Talk:List of Singapore Armed Forces bases

This article is written in Singaporean English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, centre, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Military history: Fortifications

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force

Singapore Low‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled

Isn't this sorta stuff like classified? This is like exposing our camp locations.

Locations of these camps isnt really "classified" since anyone can get them from a street directory. I am only a tad concerned over the listing of units, although it is true also that plenty of these information are freely available even in the official MINDEF sites and in the press.--Huaiwei 10:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas "bases" and camps

Do you need to state that there are overseas camps and bases in addition to these somewhere on the article, or is that classified as well? --Novelty 08:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these bases are pretty well known, and are mentioned in Pioneer magazine, so I believe these should be alright. Cant say the same for every single base out there thou, obviously.--Huaiwei 14:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure about it, I thought they are all training detachments within the physical bases of these countries' military, not isolated bases that house only Singapore units. "Oversea bases" tends to give the impression that they are permanent and the units there are operational. --Vsion 15:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral stand-both parties are correct--Quek157 14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why revert?

Why was the page reverted back to an older version that doesn't present the information in a neat and clear form? Doesn't it look better without all those red links and untidy formatting?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camps and bases of the Singapore Armed Forces. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614012931/http://www.scramble.nl/mil/6/rsiaf/orbat.htm to http://www.scramble.nl/mil/6/rsiaf/orbat.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content is unverifiable

While camp names and locations are probably known and public knowledge, the claimed list of tenant units is largely unreferenced and unsourced. It is important to remember that Wikipedia's core policies prohibit original research and require that information come from reliable sources. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a directory. In line with this, I will remove any unit names that cannot be verified with reliable sources that are openly available. —Madrenergic^talk 12:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]