Talk:Changi

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

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)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

For our purposes, I'm going to assume that the unregistered edits are from the same user (and I hope they register/participate in this discussion for better collaboration). The edits were clearly in good faith and I understand and agree with their concerns with the article. I also agree with your position that the locations themselves may be appropriate for this article. That said, I think this article needs significant revision. At the moment, it's mostly a list of locations and, unfortunately, it does sort of read like a travel guide (and it isn't just the removed section, either). I think the attractions section should be restored, but it needs significant revision, so perhaps we can tag with something like {{cleanup section}} It should be rewritten in in encyclopedic format (see, for example Paris#Tourism). I also agree with IP's rewording of WP:EDITORIALIZING such as "It became infamous for" and "continues to be", although I think the link to the Selarang Barracks incident needs to be restored. I would suggest rewording such as "Changi Prison, which was a Japanese Internment Camp, was the site of the Selarang Barracks incident" and maybe a short description. Something to that effect. Aside from that, though, I don't think it's necessary to remove the attractions section if it can be fixed, and it should be. I hope that helps. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]