User:Lemongirl942/SG geo articles improvement project

Pandan Gardens and Pandan, Clementi

Original "Pandan Gardens" was about the estate
Current "Pandan Garden" redirects to "Teban Gardens" but does not contain any edit history.

Proposed solution

Move "Pandan, Singapore" to "Pandan Gardens" (will restore edit history) Create new article for "Pandan, Singapore" (about URA subzone, content can be copied from Pandan Gardens) Change "Pandan Gardens" as required. Page can be redirected or content improved.

Comments

Sounds good to me :D MageLam (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Looks like we made a move request at the same time XD -- MageLam (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think its appropriate that I redirect Pandan Gardens to Teban Gardens as that is the alternate name of Teban Gardens. -- MageLam (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Hahaha, hang on. Can you self revert? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Done! Self-reverted. -- MageLam (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Lol, this was hilarious! :D As for Pandan and Teban Gardens, actually they are not the same. Pandan Gardens and Teban Gardens are neighbouring estates. The subzone encompassing it has been named Teban Gardens though. Let me see if I can find out more --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

See this [1]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: The situation just now was just hilarious. XD I will be looking up on the Chai Chee article in the meantime. Once I've wrapped it up, I will begin on the new introduction to the Bishan article. -- MageLam (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyways, I don't think it would be necessary to have an article regarding about Pandan Gardens as both Teban and Pandan Gardens relatively share the same history. I think it would be appropriate that we mention both Teban Gardens Estate and Pandan Gardens Estate in a section in the Teban Gardens article. -- MageLam (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll still have a look though. If I am not wrong, they were initially different estates. If I can find enough material or if their history differs, then I think it is OK to have separate articles. Otherwise, the Teban Gardens article can include a section on Pandan Gardens estate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I think it is OK to have a separate article. The estates are different and there is some stuff to add --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Pandan Gardens is pretty much located just adjacent to Teban Gardens. Although they are different by name, the two estates share the same history. -- MageLam (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Pandan Gardens is the 4th neighbourhood while Teban Gardens is the third. But they are slightly different. The Teban Gardens was actually called "Kampong Java Teban" and had a different history of human settlement. The Pandan Gardens was reclaimed. Let me find out some more. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's one article about the Kampong Teban (apparently that was the short name of Kampong Java Teban) [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Bidadari, Toa Payoh / Bidadari, Singapore

Currently Bidadari Cemetery has its own page which is specifically about the cemetery
Bidadari, Toa Payoh is the article about the planned estate. The name Toa Payoh was used since it is the planning area.
Bidadari, Singapore could be a better name as it follows the "placename, country" convention and will not require updating. Adding Toa Payoh might require the article to be renames if URA changes planning area boundaries.

Proposed solution

Move Bidadari, Toa Payoh to Bidadari, Singapore. Would satisfy general place name convention. Article already contains link to Bidadari Cemetery and a hatnote to prevent confusion. (There should not be confusion because the placenames are different. See similarly named articles Choa Chu Kang and Choa Chu Kang Cemetery.

Comments

Alright then, looks like there's nothing wrong with that. MageLam (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your edit. :D Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed by MageLam accordingly. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Anson, Singapore / Anson Road

Original article subject was the historical Anson Road and the article edit history reflects the same.(The article seems to have been modeled after this SGInfopedia article)
The article seems to have been renamed "Anson, Singapore" after the planning area and content modified.

Proposed solution

Move Anson, Singapore back to Anson Road. Will restore original article subject and history. Create Anson, Singapore if required and add a link to Anson Road.

Comments

Anson Road and the subzone of Anson are historically synonymous with each other. Rather keep the content as it is, probably mention about the road in a section of the article. MageLam (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: One problem with converting existing articles (of smaller entities) to articles of subzones (larger entities) is that 5 years later it would require reorganization again. For example, if the Anson subzone is dissolved and the area absorbed into multiple subzones. That would require us to modify the article again. (Personally I am not sure how to handle such a scenario)

A current example is Buona Vista. If I am not wrong, the original article seems to be both about the subdivision and the housing estate. Now that the subdivision no longer exists, it was redirected to one-north. However, the article already had content. How do we handle this then? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, just wondering. Do we really need a wikipedia article for every subzone? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942 having an article of every subzone won't be necessary. However, I feel that housing estates in Singapore shouldn't be covered as articles, unless they are of notability (such as The Pinnacle@Duxton) or are conterminous with a certain subzone (such as Bidadari). I've noticed that most editors often confuse housing projects with actual towns, subzones or districts. HDB housing projects don't usually have clearly defined boundaries unlike actual planning areas or subzones. Take Buona Vista for example, since the dissolution of the subzone in 2014, the general area is referred to as One North. This however, leaves Buona Vista with no clearly defined boundaries. So where exactly is Buona Vista? MageLam (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Buona Vista can be covered in a section in the One North article. Discussing about housing within the subzone. MageLam (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Yup, I agree that housing estates should not be covered as articles, unless they are notable. However, I feel that if there is an existing article about a housing estate, I would usually leave it as it is (that is not move the article/change the subject of the article). The content of course could be incorporated into an existing article on a case by case basis.

For the case of Buona Vista, it definitely existed as a neighbourhood at one point of time, much before one-North. However, it doesn't exist as a subzone in the 2014 master plan. Thus, the current boundaries (according to URA) are unknown. I have a hunch that over the years, various editors used their own judgement. Singapore has multiple administrative divisions - the URA planning areas, the CDC districts and HDB towns. The article could be referring to any one of these (Personally, I suspect it refers to the subzone of Queenstown). Instead of removing the contents of the Buona Vista article, I would rather prefer to keep it and add a line mentioning that it is a former subzone/planning area. Just because the subzone has been removed, does not mean that the wiki article has to be removed as well since articles do act as records of former places/areas.

In addition, for any contested redirects/moves we generally follow WP:RMUM and WP:BRD. As such, a repetition of bold edits (for example [11] and [12]) are unproductive.

I had a look at the Singaporean places wiki project. A bit tired today, will read it in detail tomorrow. Seems like they actually differentiated between Ang Mo Kio (general place name)/(new town name)/(planning are) and there were separate articles for each. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, dividing articles up like that would be rather confusing. The old conventions that Singaporean Wikipedians used back in 2005 and 2006 have been pretty much abandoned now due to the confusing format. These days, articles regarding both the HDB town/estate and the urban planning are area always written as the same article, as the boundaries of the two entities are mostly conterminous with each other. And besides, there is no such thing as a "general place" unless it has some form of specified boundary, which is where the URA planning areas boundaries come in to play. MageLam (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam:I had a look at the list of HDB Towns and the list of URA Planning areas. Each HDB town has a corresponding URA planning area (but not vice versa). Something like HDB Towns are a subset of planning areas. As such, I do not prefer have separate articles for Ang Mo Kio/Ang Mo Kio New Town/Ang Mo Kio (Planning area) either. However, care should be taken to show the distinction in the article. Thus, an article titled "Ang Mo Kio" should contain sections named "Ang Mo Kio Planning Area" and "Ang Mo Kio New Town".

I disagree that there is no such thing as a "general place". I tend to call these places neighborhoods or estates. Usually these places are the result of a former constituency/ward/subzone boundary which no longer exists today and are usually of a smaller area than a "planning area". (Buona Vista or Chong Pang). The correct way to handle these is to examine them on a case by case basis and see if these can be integrated into a new article (merge) or to leave it as an article but mention that it was a former subzone/ward. However, the article subject itself must not be renamed (potential changing of article subject) or redirected without consensus.

Also, till we arrive at a consensus, I would also appreciate if I could (at least temporarily) undo some of your changes and return articles to status quo ante (WP:RMUM). Many of the articles seem to have undergone subject changes (Yishun West originally titled Chong Pang about the ward) and others have lost their edit history (Holland Drive has the edit history of Holland Road, Singapore) or their content (Buona Vista). It is easier to start from previously stable articles and do the changes forward. I hope you will understand. It does not mean that I will undo all you changes, just the ones which are contested. In any case I will list them down here for record. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I will be listing down two proposed fixes for Yishun West and Buona Vista shortly. As for Holland Road, Singapore and Holland Drive, the situation regarding those two articles would be harder to manage in my opinion. So I would preferably ask you to provide a solution on that instead. MageLam (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Bartley and Joo Seng

Original article was titled "Bartley" and was about a neighbourhood.
Retitled to Joo Seng (subzone in URA 2014 MasterPlan) and changes made accordingly.
However, Bartley and Joo Seng seem to be different (or at least, not all of bartley is in joo seng)

[13] URA 2014 Brochure on Serangoon planning area mentions "bartley neighbourhood". Joo Seng subzone is part of Toa Payoh planning area. (In 2008 Masterplan the majority of the area of Joo Seng corresponded to the subzone of Toa Payoh named Paya Lebar. This was distinct from the Paya Lebar planning area)
[14] News report mentions "new neighbourhood police centres will also open in Geylang and Bidadari. The latter is expected to serve the Bartley area, as well as the upcoming Bidadari estate."
[15] Mentions Bartley neighbourhood

Looking at various sources, Bartley seems to encompass areas both North and South of Bartley road. Joo Seng does not adequately represent Bartley.

Proposed Solution

Move Joo Seng to Bartley and restore the original article about Bartley with its edit history.
Improve the Bartley article with additional citations. Create a new article on Joo Seng if required.

Comments

Redirect Bartley, Singapore to Bartley Road. It appears that the term "Bartley" is used to colloquially refer to Bartley Road. Leave the Joo Seng article as it is. MageLam (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright done! Joo Seng article created with content you wrote. I took care to ensure that the edit history of Bartley, Singapore stays at that page with the page now redirecting to Bartley Road. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Chong Pang and Yishun West

Original article was titled "Chong Pang" and was discussing the ward and a bit about the physical location of Yishun West.
Retitled to "Yishun West" as the ward of Chong Pang corresponded with the area.
Chong Pang is the name of a ward that is a part of Nee Soon Group Representation Constituency. Articles about wards aren't usually written as they don't have much notability compared to physical locations and constituencies proper.

Proposed solution

Rename Yishun West to Chong Pang (restoring edit history)
Contents of the article will be moved to the new Yishun West article.
Chong Pang will be redirected to Nee Soon Group Representation Constituency

Comments

I was just researching a bit about Chong Pang since I had earlier read somewhere that it used to be a village. Looks like, it does have a bit of history associated with it. See [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears that the village was historically associated with Sembawang. However, the article discussed quite a bit about the ward in the constituency itself rather than mentioning the village. MageLam (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the article seemed more about the neighbourhood named Chong Pang although it also contained a section on politics (which described the ward itself). Anyway, it seems historical Chong Pang was also part of Nee Soon Estate [23] (Nee Soon was the original name of Yishun). The present HDB estate named "Chong Pang" is part of the Yishun Planning Area

Just wondering, do we really need a new article on the subzone "Yishun West"? (I can't think of a lot of content for it and also, subzones are fluid). Instead, why not merge Chong Pang into the Yishun article itself?. Considering that planning areas are usually fixed, it would make more sense. In the future if I am able to find out more content, Chong Pang could have an article for its own and we could place a "main article" link on the "Yishun" article. As a general proposal, smaller HDB estates (worth mentioning but without enough content for their own articles) could be mentioned in the main article about the Planning Area/HDB Town. Thus on the Main "Yishun" article, there could be a subection on Chong Pang (maybe as one of the constituent estates or neighbourhoods). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

From what I've know so far, it appears that the general area known as Chong Pang straddles along the boundary between the towns of Yishun and Sembawang. The name is not only used to refer to a ward of Nee Soon GRC, but also a housing estate that is sandwiched between the subzones of Yishun West and Sembawang Springs. Well, I guess this is a similar situation like with Holland Village, where a neighbourhood is located along a boundary line. In this case, along Bukit Timah and Queenstown. MageLam (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I had a look at this. Holland Village is clearly split between 2 planning areas (although the majority is in Bukit Timah). This is a bit problematic. For Chong Pang however, I used overlay maps to have a look at it and it seems to be just (but only just) inside Yishun. Singapore seems to have some neighbourhoods/estates which are split between 2 planning areas. One way to do is to keep a separate article for the neighbourhood (Holland Village) while mentioning it both in Queenstown and Bukit Timah (the planning area section of the article). Let me think about this a bit more though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I restored Chong Pang to WP:STATUSQUO for the time being (also for editing history purposes). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Is there anything we can do about this for the time being? -- MageLam (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I restored Chong Pang to WP:STATUSQUO. There seems to be quite a bit of history available for Chong Pang, so I can fill that in maybe today evening. As for Yishun West, I am not sure what content to put in. Should we redirect it to "Yishun" instead? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the article for Chong Pang should be written and treated like as if it was a former entity, like say how the article about the Soviet Union is written. Probably talk about how the name is still used in a present-day context and where the location of Chong Pang Village corresponds with modern day Yishun. -- MageLam (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Another solution would be to redirect Chong Pang to the Yishun article and discuss in a section regarding estates, if there isn't much to write about Chong Pang that is. -- MageLam (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, we could actually incorporate both views (Chong Pang present as well as Chong Pang past) in the article and mention both in the headline. There is actually quite a lot of information so I don't feel like putting all of it in the Yishun article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Buona Vista vs. One North

The article, Buona Vista, discusses the former subzone of Queenstown that was dissolved in 2014, as well the as the present-day housing estate located in the One North sunzone.
Buona Vista had its content erased and was redirected to One North. No information on Buona Vista was provided on the current One North article.
The name "Buona Vista" is notable, as it is still often used to colloquially refer to the general area as well as the housing estate. The erasing of the Buona Vista article has proven controversial.

Proposed solution

Complete restoration of the Buona Vista article.
Article should be modified accordingly to reflect the present status of Buona Vista.
Article should use Template:Infobox former subdivision instead of Template:Infobox settlement to indicate the former existence of the Buona Vista subzone.
Article should clearly establish that Buona Vista presently isn't a physical location de-jure, but rather a term used to refer to the housing estate located within One North.
The heading line in the One North article should indicate "formerly known as Buona Vista". A disambiguation notice on both Buona Vista and One North would be useful as well.

Comments

So this situation remains unsolved or case closed? -- MageLam (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, for this one is a bit complicated. I found that Buona Vista is one of the seven (HDB) neighbourhoods of Queenstown (see [24]). HDB has this system of dividing a New Town into neighbourhoods, precincts and blocks.

one-north on the other hand is a development (more like a technology park). Looking at the maps, I find it distinct from Buona Vista. If I am not wrong, about half of the subzone of present one-north actually used to be part of a subzone called Portsdown at one time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I've heard of several instances of this neighbourhood system being used before. It seems like there's very little information about this system that you can find on the Internet. Most of the time, it seems like the subzone system that the URA uses is preferably adopted, although property developers do tend to identity the location of their housing projects using the neighbourhood system. -- MageLam (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I lookup some more. The Buona Vista housing estate was build by HDB as neighbourhood 6 of Queenstown. See these articles [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I think it is important that the one-north article should include a small section regarding Buona Vista as the estate is located within the one-north subzone. A link should be provided to the main article in that section. -- MageLam (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I need to check, but if I am not wrong, the Buona Vista estate doesn't lie in the one-north subzone at all. My recommendation would be to avoid linking to subzones. It can be mentioned in the second line but the lead sentence can just mention the planing area/new town. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Well Buona Vista station is located in the One North subzone. A good portion of North Buona Vista Road is also located within the same subzone as well. If it does correspond with another subzone, do inform me. -- MageLam (talk) 06:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam:The Buona Vista estate (as far as I could gather) lies in a subzone called Holland Drive. The MRT station seems to lie in the one-north subzone though. I guess they keep changing subzones. I remember reading somewhere that the (2014) one north subzone actually used to be split into multiple parts with a large part in a subzone called "Portsdown". However, this is all original research and I need to find sources for it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

General revision of all planning area/subzone articles

I know this seems irrelevant at the moment, but I just wish to address this as it is still in a sense considered "fixing". I'm thinking of making this a goal after working on the names/content of the relevant subzone articles that are currently being contested. It seems like the main problem with most planning area/subzone articles is how broken they are in their current state. The lack of contributiors to these articles since the late 2000s, proper format and conventions have lead them to become as such. Before I came across you, I've only ran into one other editor who has worked with me on a SG Geo article. Its been harder to find people to collaborate with these days due to the pretty much dying community. From what I can tell, it seems like you are really taking the initiative to patch up these articles and I thought we could probably work on completely revising said articles together.

As I can't really write down all my goals in a single prose, I'll put them down on a checklist.

Write up and propose a proper convention/format for all SG planning area/subzone articles.
Revise all planning area articles. (Currently working on articles regarding new towns and estates) (These can be done in phases)
Reorganizing and probably revising subzone articles if necessary.

I know this seems quite impossible at the current moment. But if someone takes the initiative to do something, it could probably help in the long term. I'm hoping to see at least the planning area articles reach B class status or something better sometime in the future. Two good examples to look at would be Sengkang and Pedra Branca.

Aside from working on articles that we are currently fixing on now, I was thinking if we could also probably start on rewriting the introductions of all the new town and estate articles. We can consider doing any other additional content on these articles should there need be.

Your help and understanding will be most appreciated @Lemongirl942. ;)

MageLam (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Hey, sorry I was not able to come online yesterday. I am willing to help out to fix these articles. Let me start working on a rough draft of the convention. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That's ok @Lemongirl942, I understand. ;) While you are working on your draft for the conventions and proper format for SG Geo articles, I will begin rewriting the introductions of the new town and estate articles. All edits will be done in alphabetical order, starting with Ang Mo Kio. Do take your time to review them for any factual errors when you can. It seems like you have been caught up in a lot of Wikipedia drama lately. MageLam (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

As for the conventions, I am rather interested in helping you out on that. Do alert me about any changes once you get a rough draft of it. MageLam (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Do you happen to know any IPA by chance? I need help. -- MageLam (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Hey, I only know the IPA for English. My knowledge might be a bit rusty now, but I can try. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: So far I've gotten the /aŋ/ in ANG Mo Kio. As for the rest, I can't figure them out. -- MageLam (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

ɑːŋ moʊ kɪoʊ ? This is harder than I thought lol. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks anyways. I'm gonna add this to the heading line of the article. :D -- MageLam (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Haha, but I can't vouch on the accuracy though. Technically speaking the English IPA is only for English sounds and many local names have other sounds which cannot accurately be represented by English IPA. But oh well, I guess approximations are fine for now. At least better than the version where foreign tourists pronounce "Ang" as "ang" from "bang". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Its finished! Have a look here. Give it a revision if need be. XD -- MageLam (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I also kinda forgot to put in information regarding the two large tertiary institutions in Ang Mo Kio, ITE College Central and Nanyang Polytechnic. If possible, try to include it in the introduction where appropriate. -- MageLam (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Any thoughts on the revised introduction or does it need more working on? -- MageLam (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the terms "New town" and "Urban planning area"

The terms "New town" and "urban planning area" appear to be rather outdated and have not been used since the early 2010s. It seems like the HDB prefers to use the term "HDB Town" now rather than using the term "New town" to describe the towns of Singapore.[34] The URA on the other hand also appear to prefer the term "planning area" over "urban planning area".[35] Isn't it about time we change the titles of Urban planning areas of Singapore and New towns and estates of Singapore to simply "Planning areas of Singapore" and "List of HDB towns and estates" respectively? Also should this change happen, we have to go through the hassle of editing every planning area article and correcting the terms used in those articles. MageLam (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I think I will put my introduction revising on hold until we sort this matter out as I think I can make the changes accordingly once a discussion on this is settled. MageLam (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I had a look at this and personally I find it ambiguous. To me it seems as if HDB uses both terms and that too quite randomly. I checked a few sources where "new town" is used Choa Chu Kang, Serangoon, Woodlands, Bukit Merah. Curiously,Sembawang uses both as does this article about Clementi. Many others use just their own names. Let me look into a few more sources though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Also, speaking about official names, some of them are rather confusing. If you pay a visit to Ang Mo Kio, Bishan, Bukit Batok, Choa Chu Kang, Pasir Ris, Tampines, Woodlands or Yishun, you will see road signs that spell out the name of the town followed by a "Town" suffix. For example, "Bishan Town". I got Hougang's official name through a road sign I found in Serangoon (which you can see here if you use street view). You can also see another example of such signs if you zoom in on the bottom left corner of this image of ITE College West in Choa Chu Kang. However, it seems like the HDB's website makes it all too confusing. For instance, Choa Chu Kang is referred to as "Choa Chu Kang New town" while Woodlands is called "Woodlands New Town". In the case of Woodlands it is kind of half correct. If one was to drive into Singapore from the Johor–Singapore Causeway, there is a sign just outside Woodlands Checkpoint that refers to Woodlands as "Woodlands New Town" which just adds on to the confusion. But so far, I think I've found a few which I believe to be "official" in a sense. For instance Tampines and Clementi, which are always referred to as "Tampines Town" and "Clementi New Town" respectively. In fact, there was an award given to the HDB entity of "Tampines Town" in 1992.[36] MageLam (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

But anyways back to the main topic. Those are pretty much just the names of individual towns. The HDB collectively refers to them as "HDB Towns and Estates" these days. It would preferable if we use something modern to describe them rather than sticking to old conventions. MageLam (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

As for the term "urban planning area", any thoughts? MageLam (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I had another look. I am still not able to conclude that HDB has officially changed the terminology and that this change has been widely adopted. It seems both are used although the recent HDB website uses the term "list of towns". I checked scholarly journals within the last 2-3 years and many of them still use the term "New Town". Other government press releases also refer to the term "new town" [37],[38]. In addition, The "new town" concept seems to be a specific way of designing towns [39], and the towns on the list were planned as such. CLC also uses the term "new town" [40],[41], [42]. My opinion would be to leave it as it is right now since the term has a historical basis and is still in use. Let me look up the planning area vs urban planning area right now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I think I'm gonna start re-working on the introduction for Ang Mo Kio first. If you do have any information regarding "planning area vs urban planning area" do inform me. -- MageLam (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Oh and sorry if I tend to talk about irrelevant stuff every now then, I tend be like this. -- MageLam (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, it fine haha! I looked again and found both "Planning Area" and "Urban Planning Area" being used. I am trying to verify if they have officially changed anything though. Was too exhausted yesterday with so many instances of wiki-drama happening recently. I'm gonna stop fighting vandalism for a while. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: So I did a Google search on "urban planning area" today, all I saw was pretty much just "planning area". Any suggestions? MageLam (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: OK, I had a look again and I think I understood a bit more. Looks like "urban planning area" is a general term (common noun) which refers to how a city is divided for urban planning. The title of the article Urban_planning_areas_of_Singapore is correct in this sense since the article describes the urban planning areas in Singapore ("Regions" as well as "Planning Areas"). However, say we have an article "Chinatown". While describing Chinatown, we will say it lies within the "Planning Area" of Outram (or, it lies within the Outram Planning Area). In this case the "Planning Area" should be in caps. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I think I'm just gonna change it from Urban planning areas of Singapore to Planning areas of Singapore. There is literally no mention or use of the term "urban planning area" anywhere. -- MageLam (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I had a look at this again. I think moving is correct because the original subject of the article was only the Planning Areas and not the regions (there's a separate article for regions). I corrected the spelling though. "Planning Area" . --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: "Planning Area" dosen't have to be used in all caps, have a look at the bottom of this page for instance. -- MageLam (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It is usually in Caps though since it has a special meaning in the Singaporean context. The term "planning area" is a general term, while the caps kind of emphasises the specific meaning --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

HDB Neighbourhood, Precinct and Block

I realised HDB used the divisions of Neighbourhood, Precinct and Block. Is there a website/list where all of these are listed? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I remember there was a website listing a partially completed list of neighbourhoods in every new town. It isn't by the HDB though, some kind of property website or something I think. -- MageLam (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As I don't really remember where this website is, the only way to know the neighbourhoods of each town, is to physically visit the town itself. Several towns have signs that show their neighbourhoods although I'm not sure whether this applies for Queenstown. -- MageLam (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I believe I've found what you were looking for, although like I said, it isn't a complete list and it doesn't include precincts. [43] -- MageLam (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Cool! Thanks for this. It helps to clarify some things although it is a partial list of course (and some of it is based on their interpretation). HDB used to actually classify estates quite well. I guess I could also try to get the old HDB maps from somewhere as well. Pretty sure they would have this info. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The official names of new towns

@Lemongirl942: So earlier on in the discussion, Regarding the terms "New town" and "Urban planning area", I made a short ramble about the official names of new towns in Singapore. Although the towns are often known by their common names, there is no denying that their formal names exist, usually ending with a "Town" or "New Town" suffix. Official titles usually apply to all new towns accept for Queenstown, Geylang and the estate of Bukit Timah. However, the reason why I call them confusing is because of how some seem to go by two names. Take Woodlands for example, signs within Woodlands call it "Woodlands Town", however a LTA sign at Woodlands Checkpoint refers to it as "Woodlands New Town" and so does the HDB website. I think we should we investigate the names of each individual town and get a proper conclusion to this. -- MageLam (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I find it confusing too. We could investigate of course, but I do not know how useful that would be. Considering how official sources use also use multiple names (and that too ambiguously), I will be content to simply mention the multiple names on the article haha! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, should the whole of Kallang be recognized as the HDB entity of Kallang/Whampoa or just as the planning area of Kallang? -- MageLam (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This one is tricky. The earliest mention as "Kallang/Whampoa" is found here [44]. Need to search a bit more. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason why I find this confusing is due to the fact that the HDB entity doesn't just cover the planning area of Kallang, but also the housing estate of Whampoa as well. Whampoa itself is geographically located within Balestier which itself is located in Novena, a planning area that is not a HDB town. -- MageLam (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Is it possible to reach a consensus for this issue? Like, how the official names should be mentioned in the heading line of the article and in the infobox? Also, I think we should stick to modern formal titles instead of using an old title, like with Toa Payoh for instance. -- MageLam (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not very sure if they have officially changed it. At least it still gets referred to as New Town every now and then [45]. My opinion would be to have both names in the lead sentence and just use "Toa Payoh" in the infobox. I guess just keep things simple. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, preferably change lead to "is a Planning Area". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I think there should be some sort of guideline for this, I feel it is important to me. Here is my suggestion, for towns which have a single official name, the heading line of the article should say, "officially _____ New Town" (like with Bukit Merah for instance). For towns whose official names are highly debatable, like with Woodlands or Toa Payoh, the heading line should indicate, "formally referred to as _______ New Town or _______ Town" and the infobox of that article should not indicate the formal name. -- MageLam (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we should also agree that instead of following the names given by other sources (most of whom are often vague and confusing), we should base our references of the official names from just governmental sources. More specifically with the MND, its subsidiaries (HDB, URA) and the NHB. -- MageLam (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, HDB doesn't explicitly specify which is the official name (except for Queenstown and Geylang). And trying to infer which is the official name becomes WP:OR. The best way to solve is to avoid using the term "official name" altogether in the infobox. Lets say, for Ang Mo Kio, the infobox should say only "Ang Mo Kio" while the article lead sentence could mention all 3 (Ang Mo Kio, Ang Mo Kio new town and Ang Mo Kio town). This way, infobox remains consistent across articles and also makes sense since the article itself refers to both the planning area and new town. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: So what about towns and estates which are referred to by a single official name. For example Bukit Merah and Marine Parade? -- MageLam (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Same. My suggestion is make the infobox consistent. For the headline just use the 2 names "Bukit Merah" and "Bukit Merah New Town". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I have written down several guidelines regarding the official names of towns and estates on the Naming conventions (Singapore) page. If need be, modify it accordingly. -- MageLam (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I also think it is more appropriate to describe them as "long conventional names" rather than "official names" due to how confusing they are. This excludes Kallang/Whampoa however. -- MageLam (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

How about just "also referred to as "...town" and "... new town"? Avoid all the pitfalls haha. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Can you look up on Ang Mo Kio Town and Tampines Town for me, I feel convinced that those are the official names of AMK and Tampines. -- MageLam (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, can you tag my name when you message me, I need to be notified when I receive your message. Thanks! :) -- MageLam (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ang Mo Kio and Tampines

@MageLam: I did a brief search for both. Both seem to have been referred to as "new towns" for quite a while. The word "town" is more recent but usually occurs alongside "Town Centre" or "Town Council". HDB is ambivalent - Ang Mo Kio is simply Ang Mo Kio, while Tampines is sometimes referred to as Tampines town. I guess just mention both --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Chai Chee and Kembangan

@Lemongirl942: So earlier today, someone restored the entire article regarding Chai Chee. I do agree that the place has some kinda history, but I don't exactly think that the article should be written as an existing place but rather, like how I mentioned before, written as a former entity. The anonymous person who restored the article just simply left the article as it is. -- MageLam (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Ah, I just saw. Let me look at this as well. Unfortunately since this is a WP:STATUSQUO reverts, I cannot revert it back. Let me try improving the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Found something here [46]. Looks like an estate to me. HDB on the other hand refers to it as a neighbouhood [47] (search chai chee) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I remembered this Kampong being mentioned by Jack Neo as the inspiration for his recent film, Long Long Time Ago. It seems pretty significant enough to be covered. However like I said before, the article should be re-written in the context of a former entity and if need be, include how the name is used at present. -- MageLam (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The article also lacks references, and I think we need to include some. -- MageLam (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason why I redirected Chai Chee to Kembangan that time was because of its location. The vicinty known as Chai Chee coresponded with the subzone of Kembangan. -- MageLam (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint. This problem is specific for cases where the former entity and new entity share the same name (and location). But one thing we need to consider is that as long as people/newspapers/government agencies still refer to it as an area(although vague) in the present day, we cannot really claim it solely as a former entity. Likewise the article should mention both the present and the past. We can devote a larger section of the article to its history as a village. But the headline should mention both of them say. For example "Chai Chee" is a neighbouhood in Singapore and was also the name of a former village which existed near the site of the present neighbourhood". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I'm currently busy researching information that I can include in the new introduction for the Bedok article. In the meantime, do help me out and handle the Chai Chee and Chong Pang articles on my behalf when you can. Thanks ;) -- MageLam (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure! Oh, I had a look at the Ang Mo Kio article although I didn't really scrutinize each detail. Seemed fine to me overall though. Thanks a lot for your help! :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

History Fixes

(A new section. Since main page is getting bulkier, I created this for easy editing just by section.) List of pages which have lost edit history and require moving back.

Whampoa, Singapore and Whampoa, Novena

Seems like Whampoa, Novena contains the edit history of Whampoa, Singapore.

@Lemongirl942: Yeah sure, I think the Whampoa article needs fixing. MageLam (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Also the way I talk makes me feel like a newbie, even though I've been on Wikipedia for almost 6 years now. XD

This page is getting quite messy, probably get an archive bot to clean it up or something. MageLam (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Lol, I realised long before you were experienced because of the way you fix articles. I used to edit anonymously once in a while but never bothered creating an account. Finally decided to do one last year. Anyway, as for this page, right now I think I will let it be since I find it easier to have stuff at one place although later I will archive it sectionally. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Holland Road and Holland Drive

@MageLam: The history of "Holland Road, Singapore" (article about Road) in this case has been transferred to "Holland Drive". Do we need an article about the subzone called "Holland Road"? Because Holland Road in general use refers to usually the road itself. Large parts of the Holland Road are also in the other planning areas of Tanglin while also bordering Queenstown. My recommendation would be to keep the article centred on the road. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I am currently making a move request to transfer the current Holland Drive page to Holland Road, Singapore proper. Once that's done I will be creating a new page for Holland Drive. The thing is, content that already exists will remain in their current articles. As for the article regarding Holland Road, the article will both focus on both the road and the subzone itself. -- MageLam (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Do we need an article for "Holland Drive". Holland Drive in Buona Vista. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Ok, maybe we don't necessarily need a Holland Drive article, but we do need a Holland Road article. -- MageLam (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup, Holland Road is needed. Actually I'm trying to find out how this problem (same road name and subzone name) is solved in US place articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Changi Village and Changi Point

The history seems to have been messed up here as well. Again, the question is are Changi Village and Changi Point the same neighbourhood? Changi Village was the former village with the hawker centre and shops. Changi point was near the coast which had a British base. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: The history of Changi Point is more significant. Changi Village is just a small neighbourhood located within Changi Point. -- MageLam (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The Changi Point subzone seems to be more like the name of a planning subdivision (as opposed) to a more precise geographic location. Changi Village was always separate from Changi Point and they were two different neighbourhoods. I need to find out sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at this [48] --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I would't say so, before Changi was reclaimed, Changi Point was where the Sook Ching executions took place during the Japanese Occupation, mainly along Changi Beach. Also, the URA has a specific brochure about Changi Point mentioning the neighbourhood of Changi Village. -- MageLam (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll look up a bit more. But see this [49]. It mentions "...rustic charms of Changi Village and Changi Point. Both neighbourhoods have a strong historical legacy and flavour dating from the British colonial era." It refers to them as both neighbourhoods. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I moved the page back to its original address for preserving history but did not change the contents as of now. Let me research a bit more so that I can find sources. I still have a strong hunch that the places are different and the Changi Point was used for the beach. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Noted, I'm currently working on the new introduction for the Bishan article right now. If you do need to settle anything with the Changi Village/Changi Point issue, work on it. If there's anything you need, do contact me. -- MageLam (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Got some more. This guide [50] This guide says Changi Point is the beach near Changi Village --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This recent link [51] make it a bit more clear. "Every year in Changi Village, we had a sea carnival where traditional Malay miniature boats with big white sails were released to catch the wind. You just let them go, and see which one reaches Changi Point first. Changi Point was a Malay village near the present Mindef ferry terminal." --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Museum District or Museum Planning Area

@MageLam: I'm not very sure about this. I have heard Museum District a few times, but most other times I have read Museum Planning Area. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: The reason why I preferably use Museum District over Museum Planning Area is because of how confusing the name sounds. The URA generally refers to the area as simply Museum however they would often disambiguate it from the term "Museum" by using the word Museum Planning Area. I would preferably use the term Museum District as planning areas within the Central Area are generally described as districts. -- MageLam (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Also should all planning areas in the Central Area be described as districts? -- MageLam (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I couldn't find references to Museum District though, although Museum Planning Area has multiple references. The only district I know in and around the Central area is the Civic District (and the Museum Planning Area is a part of it). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Lol, that was hilarious. Tagging oneself does not give give notifications though --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Pretty much true, it was more of an aesthetic edit you could say. XD -- MageLam (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Changi Beach and Changi Beach Park

@MageLam: I checked the history of the original article. It was about this park [52] and not the beach itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Actually, either term is used to refer to Changi Beach. The beach itself is physically a part of the park. -- MageLam (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I'm not very sure about this. It could be either way - Beach part of Park or Park part of Beach. But the original articles seemed to specifically refer to the park. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I think this is more or less a minor issue that we can fix easily. I don't really see what's the problem with either name anyways. :\ -- MageLam (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: It changes the scope of the article. Changi Beach for example is a beach while the scope of the original article is the current park. Considering that we do not really know if the beach and the park are the same, the best thing would be let the original scope of the article be. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Central Area vs. Central Area, Singapore

@Lemongirl942: Is the latter title necessary? -- MageLam (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I had a look at WP:DAB. In this case I guess the move was justified because "Central Area" is a general term and it could refer to other cities as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Hey, don't remove the content from the article talk page. I know you don't like it, but we are not supposed to unilaterally remove content from an article talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Sorry about that, I think I may have taken things a little too personally. My uncivil and rash actions have already been restored by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I just wanna put this drama aside in the past and move on. Let's continue with our project proper, I'm gonna start on my Bukit Batok introduction again. ;) -- MageLam (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I understand that you have been put through a similar situation like this as well before you met me. I know how it feels like to be in the same position as you. ;) -- MageLam (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Anyway, just forget it now. Let's go about editing. I wish more people would respond there. Just 3 responses including you and me. A bit disappointing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Regarding members, do you think we should call on Gzyeah? He doesn't appear to be replying to any of his talk page messages, so I'm not so sure how to contact him properly. Also, he's a little bit rash with the way he edits things from my previous working experience with him. In fact, he has been persistent with keeping a sentence with broken grammar on the Moulmein (disambiguation) page if you have a look at the edit history. Apparently he claims that Moulmein Street was the site of a former Burmese settlement, which is not cited anywhere. Probably gonna need your help convincing him in cooperating with this one. -- MageLam (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Hi Mage. According to the info from several MediaCorp's TV programmes in local heritage topics, the relevant citations should be available from National Libraries & for our proper references accordingly. Sorry that I may have no time to attend to seeking them so far due to busy work in real life. I will also try to look for more online resources if possible. Please help to assist when you are free to walk-in libraries. Thanks & appreciated. Gzyeah (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gzyeah and MageLam: I looked for citations for this. I found some explanations for the name [53], [54], [55]. According to the explanations, the road was named after the town "Moulmein" in Burma. It doesn't say anything about a former Burmese settlement though. Considering that Wikipedia relies on sources, we should just say that it is "named after a city in Burma". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marina Bay and Marina Reservoir

@Lemongirl942: I would suggest that these two articles be merged. Marina Bay is Marina Reservoir. Marina Bay is the water body that sits in the middle of the Downtown Core, which was enclosed in by Marina Barrage in 2008, forming the so-called "Marina Reservoir". -- MageLam (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I need to look more, but at the moment - Marina Reservoir is the reservoir while Marina Barrage is the dam used to create the reservoir. Marina Bay, Singapore seems to be the bay and is also used to refer to the area around it. I found a map here by PUB [56] and a research paper [57]. It doesn't seem to be exactly same to me. Another interesting thing I observed is "Queenstown New Town" in the map and also here [58] --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I don't think I'm still entirely convinced that they are separate. Before Marina Bay was enclosed in by Marina Barrage in 2008, it was a bay that was actually connected to the sea. When it was converted into a reservoir, the PUB preferred to describe the bay as "Marina Reservoir", obviously excluding the other estuaries around it such as the Kallang River for example. The entire bay itself is the reservoir, dammed by the barrage itself. The term "Marina Bay" is still used to describe the bay and its surrounding area even to this day. -- MageLam (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: "Marina Bay" is used to refer to the area and may not only be a "bay" in the strict geographical sense. The PUB map shows it is separate. I will need to find sources which say Marina Bay is same as Marina Reservoir. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Orchard Road and Orchard Planning Area

@MageLam: I had to unfortunately revert to a previous version for this since the original article was about the road. I guess we will have to draft a convention soon. There also seems to have been one existing draft which I found. Looks like the members back in 2006 actually planned for separate articles for planning area/town/road etc. but maybe due to time constraints they were not able to carry it out. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Look, can we not always use WP:STATUSQUO as an excuse to revert all my edits. -- MageLam (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded a little rude to you. -- MageLam (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I am really really sorry for this. I felt quite bad doing this, since there were useful edits in many of the revisions. I think it is best if we work on a convention for the planning areas at least. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

And that is something I've been begging you to do in quite a while. Should we settle this as our main priority for now? -- MageLam (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

All of this while I'm still working on my draft... -- MageLam (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I actually wanted to wait for community input for a month, like it happens everywhere else. Most conventions are always vetted by the community and are notices are usually left open for a month. But I have to admit I was disappointed by the response here. Like seriously, no one wanted to help. In this case, I guess we can just have an interim draft at least about the planning area/town part and apply it). If someone else objects, then we can later ask them to join in the discussion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Well I've told you about that before. It really is pointless waiting for a month. The community here is dead. Just dead. All that is left is just a few fellas remaining. Its basically like Kodak, a sunset industry really. Look, I think every Singaporean Wikipedian out there is probably interested in other affairs right now. If we want to handle this, we have to take responsibility for the entire project on our own from here. But if we continue on like this, we will more or less act like two veto powers at a Security Council meeting. If this goes on without any neutral consensus, the results may end up pretty bad. -- MageLam (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines for estates

@Lemongirl942: I've been noticing this weird trend where editors generalize a housing estate as a proper geographical location, adding info about unrelated surrounding facilities and etc. I don't think this is appropriate given the fact that housing estates are property developments. All housing estate articles should only and only discuss about their general development and not something else which is unrelated. A good example to follow would be The Pinnacle@Duxton article. I'm hoping there is some kind of guideline for this. -- MageLam (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think a bit of contextual information about nearby places does no harm. But yeah, it should not be too much. Which article is this btw? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, have a look at the edit history of the Chai Chee article, specifically after the article was restored. -- MageLam (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess nearby schools/religious buildings are OK but I would just mention them in one line. Most articles do mention nearby amenities although they do not go into detail. I was looking at Neighborhoods in Chicago which seems to have a similar problem of loosely defined neighbourhoods while also having well defined and static Community areas in Chicago. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: You might want to check Neighborhoods in Chicago. I looked at the articles and most of them seem to have "Landmarks, Transportation and Education" sections. I guess it is OK to have the same with estates because estates in Singapore are not only flats. They actually refer to a neighbourhood spread about a road. The estate included other facilities as well such as economic buildings, hawker centres etc. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I do agree on your points, however, I don't think estate articles should mention areas further than that. I've seen articles which are literally written like travel guides, look at the old version of Changi Point for instance. Probably write them down in a single line or something, it dosen't have to be that significant. -- MageLam (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Yesterday while having a look at some estate articles, one thing I noticed was that they include information beyond what is in the estate. The Buona Vista article for example had the names of schools in Dover. I'm in favour of mentioning schools(or former schools), but only those in the estate (or maybe just on the boundary). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Well, the thing is, estates don't usually have very clearly defined boundaries, they usually tend to be located in some sort of general area which Singaporeans often identify by name (especially if there is a MRT station using that name). And to me that is usually the main problem, if there is no clearly defined boundary for an estate, how far should we extend our reach to discuss these facilities? -- MageLam (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It is so rediculous to an extent that people just simply name areas based on the names of surrounding facilities. For example, there was an article an ACTUAL article that was named St. Michael's, Singapore (it has been redirected to Balestier btw). It was a place that didn't existed and yet somehow, just somehow, someone had the audacity to make up an article on it, claiming the name of a bus terminal for an "ACTUAL" place. -- MageLam (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I think a good way to find out boundaries of an estate is to look up some reliable sources. HDB used to plan estates with boundaries (divided into neighbourhoods, 1-9, with the left most digit of block name indicating the neighbourhood) and estates would include markets/shops/educational institutions/recreational facilities/neighbourhood centres etc. Buona Vista for example is actually the estate around Holland Close, Holland Drive and Holland Avenue as far as I could find from sources. I will look up more and add information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Oh damn, I just checked and there really is (or at least used to be) a housing estate called St. Michael's Estate. [59]. Old SIT flats from the looks of it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Well, it appears that no one talk about it these days and apparently even if it exists, it dosen't even really have any kind of established notability. The original article was written in a way like it was treated like some sorta district or something, it's kinda stupid to see estate articles written like this, seriously... - MageLam (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: That wouldn't be a reason not to have an article though. As long as the place has been there historically (in this case, it still exists) and citations are available, the article should be there. But if there is not enough content, then it can be made part of another article (in this case I guess Balestiar Road). See this [60] --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: WP:NOTE, remember? -- MageLam (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Yup, but geographical places are treated slightly differently. For places/neighbourhoods as long as they exist and some sources are available (and enough content is there), there can be an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ideas and brainstorming for the new Bedok article introduction

So I'm kind of having a writer's block right now. I need some ideas that I can use to describe Bedok for the new introduction. Every contribution helps. -- MageLam (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I usually base my introductions off the way U.S state articles are written. Look at the introduction of the Massachusetts article for instance. -- MageLam (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: So I've been looking up on the history of Bedok and it appears that there's nothing much I could find. Here are my best sources at the current moment [61] [62]. If you can find any extra information, do send me the links. Thanks! -- MageLam (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's a nice report which explores it in quite a bit of detail. [63] --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look at this. :D -- MageLam (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: So I'm done with the new introduction. If there's anything else I can do for now, do talk about it. -- MageLam (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Singapore locator maps

@Lemongirl942: It seems like most of the locator maps for Singapore are pretty outdated as most of the maps on Wikimedia Commons are based off the 2003 and 2008 URA Master Plan boundaries. There are even some maps for certain regions and planning areas which are missing in fact. If it is somehow possible, we would need someone who is able redo new locator maps for the planning area articles. -- MageLam (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Ah yes, most of them are outdated. Unfortunately, I am not very good at this kind of stuff though. Let me see if there are any publicly available maps. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I don't think publicly available maps will do as those images fall under WP:NFC, I would preferably have new original vector locator maps instead, if we can find someone to do them that is. -- MageLam (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's true. I doubt there would be creative commons licensed maps available. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: *Sigh* If only my PC was still working, maybe I could do some of those maps. -- MageLam (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The last time anyone did locator maps like this was way back in the mid 2000s, when someone by the name of Vsion kinda did up some locator maps of various planning areas (although not all of them). He seems pretty inactive these days. -- MageLam (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chongkian: Hey there! I think I may have just found the first assignment for you. Do you know anyone who can help us out with redoing several locator maps? -- MageLam (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Uhm, so far I haven't done any edit on locator maps. Do you have any link/article leading to that outdated locator map for a reference/example for me to see? What I can do and normally do is to write the coordinate location (e.g. { {Coord|11|22|33|N|44|55|66|E|display=title} }) for any place-related articles for locator-related details, which I have done really a lot before. There are many places in Singapore actually don't have coordinate yet. Chongkian (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chongkian: I got the entire library of outdated maps right here. Also, some locator maps are missing and since these maps were made around 2006 during the whole sovereignty dispute with Malaysia, they don't show an inset of Pedra Branca. -- MageLam (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh ok, now I get it. So far I haven't created any locator map nor I know anyone who usually make it. Wish I could do it to some other geography-related articles. Or perhaps do you know the common online (preferably free) software to make it? Yeah, the addition of Pedra Branca to Singapore will change the whole Singapore map. But due to its small and far distance from Singapore mainland, perhaps the best way to include Pedra Branca in Singapore map is like what you said, to create an inset at the corner of the map. Chongkian (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chongkian: Hahaha, sorry, I wish I had the hardware to do it to begin with, my PC broke down several months back and I've yet to replace it. In the mean time, I've been editing on mobile via the desktop interface, that's why I'm here to enquire about this. The person responsible for creating these maps is a user who goes by the name of Vsion, he was apparently last active in 2015, so doubt I can get to him. A German user by the name of TUBS apparently has a similar collection of maps on Wikimedia Commons, albeit depicting only the constantly fluctuating CDC districts, which means the CDC boundaries depicted, are outdated as well. -- MageLam (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Can you get engaged with TUBS on the German Wikipedia for us? I think he can do some locator maps for the project. Your help would be most appreciated. -- MageLam (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that will help. The maps by TUBS are country maps only. What we need is planning area maps. I'm currently trying to experiment with stuff and see if I can try to make it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: TUBS recently revised a few maps regarding the new boundaries of the provinces of Italy, an example of which you can clearly see here. So I don't think he does country maps exclusively. -- MageLam (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Haven't you seen this as well? -- MageLam (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Ah, so that was his. I had only known this map previously and it was by a different user. The other maps seems to be dependent on this map. The user seems to be Swedish or something though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: In other words, I would preferably have TUBS's professional hands do the job. Should we get him to help us out? -- MageLam (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Are we gonna do something about this in the meantime? -- MageLam (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Would you be able to contact him? I have no skills with languages --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: He speaks pretty decent English from what I can see on his talk page on the German Wikipedia. So help me get into contact him instead while I work on my draft. -- MageLam (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I can try. But right now I'm not sure if maps are the highest priority considering that the naming conventions need to be worked upon. I am still waiting for some more people to reply. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

New template for subzones in Singapore

@Gzyeah and Lemongirl942: Would it really be necessary to create a seperate template for subzones in Singapore? The old "Template:Places in Singapore" was recently repurposed by me into just a template regarding planning areas. It was subsequently redirected by Gzyeah to Template:Planning Areas of Singapore. He has since created a new template exclusively for subzones, which destroys the edit history of the old template. How do we solve this? -- MageLam (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I never damaged the edit history but just keep them for your new subzone edits. The two templates should be necessary and not supposed to confuse since general "places" & "planning areas" are different conceptions. All the old edit history are still remained with Template:Planning Areas of Singapore. and I only modify redirection for Template:Places in Singapore with right sources after moving in order to keep less harm to other users whom focusing on "places" more than "planning areas" at the moment. Hope you can understand.--Gzyeah (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: You might wanna refer to my personal discussion with Gzyeah on this, here.

@Lemongirl942: You know, I think the current Places in Singapore template is pretty cluttered. Let's solve this. -- MageLam (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Planning on reworking the Tanah Merah article

@Lemongirl942: So as you can tell, the current state of the Tanah Merah article is pretty... broken. While there is some content, it basically just lacks references. I'm thinking of improving it much like how I did with the Jurong article (in fact I'm thinking of modeling the Tanah Merah article off the Jurong article). The problem is, there isn't really much information on the Internet regarding Tanah Merah. If you could look into it, I could probably use some references for the write-up. I'll be getting back to working on the new introduction for Bishan now, hopefully once I'm done I'll see what I can do about this topic. -- MageLam (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I think my best bet for this topic is to do physical research myself. I'll see if I can take the time to head on down to the library for resources. There's hardly any information regarding Tanah Merah on the web. -- MageLam (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Tanah Merah actually used to be the name of a road, a kampong and a beach (where one of the massacres happened). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

From what I managed to look at, it was apparently the name of a "district" back round 1850. There used to be two roads "Tanah Merah Kechil" and "Tanah Merah Besar" and similarly named Kampongs. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Project priorities

@Lemongirl942: I kinda think that we are just doing up articles without any proper objectives. Let's start making some goals and priorities for this collaborative project. How about we start out with the PA articles first, shall we? I think we can work systematically from there. -- MageLam (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: With the whole drama subsiding, I thought we should talk about this. Any thoughts or opinions you might wanna offer? -- MageLam (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Hey! Let's just wait for a few more people to reply. This can be discussed then, considering that it is a collaborative project and people might be interested in contributing to different articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Sorry about removing it. Its been awhile since I put this topic up, someone has yet to reply to this. -- MageLam (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I was replying lol and I got an edit conflict. Then I just replaced the information. -Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I think our real main problem right now is that we have yet to list out our project priorities. It is because of this that we can't really function that well right now. It seems like we are rather divided on our priorities. I want to get new locator maps done while you are trying to get proper naming conventions. Don't you think we should discuss this out now so that other future members are aware of our goals? -- MageLam (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I would have liked to fix the naming convention first, but then I thought it would be good to discuss it with other editors who might join. Since this is a collaborative project, the direction should be set by consensus. My immediate objective though is to halt for a while and recruit editors since the main problem right now is lack of editors. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: The wait for new members is taking way too long. I think its about time we discuss our priorities now. I don't really know where exactly this project is heading towards. -- MageLam (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Patience haha! Most RfCs (on minute details) run for at least a month, and debates continue over several months. It's just been like 11 days since I posted the message. Quite a few people are going to be busy this month because of exams. Why not wait for a while? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I'll give it a bit more of a wait. But I'm hoping this doesn't take long... -- MageLam (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Relax, don't be impulsive. Like I said before, there is a lot to be gained if enough research is done before every edit. I guess my inspiration comes from the Tao Te Ching haha, but I feel that in many cases for established articles, researching before an edit reduces the need to do the edit. Which is why I spend a lot of time going though resources trying to dig up information. Check this Talk:Laura Branigan for instance. It has been about 4 months (or more actually), and we are still trying to decide the birthdate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Singapore (disambiguation)

@Lemongirl942: So I apparently ran through the edited disambiguation page to have a look at what Linrx had to say. The whole thing was just pure political commentary and also lots of Shakespearean English, that basically screams alien. I suggest we do something about the content. Also, since when has a "Civil District" ever existed? -- MageLam (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam:I have reverted the edit, but I guess calling the "Central Area" as the "City of Singapore" or "Singapore City" is indeed contested. I have not been able to find sources for it. At the moment I will let the edits at Singapore City and City of Singapore stand. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe they meant Civic District. Let it be. Oh, btw I restored Civic District since it is not City Hall. Added the map as well. In all this distraction, forgot to post it here --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Speaking about the Civic District, I'm just wondering about its borders. I've heard on several occasions that the Museum Planning Area is a part of the district alongside the City Hall subzone. -- MageLam (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully this drama has ended, its one I definitely would not watch. Especially with a guy who has a strange obsession with Old World English, which sounds completely foreign in this current day and age. -- MageLam (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess I will be putting the Bukit Batok introduction on hold, given the situation we are currently in. -- MageLam (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I'm not too sure about the borders myself. I would refer to it as an area in Central Singapore containing some import historical buildings. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Anyways, back to the "City of Singapore" and "Central Area" issue. Have you seen the map I provided on the talk page? -- MageLam (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Ah. So the erstwhile city of Singapore was mostly what is today the "Central Region". But that means the Central Area is not the same as "city of singapore". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Try comparing this with maps of Singapore Town. -- MageLam (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Sorry, I am not able to understand. As in you mean to say "Singapore City is the same as Central Area"? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: What I meant was, take a look at the maps of the City of Singapore and the pre-1952, Town of Singapore. Compare them with the present-day Central Area and see if you can come up with any conclusive results. -- MageLam (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I had a look at old maps, but I am still unable to conclude anything. I thing the best course of action would be to simply add "city area" as an alternative name and remove the others. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Try looking up on Victoria, Hong Kong and Central, Hong Kong, see how they are written. -- MageLam (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Hmm, Victoria, Hong Kong is exactly like City of Singapore (historical entity), a former entity. Central, Hong Kong is like Central Area, Singapore. Which is OK right? But still "Central, Hong Kong" is not referred to as "Hong Kong City" or anything similar. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Well in Singapore's case, the Central Area is often called the "The City" or the "City Area". If you ask anyone on the streets in Singapore where the "Central Area" is however, everyone would be scratching their heads because no one knows what the "Central Area" is. -- MageLam (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: "City Area" is fine. I already cited a link for that. What we don't know is "City of Singapore" or "Singapore City". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Anyways, sorry if I gave you a bad impression that day, I'm not usually like this. I had a rather busy day at college, keeping up with the stress. -- MageLam (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: That's OK. It's over and I am glad. I got a bit tired towards the end as well. Anyway, let's look forward to editing and hope some more people reply on the noticeboard. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: He's apparently mad or something. He recently deleted his user page which was followed up by some vandalism on the SGPedians' Notice board. -- MageLam (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

LOL, just let it be. WP:DENY recognition. If the person continues like this, someone else will take action for sure. I am going a bit easy on the person since it seems to be a new user. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: It appears that he has gone under the alias of Ronggy before as well. Looks like Shakespeare isn't new to the game. -- MageLam (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I believe I may have just found a sock puppet of a vandal. Do you suggest we report? -- MageLam (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe I fed the hunger of a literal troll all this while... -- MageLam (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Check Ronggy's page, it shows that he has indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. -- MageLam (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I saw that long before. The reason I am a bit hesitant to report Linrx right now is because what they have done isn't really a violation of rules (apart from WP:CIVIL). The edits at Central Area, Singapore is more of a content dispute since the assertions were not supported by citations. While their conduct was not civil, I'm afraid they are technically correct in removing something which is not cited. Which is why I said to back it up with citations.

A sockpuppet report on its own may not result in the person being blocked unless the new account has been involved in continued harassment. I'm also hesitant because of your stuff - like placing a level 3 warning directly, unilaterally removing discussions from an article talk page, removing the person's name from the list. I understand you are angry, but please do not retaliate like that. Stuff like this may actually count against you if the person is reported. My suggestion again, ignore the person. Deny recognition. Let the person do what they want. If it is indeed vandalism, it will be reverted soon enough and someone will report.

I'm seeing signs of edit warring by the person though. Just wait and let it take its own course. If it continues, there will be an indef block soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Have you seen Shakespeare's message yet? Looks like he is just pure trolling at this point. -- MageLam (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: In any case, I would prefer to stay out of the picture, there's no need for me to repeat what happened yesterday. -- MageLam (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I suggest that you avoid unnecessary communication with him as well. He is putting both of us on the other end of the rope. -- MageLam (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Sigh. It's at ANI now, so I have to reply. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Differentiating the CBD from the Central Area

@Chongkian and Lemongirl942: It appears that most of us don't even know what's the difference between the Central Area (aka "The City") and the Central Business District. According to the URA, the Downtown Core is defined as such:

The Downtown Core (part) Planning Area is made up of 4 zones of Bugis, City Hall, Marina Centre and CBD (part); CBD (part) zone is further divided into 7 subzones.
— Urban Redevelopment Authority, [64]

The Central Business District is a district located within the Downtown Core, which in turn, is a part of the Central Area itself. The Central Area is the area roughly defined as the present day "city-centre" of Singapore and shouldn't be confused with the CBD. The terms "CBD" and "Central Area" have been used so interchangeably that even the LTA themselves made a mistake with defining the boundaries of the CBD on this map. -- MageLam (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I doubt LTA would make such a big mistake while defining the CBD. Let me look up and see if URA has any maps. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: According to this [65], the CBD is the Central Area. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: *Sigh* Look at this, the URA republished this map recently on their website. It is pretty similar to the document I attached above. A lot of people are still confused over what the CBD and Central Area are I suppose. Pretty much to the extent that even governmental organizations such as the LTA and HDB, remain confused. -- MageLam (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

@Lemongirl942: This issue is just getting out of hand. Look at what is happening with all the new town articles. The longer they rust, the more vandals they invite. To get straight to the point, I would preferably have some (if not all of them) semi-protected. -- MageLam (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Believe me, this will not qualify for semi-protection. The vandalism level is quite low compared to some of the articles I have seen. Semi-protection would require persistent vandalism. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Quite true, but nonetheless I still feel these articles are still very vulnerable. I just hope this wave of vandalism does down after a while... -- MageLam (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Contested Merge

Thomson + Sin Ming , move to Upper Thomson

@MageLam: I restored WP:STATUSQUO in this case. Sin Ming is a distinct and well known estate in Bishan. For example, The Eunoia JC is in Sin Ming. The Thomson, Singapore area on the other hand is a private residential area is located to the west of the Thomson road as far as I know. The exact location of the "Thomson Area" needs to be verified though. However, Sin Ming is definitely not located to the west of the Thomson Road. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I would say that the area known commonly as "Thomson" corresponds with the subzone of Upper Thomson, located within the planning area of Bishan. By the way, both articles need a lot of clean-up and fixing. -- MageLam (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I understand that you named it after a subzone. But nearby Marymount was previously named as a subzone of Tao Payoh in 2010. The system of using subzones is not at all intuitive considering that the boundaries do not correspond to present developments in the vast majority of cases. For these 2 articles, Sin Ming is the better known one and sources are available for it, which I can add. "Thomson" I am not sure. I have a feeling that the Thomson area is a vague definition, but first let me try to find sources for it. If no sources are avilable, then a better merge would be Thomson with Thomson Road (which is a well known road in Singapore and many sources are available for it). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Sorry, I had to undo your edits. I understand they were good faith ones, but for stuff like this, sources need to be found and examined, before any changes are done. I know it can be frustrating, but when geographical articles have been there for a long time, it makes sense to look extensively at references before doing any changes. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Hey, I need you to look at this. Have you heard about Sembawang Hills before? It appears to be a part of the general area commonly known as Thomson, which I believe, is the region that runs along Thomson Road. Sembawang Hills is a historical neighborhood and subzone that is noteworthy of being covered and as such, it would be appropriate that we have two different articles for the both of them. -- MageLam (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, the article I linked has a noteworthy mention of Boon Lay Place in it. -- MageLam (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I know about Sembawang Hills. It is north west of Ang Mo Kio new town. The subzone however may not coincide with the historical Sembawang Hills though. I was looking at "Thomson" and "Upper Thomson" areas and they seem to be loosely defined. Let me find some more sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The 2010 map did not have any "Boon Lay Place". There was 1 Boon Lay Planning Area and 2 subzones named Boon Lay. [66]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: So should we create an article for Sembawang Hills? I do believe that it is indeed of some significance you know. -- MageLam (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Before creating an article, think about these points.

Where exactly does the place exist now? (the estate, not the subzone).
History of the estate including any significant events.
Amenities. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: You also might want to first look up references and develop the article in your sandbox. I have a hunch that references will be hard to find. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I suggest we do a merge from Thomson, Singapore into Thomson Road, Singapore as both entities are closely tied to each other (more specifically the road itself). -- MageLam (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm also probably gonna start writing something basic for the "Sembawang Hills" article. Probably you could help me improve it while I work on the new introduction for Bukit Merah? -- MageLam (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Thomson, Singapore + Thomson Road, Singapore to Thomson Road, Singapore is a better merge in my opinion. But at the moment, I am finding sources for Thomson Singapore. I did manage to find a couple of books by the URA which discusses Thomson (added as reference to in the article). Searching through newspaper archives now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Well, that was what I literally meant, we merge Thomson, Singapore to Thomson Road, Singapore. -- MageLam (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I'm going to merge the two articles now. Let's improve Thomson Road, Singapore from there. -- MageLam (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Oops, sorry. I read it the other way. My bad. But anyway, I would prefer to search for sources first. Don't merge now. The Thomson area seems to be notable. Actually from what I have seen, Sembawang Hills seems to be part of the Thomson area. Also, the subzone named "Sembawang Hills" is different from the Sembawang Hill estate. The subzone contains other estates as well including Thomson Hill estates. Presently, I'm not sure what information could be added if we have an article about Sembawang Hills. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I still do believe that both the general area is mostly defined by the road and the two articles should be merged into one. As for Sembawang Hills, I still think its a noteworthy neighborhood to be covered given its historical importance. -- MageLam (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: My Wiki-philosophy is to find sources first. I do an exhaustive search for sources at multiple places, and only when nothing can be found, will I change status quo of an article. Since this article has been stable for a long time, I prefer finding sources to improve it first. If it really cannot be improved, merging can always be proposed later. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: For Sembawang hills, look for sources first and see if there is any notable history which can be used for the article. Try finding out when was it started, where was it located and if any important incident happened there. You can use the sandbox for this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I think I'll put the Sembawang Hills article aside for now. I'm currently real busy working on the new introduction for the Bukit Merah article. There is literally so much to discuss about it, the place is just filled with history. I'm gonna work on Sembawang Hills once I'm done with the colossal giant of an introduction, that is Bukit Merah. Doing this contribution as a proud resident myself (shoo, no COI to see here). ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) -- MageLam (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Haha, no worries about COI lol. Bukit Merah has a lot of history. I recently read about an estate which has a 16th century graveyard or something. Gonna look that up! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Anyways, I think it would be appropriate to discuss the merger of Thomson, Singapore and Thomson Road, Singapore once I'm done with what I said earlier. Also, I think the same could be said with Bras Basah and Bras Basah Road. I don't mind if you leave a bit of remarks now, but keep the big talk for the discussion once I'm done with the new and possibly long introduction for Bukit Merah. ;) -- MageLam (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Thomson is referenced here by URA, [67] which makes me think twice about merging the articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: The area known as Thomson appears to be very loosely defined, it doesn't really cover an exact or specific region, although we do know it is roughly located in the northern part of central Singapore. I know you would still insist on having two seperate articles, but I think it would be really appropriate if we discuss about the Thomson area in the Thomson Road article, given the fact that the area known as "Thomson" covers the strech of the road. I don't really see any usefulness in having two articles discussing about a similar topic. -- MageLam (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Bras Basah and Bras Basah Road

@MageLam: For Bras Basah and Bras Basah road, I don't mind if you do Bras Basah + Bras Basah Road -> Bras Basah Road. I have looked up references extensively for this and it seems all previous references are in the context of the road. In any case, the article content of Bras Basah is copied from Bras Basah Road, so instead of a merge, a simple redirect of Bras Basah to Bras Basah Road can be done as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I rather do the complete opposite if I were you. The precinct itself, Bras Basah, has more established notability than the road itself. But anyway, like I said before, all of this will be managed once I complete the new introduction. -- MageLam (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I looked up on this in the archives. Bras Basah was originally a river and a road, with the road having existed since 1840s. There wasn't any mention of a precinct in the maps I checked. The Singapore Infopedia has an article about the road, but not the precinct. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I'm gonna tell you this from a personal perspective. When you're discussing the precinct in the context of Singapore, everyone here would just call the place "Bras Basah". No one would definitely tell you they would want to explore "Bras Basah Road". To put it simply, WP:COMMONNAME. Anyways, in this brochure here, published by the URA, Bras Basah along with Bugis are depicted as an integral part of the Central Area. There are tons of locations along the road itself that carries Bras Basah's name, such as Bras Basah Complex for instance. The precinct itself is historically noteworthy and I believe an article should exist about it as such. Ok, look now mate, I think we can continue discussing this once I'm done with the draft for that new introduction. I still have a lot of research to do.

(*Sigh*) Pretty tired after a long day in college. I literally had to reply to you whilst I was walking. XD -- MageLam (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I'm just gonna put my points here. You can reply any time you want. Firstly, for a WP:COMMONNAME to apply, the common name has to be in cited sources, or it has to be noted in sources that people informally call it as such. Basically it all comes down to citations. I have seen the brochure before. URA however seems to be treating it as "Bras Basah.Bugis" precinct. Notice the combined name. Historically though, there may have been an area known as "Bras Basah" possibly around the Sungei Bras Bassa.

The Bras Basah Road has existed since Raffles was here, albeit under a different name. For a road that has existed since the birth of modern Singapore, I would consider it notable. The other reason is that the road exists beyond the "Bras Basah.Bugis" precinct, as shown in the map [68]. Raffles Hotel is an important landmark on Bras Basah road. There was also a former community centre named "Bras Basah Road CC" [69]. Newspapers have multiple references to this road.

Now, whether "Bras Basah" needs an article or not, this is debatable. It is entirely possible that sources are found. Indeed, it is interesting that the "Bras Basah Complex" (on Victoria street) is named "Bras Basah"; there may have been a historical area informally referred to as Bras Basah. Was it the constituency? At the moment I don't know enough. I will have to search for it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Planning Area sizes

@Lemongirl942: It's been awhile since this project embarked on a mission. I recently realized that the area sizes and population density for each planning area are incorrect (information which I got from citypopulation.de of course). I found this after realizing that Sengkang and Punggol were conterminous with their planning areas. I analyzed the size of Sengkang and compared it to the statistics I found on citypopulation.de, the figures didn't correspond to each other. However, when I compared the area size given by the HDB to the area size provided by Singapore Infopedia, I realized they were both the same, 1,055 hectares. The planning report also proofs the same, 1,055 hectares. However, given the fact that the planning reports were written in the 90s, the size of Singapore has since changed due to all the land reclamation that has been going on in the pass two decades since then. This renders the statistics on the planning reports, outdated. I've been unable to find any official new statistics online regarding the sizes of these planning areas. Probably you could do me a favor. Try researching online first and see if you can dig up anything. If not, I recommend you head on down to the URA Resource Centre and see what info you can grab out from there. If you can find any that is. -- MageLam (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Hang on for a moment, I need to find a way to solve that Kent Ridge Park thing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: ??? -- MageLam (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Basically the article was a good article. GAs are attained after a peer review process and it takes quite a bit of hard work. Which is why generally editors will never tinker with a GA unless there is some strong reason too, or if there is consensus and it has been discussed with the article contributors. As editors put a lot of work into attaining the status, it is considered rude to suddenly make major changes without discussion with the content creator. I got a bit confused when I looked at the talk page and it said delisted. But it wasn't delisted at all. (I'm glad for that). Editing the template on the talk page only shows it as delisted on the talk page itself, but it actually wasn't delisted. I'm thinking what to do since I don't want it to be delisted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: For the moment, I restored the content of Kent Ridge Park and stubbed the Kent Ridge Article. I support selective transferring of content to Kent Ridge of course, but this will have to be done very carefully so as not to reduce the article quality. Editors tend to become touchy when the quality of GA articles are reduced (since it takes quite a few editors and hard work to attain GA consensus). A good way to proceed would be to edit it in the sandbox and implement when it is ready, rather than edit the article directly. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Back on the main topic of discussion. What do you have to say about this? -- MageLam (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, this is complicated. I will have to look at this in detail. I did an area calculation on my GIS right now and it is somehow different from everything else. (The population density will automatically be incorrect if the area is incorrect). Let me try to find sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Answers? -- MageLam (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Sorry, will take some time. As a small note, please don't redirect unless absolutely necessary. Before redirecting, look extensively for sources: newspaper archives, books, current websites, nas etc. Redirect only as a last resort when you cannot find anything. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Let's avoid all the talk regarding "technical moves". This page is full of them and I wish to move on from this. I don't want you to picture me as a trouble maker. I came here to help develop an encyclopedia, just like everyone else. -- MageLam (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I don't picture you as a trouble maker. You make mistakes - like everyone else did at one point. And that is fine (my own personal belief), because that is how we learn. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I think I will make a commitment for myself. From now on, I'm going to stop all this technical moving until we are done with the guidelines. I'm sick of this and it is this that ruined my reputation as an editor. I returned to Wikipedia to start a peaceful movement to resurrect Singapore geographical articles. Instead, I brought myself into a messy situation I shouldn't have been in. -- MageLam (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Don't let stuff like this deter you. Everyone makes mistakes. I just feel that you need a bit more "hands on" experience with the existing Wikipedia guidelines. For me, I always try to explore new territory, I make mistakes but I quickly learn. Often though, I learn from the mistakes of others. I have explored NPP, SPI, AfD, also bits of ANI (but too much drama lol), RSN and helpdesk. And I volunteer quite a bit at COIN. All of this helps to understand how the various policies/guidelines work.

Like for instance, one of the things with redirecting is that if someone redirects a page and then the redirect is undone, the page flags up on NPP. Which is then vulnerable to tagging or deletion. As the vast majority of SG articles do not have references, anyone can propose them for deletion, and hence I need to urgently find references. (The bigger problem with many articles is sourcing).

One of my suggestions would be to explore more. Have a look around and try finding sources (reliable, secondary ones) and add them to articles which do not have them. Participate in discussions. Sometimes, certain facts may be disputed (like here). In this case, we need to look extensively and then come to a conclusion. All of this takes time yes, but we need to have patience for it. All of us are here to contribute and even the best of us make mistakes. We just need to learn from it and keep on going forward. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I get to stressed out at times. Sometimes I feel like belong to this community, other times I just feel like shouldn't have been involved in the first place. But since I'm already here, I guess its my responsibility to do the spring cleaning. -- MageLam (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Any answers? -- MageLam (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the delay. My regular search didn't find much and I wasn't able to do an extensive search. This week and next is busy for me. I am mostly trying to mop up some stuff at COIN from last week (which has left a big mess) and resolve an etymology dispute. Will let you know when I find sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Setting up a WikiProject page

@Lemongirl942 and Chongkian: I think its about time we made one of our own and transfer the contents of this page over to the WikiProject page in question. -- MageLam (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think creating a WikiProject is necessary. What would be the proposal? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: This is a project, for your information. We are definitely doing something here. We should probably set up one since we are a community of three trying to improve SG geo articles. If not, we could probably revive WikiProject SG Places and merge this project with the latter. -- MageLam (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that a new Wikiproject is unnecessary bureaucracy. What's wrong with the current setup? Also, can we please indent comments properly. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I have to say for this one, it is too much redundant if we wanna create another special page just for this Singapore subdivision naming thing (it's not like Singapore is changing its form of republic or something similar). There is a lot and relatively enough already for all of the facts & findings for us to get the final conclusion & consensus regarding this matter. Chongkian (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)