online. I would be very grateful for any help in this regard.

Three of the victims were officers and were buried at Bidadari Cemetery, but I think one of them was later exhumed and reburied in Britain. Ten of the victims were buried at the Chinese cemetery in Bukit Timah Road. I haven't found where the other victims were buried. One newspaper report suggests that 11 were never identified. It might be fitting to include photos of the graves. Please could a contributor in Singapore do this?

The Dromus disaster was in the small hours of the morning of 20 August 1951. I would be particularly glad to improve the standard of this article in time for this year's anniversary. And how might one get the article featured in the "On this day..." anniversary section of Wikipedia's main page?

Best wishes Motacilla (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this posting until now. I don't think it will be possible to obtain photographs of the graves at Bidadari Cemetery as it was entirely exhumed a few years ago. However, there is a small memorial garden which contains some of the relocated tombstones and grave markers. If you provide the names of the officers, someone might be free to go and check if they are among the retained monuments. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well done, SGpedians! 2012 has been a bumper year so far!

Records of new SGpedian GAs and FAs/FLs by year:

  • 2006: 3 GAs, 1 FA
  • 2007: 14 GAs, 1 FA
  • 2008: 22 GAs
  • 2009: 13 GAs, 2 FAs
  • 2010: 1 GA, 1 FL
  • 2011: 4 GAs, 1 FA

After producing plenty of quality articles from 2007 to 2009, we slowed down in 2010 and 2011. However, in the first six months of 2012, we had 17 GAs and 1 FA! Thanks to Smuconlaw for writing the 14 law GAs, Kaypoh for nominating them, Hildanknight (myself) for the GA Fandi Ahmad, Zscout370 for Coat of arms of Singapore (which I nominated), Thurgate for the GA HMS Prince of Wales (53) and, last but not least, Hawkeye7 for the FA Singapore strategy!

Keep up the good work and we would soon break the record of 22 GAs set in 2008! My upcoming contributions include Xiaxue (GAN awaiting second opinion), Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore (GAN on hold), Ya Kun Kaya Toast (writing in progress) and three other articles in the pipeline. We also have over 20 potential GAs nominated for the GA drive, of which I have nominated Hwa Chong Institution.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: MINDS is our 18th GA in 2012!

Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore has attained GA status, taking our 2012 GA tally to 18! I will soon withdraw the nomination of Xiaxue and nominate Ya Kun Kaya Toast. As part of the 2012 GA drive, I have decided to help polish five potential GAs written by others; the confirmed list is as follows:

Another list, of five potential GAs that I wrote or will write, will be announced later in the month, but is expected to include Xiaxue (Computing), Ya Kun Kaya Toast (Economics/Food) and Kelvin Tan (Music). The ten potential GAs will represent a wide range of Singaporean topics, as such diversity is important in the quest to counter systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: Lyo and Merly is our 19th GA in 2012!

Shortly after Singapore's GAN failed, Lyo and Merly passed, bringing our 2012 GA tally to 19 (only 4 more to breaking the record) and our total GA tally to 71! I have decided to put my GA writing on hold to focus on polishing articles written by others, as I strongly believe that their hard work should be recognised. Hence the list of potential GAs I am writing is as follows:

I have adopted Marine Parade Community Building and Singapore Dreaming, so the list of potential GAs written by others is as follows:

Of our 71 GAs, 16 were contributed by Aldwinteo, 14 by Smuconlaw and 10 by me, with several heraldry GAs written by Zscout370 and most of the remainder from Jacklee. Congratulations, AngChenrui, for joining the list, and I hope Sengkang (a very prolific DYK contributor from the era when our GA count was still single-digit) will join it soon!

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: Marine Parade Community Building is our 20th GA in 2012!

I am pleased to announce that Sengkang has joined the list of SGpedian GA writers, with his Marine Parade Community Building becoming our 20th new GA in 2012! We are only 3 new GAs away from an annual record and a review of Hwa Chong Institution is in progress. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Update: Hwa Chong Institution is our 21st GA in 2012!

1 more GA will equal the record set in 2008. 2 more GAs will break it. Ya Kun Kaya Toast, Jin Long Si Temple, Lee Choon Seng and Singapore Dreaming remain on GAN. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Visit by John Vandenberg to Singapore

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Meet-up has taken place.

Hi, all. John Vandenberg, President of Wikimedia Australia (WMAU), will be in Singapore 3–7 September 2012, and would like to meet some SGpedians. We are trying to arrange something between 4 and 6 September. If you are interested in coming, please leave a message at "Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Singapore#3-7 September 2012". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The page for discussing the meet-up, which is now slated for Tuesday, 4 September, is now at "Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 6". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Murder of Huang Na sourcing

Is it possible to get ISSNs of some of the publications mentioned at Murder of Huang Na? It seems like it may be more difficult to track down the copies without them?

Also, if any Singaporeans can get copies of the articles at libraries, it may help to keep a copy so if someone wants it, you can send it to him or her WhisperToMe (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

ISSNs? All the references are to newspaper articles (not books), which can be found through Factiva or Newspapers.SG. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh.. I was thinking they were magazine articles (magazines do have ISSNs). Anyhow it would be good to have URLs in the citations, if Factiva and Newspapers.SG have "stable URL" links available. We should try to make it as easy as possible to find the content. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Jin Long Si Temple

In case you guys missed it earlier, this article was nominated for GAN a few month ago, has been selected for deletion after a recent GA review. Unfortunately, the main contributor is no longer active in Wikipedia to comment further. -- Kulikah (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What about Hildanknight, who nominated the article for GA status and has been working on it recently? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 02:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
He's inactive since Sep 15 - no further follow-up during and after the GAN review. It would be sad to see articles contributed passionately by well regarded old timers previously, go 'stale' and eventually deleted for good next. -- Kulikah (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Have you tried e-mailing him using the "Email user" link on the toolbar at the top of his user page? By the way, I did a search on NewspaperSG for articles on the temple, and it does appear that all of them relate only to the controversy concerning the preservation of the temple. Do you think that is sufficient to establish the temple's notability? I've also left a message on the Singapore Heritage Yahoo! Group website asking if anyone is aware of reliable third-party sources about the temple. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I did not email him earlier. Just back from overseas recently when my re-activated watch bot picked up the notice just days ago. Due to personal and work commitments, I'm more of an anti-vandal cum troll patroller than a content contributor here. I drop a note here quickly so that some concerned SGpedians could follow-up on this case asap. Good luck! -- Kulikah (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been informed that a book has been written about the temple, so I've mentioned this on the deletion review page as this may indicate that the temple is notable. However, I've not had a chance to read the book (and may not have time to do so for a while). Help from other editors is welcome. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Minutes of Meetup 6

I just put these up. Feel free to comment and correct. We should also start planning Meetup 7. Francis Bond (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. I was led here by John and he informed me that a meetup in October is being planned. Since I'm visiting Singapore in October, will it be all right if I join all of you for your seventh meetup? It would be my pleasure (and my honor) to meet local Wikipedians. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll be there, FB.Ordinary Person (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Please indicate your interest, the dates when you are free, and what you might like to do or talk about at "Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 7". Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The meetup date is October 31. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for Meetup 7

Hi guys. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the attendees and organizers of the seventh Singapore Wikipedians' meetup for a wonderful time sharing stories and learning more about your community. It has been my pleasure meeting all of you, and I hope to meet more Wikipedians around should I get to return next year (which is likely).

Also, please allow me to invite everyone to join the Wikimedia Asia Facebook group, which is at http://www.facebook.com/groups/wikimedia.asia. This is a platform where we can share ideas between Asian Wikimedia communities, and I think the Singapore Wikipedians can share their experiences and expertise here for the rest of us to learn from.

Again, thank you and maraming salamat po, and I wish you guys all the best for the eighth meetup. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for meeting and talking to us. Hope you made it to the airport on time! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Singapore Portal

I remade (ie:rearranged and recoded) the entire Singapore portal. Anyone has any suggestions or feedback about the new portal design? Also, please recommend more articles, biographies and pictures to be featured on the portal. Preferably, these articles are at least GA-class or above.

Oh, and please add links from Singapore articles to the portal, because as of now, the portal is not really known to other visitors to the site. Hopefully, this would create more awareness about Singaporean articles in general. Hope to make this portal into a featured portal.--Lionratz (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Lionratz. Great job! I notice there is a stray "<" symbol next to the "In the news" box that needs to be removed. The news items are also pretty old and need to be refreshed. For DYKs, and GA and FA class articles, have a look at "Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board#Featured articles and honourable mentions" and the archives of this section. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! (I thought this noticeboard is really dead... hahas) Anyway, I have solved the stray < problem. Do you know where is the full listing of Singapore DYK articles and hooks? We are apparently short of them. Oh, and do you know of articles that are particularly significant that we absolutely must feature? I am quite new to this project and I am not really familiar about this. PS: Do you know of any other Singaporean editors who are still active on this wiki? --Lionratz (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
There may be editors actively working on various articles, but not many of them communicate on this board. Editors who have commented on the board in the past include Hildanknight and InfernoXV. You probably need to look at the talk page archives for other names. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: Done 20 Selected articles, 20 Selected Biographies, 20 Selected pictures, 15 selected panorama, 10 sets of 5 DYKs. Anyone has any objections to the selection?--Lionratz (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

2008 record of 22 new GAs equalled in 2012! 1 more to break the record!

Fellow SGpedians, Ya Kun Kaya Toast has just attained GA status, bringing our 2012 GA tally to 22. We have equalled the record set in 2008 and will break it if Lee Choon Seng is promoted before 2012! Keep up the excellent work! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

We should be encouraging you to keep up the good work. Thanks! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I cannot take sole credit for this feat, for out of the 22 GAs, only 3 (Fandi Ahmad, MINDS and Ya Kun Kaya Toast) were written by me. Without the outstanding research by AngChenrui, Sengkang and Zscout370, I would not have the opportunity to apply the finishing touches to Lyo and Merly, Hwa Chong Institution, Marine Parade Community Building and Coat of arms of Singapore. In addition, I did not contribute to HMS Prince of Wales (53) by Thurgate or the 14 law GAs by Smuconlaw. This achievement belongs to the entire SGpedian community. Perhaps you could help me copyedit Lee Choon Seng, originally written by the legendary Aldwinteo, so that we can break the record? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Record broken! Lee Choon Seng becomes our 23rd GA of 2012!

We did it! With Lee Choon Seng attaining GA status today, 23 Singapore-related articles have achieved the green plus in 2012, breaking the record of 22 set in 2008! Thanks to:

Three cheers for our SGpedians! Hip, hip, HOORAY! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that the 13 articles listed above under my user name were actually the products of a project we have been running at the SMU School of Law, and so the articles were largely created by our LLB undergraduates. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for running this project! Please help me thank your students for their fantastic work! I would love to see some of them become regular editors, even prolific GA writers! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Asian Economic Crisis / CLOB conspicuously missing

Doesn't anyone find it strange that the CLOB stock exchange controversy during the 1997 cannot be found on any article at all? IT actually affected a lot of Singaporeans financially and would be a very notable topic. If it does not belong in its own article, at least it should go into the Malaysia stock exchange/economy articles, but seeing that the only parties affected were Singapore investors it is technically a Singaporean topic. I'm trying to see what I can add to the topic on the Malaysian articles; hopefully I don't encounter any nationalistic defenders there. Is anyone else interested in tackling this topic to beef up the content? Zhanzhao (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Assessment page

I have added a FAQ and Request for Assessments section in the Article Assessment subpage. I also altered the Singapore project banner so that now when you click on the quality or importance link, you ill be brought directly to the Article Assessment page in our own noticeboard. Anybody has any feedback?--Lionratz (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Singapore vs Singaporean

In these pages (and this) and other pages in the series, the page is titled "Singaporean ..." while the introduction goes something like "The <year> Singapore ...".

Should the noun or the demonym be used? I personally feel it should be standardised to Singaporean in the page title and article, but that's just me.

Has this been discussed before? I apologise if it has; I couldn't find any prior discussion on this.

I guess it's something like American Idol vs Singapore Idol ..

Thanks. angelsl (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the election articles related to Singapore were named for consistency with election articles from other countries – see, for example, the articles in "Category:2011 elections in Asia" (e.g., "Thai general election, 2011" and "Vietnamese presidential election, 2011") and "Category:2011 elections in Europe" (e.g., "Danish parliamentary election, 2011" and "Portuguese presidential election, 2011"). I don't think it's a good idea to change the naming of the Singapore-related articles without having a wider discussion about how all election articles should be named. As for the naming of "Singapore Idol", although this is not mentioned in the article, I recall that before the first season was broadcast the producers said they had chosen the name "Singapore Idol" rather than "Singaporean Idol" because they wanted to attract contestants from around the region. Thus the name reflects the fact that the competition takes place in Singapore, but is not confined to Singaporeans. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Should the page content be made consistent with the title, then? Most of the other countries' election pages seem to phrase the introduction differently, avoiding this problem altogether, however the pages (1 2 3 4) that use a similar structure for the introducing sentence use the demonym instead of the noun: the Singaporean presidential election instead of the Singapore presidential election. Thanks for the quick reply, by the way. angelsl (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, that would make sense. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/world/asia/singapore-slashes-officials-salaries.html
  2. ^ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577168620110589932.html
  3. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/uk-singapore-politics-idUSLNE81503N20120206
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Singapore/2012_archive&oldid=1088102514"