Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Singapore/2008 archive

MRT Accidents wiki-worthy?

I've found that many of the MRT station articles are littered with sections on minor accidents. Now, events like bomb scares (Yishun) or train collision (Clementi), those are definitely fine. But to include everything from suicides to slipping on the escalator... not to be insensitive to suicides, but those are minor issues, no matter how you look at it. OK, these may be featured on the news, but it's really hardly worth a mention here. A review of the all the (above ground) station pages should be required to filter these needless information, and to keep what we really need.

If you want a list of accidents, maybe collect them on a single page, for example, List of accidents on the Singapore MRT, although I can't guarantee it won't get VfD. Like I said, most of it should not even be on Wikipedia. 리지강.wa.au (의논하다|기여) 16:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm replying to bring attention to an issue I feel is plaguing the pages of the MRT stations. Please refer to my previous reply for details. Thanks. 리지강.wa.au _talk 19:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to articulate this, so please bear with my vagueness. I think these minor incidents are indeed worthy enough - not to warrant their own article, but to be mentioned in their respective MRT station articles. While in other places, perhaps, suicides and slips are more commonplace, in Singapore, they are nearly always reported - not only by tabloids, but by the dominant English language broadsheet as well, on multiple occasions. These minor incidents build a (for lack of a better word) history for each station that makes them unique, beyond their names and locations and design. Just my view. - SpLoT // 08:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Only accidents which received significant press coverage should be mentioned on Wikipedia. "Significant press coverage" means that multiple Singaporean newspapers have published multiple articles/news reports on the accident over a reasonably long period (at least a week). Notable accidents may be mentioned in articles about the MRT stations in which the accident occured, as well as in Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit and Security on the Mass Rapid Transit.

Unless there are many notable accidents and several references which cover accidents on the MRT in general, I see no need for a Accidents on the MRT article (it should not be a list). Deletionists seem to think that "Singaporean" means "non-notable". Creating Accidents on the MRT would simply prove them right and give them another article to nominate for deletion.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not bring the deletionist label in to this... I think there shouldn't be a fixed threshold - discretion is necessary, but of course we shouldn't add any incident which was not reported by the mainstream media (i.e. with significant circulations). - SpLoT // 11:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As you said, "in Singapore, they are nearly always reported". And really in Singapore, since the population is much smaller, and the MRT has a pretty good reputation in service, I'm not surprised that even a slip would be reported. I'm trying to look at the bigger picture and see what is important and what is trivial. For example, slips or any other minor accidents can really be collected in Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit and then summarized as a statistic. And then don't get me started on list of "First trains and last trains" on some of the MRT pages. 리지강.wa.au _talk 16:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that accidents can be considered to be encyclopedic. Otherwise, each independent article would be too short. Bishan for instance, has a talk about the accidents as because of its history as a cemetery. This is what makes accidents unique. It may be little in each individual part, but when combined, shows the urgency of having platform screen doors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.9 (talk • contribs) 05:44 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, unencyclopedic details should not be added to or kept in articles just to make them longer. Neither should articles be used to support a campaign for platform screen doors or any other cause. "[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox|Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising." However, I would say that whether facts are unencyclopedic depends on the context. If an article about an MRT station discusses safety concerns that people have because of the lack of doors, then information about accidents, suicides or other incidents at the station may not be unencyclopedic. Similarly, 137.132.3.9 says that information on accidents that occur at Bishan station are noteworthy because of its history as the site of a former cemetery. Is there anything in the article that links this fact to the accidents? Is there any evidence that superstitious people feel that there is a connection? (Note that there is a related discussion below at #MRT articles containing excessive and unencyclopedic detail.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

GA drive: Indians in Singapore

I think "Indians in Singapore" is a potential GA. It has been regularly edited in a constructive manner, mostly by anonymous IPs, and is now quite substantial. I think it needs a once-over (copyediting and Wikification) by an experienced SGpedian, and there may be an issue regarding some of the statistics used in the article that I raised on the talk page which has yet to be resolved, but after that it should be good to go. Anyone want to adopt this article? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Although referencing is an important measure of GA potential, it is by no means the only one. Structure is also very important. Problems with structure usually suggest that the article is not "broad in its coverage" and may have POV issues as well. Moreover, dealing with structural problems often calls for a complete rewrite of the article. Reading FAs and GAs on ethnic groups should give you an idea how Indians in Singapore should be structured. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't think there was anything particularly wrong with the structure of the article. Anyway, afraid I'm not volunteering to adopt this article – am too busy at the moment. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 02:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I just thought you should know what I look for in a "potential GA". Besides referencing and structure, I also consider prose quality. However, knowing that most Singaporeans are not native speakers of English, my standards for prose are quite low. Since stylistic and image problems are normally easier to deal with, I usually overlook them when evaluating an article's GA potential. (Of course, such problems must be mentioned when nominating an article for the GA drive!)

Although the structure of Indians in Singapore is far from perfect, improving the structure should not be too difficult and is unlikely to require a complete rewrite. A greater concern is that the article is not written in summary style. Here is how I think the article should be structured:

• A short Etymology section, discussing the definition of "Indian" (already present).
• A long History section, detailing the migration of Indians to Singapore (can be created by merging several existing sections).
• A short Demographics section, containing various statistics about Indians in Singapore, such as languages, religion, education and income (some information is already included).
• A long Culture section, detailing Singaporean Indian culture, such as cuisine, music and literature (some information is already included).
• A short Institutions section, discussing various Singaporean Indian institutions, such as self-help groups (more information is needed).

When I am free, I might help reorganise and improve the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to repost these comments on "Talk:Indians in Singapore", in case some of the regular editors there want to take them into account. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have cross-posted my comments to Talk:Indians in Singapore per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe I'm one of the main contributors to this article so far. I confess I've not been very good at logging in each time I edit, or noting the changes in the edit summary - sorry if this makes things more difficult for other editors. J.L.W.S - I'm not a very active Wikipedian, but to the extent that I think I understand the issue of 'summary style', I do share your sentiments. One of my own concerns about the article is its length. I was hoping some kind soul with more experience could step in at this point and help to clean up and wikify the piece, but failing that, i have had another go. I think J.L.W.S.'s proposed structure makes sense, and have attemped to work towards that in recent edits. I have also created new pages to move some content there (e.g. History of Indians in Singapore), so that this page remains a summary. Am still in the process of doing this. Meanwhile would appreciate any further comments or ideas. I'm pleasantly surprised that Jackless thinks the article is a potential GA, and I'm hoping that with some new contributors, we could have a new Singapore GA to add to the list before too long. I'm posting this here as a follow up to the earlier posts, but will also cross post on Talk:Indians in Singapore. Ishouldbeworking (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Marina Barrage

Hey, just a note to any SGpedians who want to check this out. The article says this project should be finished "by 2007" and it's 2008 now. Is the project finished? Anyone want to go over there and get a picture/more details for the article? Peace. Nesnad (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Translation of Singaporean Pages

I am currently translating some of the Singaporean-related articles here over to the Chinese Wikipedia. Due to syntax and other issues, translations will e a lengthy process. I was wondering if anyone can help me with this? I am currently translating The Golden Path, and I will move onto other pages in the future.. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

MC King

I haven't been editing on Wikipedia for awhile, but for those who haven't heard yet, Jimmy Nah has just passed away. Might be a good time to expand his article and clean it up, add a picture, tag it with the current event template, etc. I'd help out but I'm enlisting into NS in about two days, so I thought I'd just leave this heads-up here. -ryand 13:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This raises an interesting point. As news articles on the websites of Singapore newspapers such as The Straits Times and Today are usually only accessible on-line for no longer than one week, and few people have access to Factiva, it is often difficult to find out biographical information about Singaporeans (birth and death dates and places, names of spouses and children, education, career highlights, etc) or facts about events relating to Singapore. In fact, obituary notices, which may state the birth and death dates of persons and the names of their family members, do not appear on-line at all. I wonder if it is feasible for interested editors who have access to the print versions of Singapore newspapers or who regularly read news websites to note down such key information, complete with references. One way might be to create an article like "2007 in Singapore" at the beginning of each year and have different editors interested in different topics constantly add information to it on topics of their choice. A few people could keep an eye out for deaths of significant persons, others could look out for sports news, and so on. In addition, facts and citations which deserve to be recorded somewhere for later retrieval but which are not presently in an encyclopedic form can be parked on a temporary page such as "2007 in Singapore/info". Anyone think this is a good idea? More importantly, is it something that can be sustained long-term? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

SG Ratings without Summary

On the SGpedian Resources Ratings template, it stated:

(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

So why do goodwill contributors of SGpedian Resources randomly rate articles without giving a short summary to explain THEIR ratings. Then if they rate without giving a summary on why they rate the article so, then how can the authors of the page know what's wrong with the page??? Anti.Exams (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a problem confined to the {{SG}} template. Very often, articles are rated through the use of other templates such as {{WPBiography}} without reasons being given. Personally, I don't think this is a major problem, as the rating just provides a rough idea of the quality of the article. (In fact, it may be a good idea for the {{SG}} template to be amended by deleting the sentence that you set out above.) If you would like specific comments on an article you have created or expanded, I'd suggest that you nominate it for peer review or put a note on this talk page requesting that another SGpedian comment on it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Chinese chess players

This category name is highly confusing, since Chinese chess is the common English name for a different board game, and one would naturally expect it to be filled with players of Chinese chess. Any suggestions on renaming it? 70.51.9.174 (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Category:Chess players from China"? Why is this matter being discussed in this forum anyway – does it relate to Singapore in some way? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can category pages have disambiguation links at the top? If so, a disambiguation link to Category:Xiangqi players should suffice. I do not see how this query pertains to Singapore, except that two Singaporean chess players - Wu Shaobin and Ignatius Leong - are incorrectly listed in the category and should be removed from it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, don't think "xiangqi" (the Mandarin term for Chinese chess) is well known enough to most English speakers. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could be wrong about that. Just noticed that "Chinese Chess" redirects to "Xiangqi". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that Chinese Chess is the common English name for the game. Anyways, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_5#Category:Chinese_chess_players for discussion. 70.55.87.75 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lighthouses in Singapore

I've recently created a navbox {{Lighthouses in Singapore}}, which helps remove the bulky and less-maintainable "See also" lists. I've also moved some info to {{infobox lighthouse}}. This is really, not my field. Perhaps someone might be interested to write the main article, lighthouses in Singapore, and help out on the other articles? Also, an article/section request for Fullerton Light. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If the article is written, the Pedra Branca lighthouse should be mentioned. Awaiting the decision on Pedra Branca!Archtransit (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Horsburgh Lighthouse already exists. May I also point out that the outcome of the case may actually have no bearing on the lighthouse ownership, as Singapore do operate several lighthouses on Malaysian soil.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Majulah Singapura blocked

I saw this today, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Majulah_Singapura . What a terrible thing to do, choosing such a username and then accused of being a sockpuppet of a bad user.

With admin Mailer Diablo retiring and Khaosworks who notes that he is not an active contributor, this leaves only Natalinsmpf (now La goutte de pluie) as the only S'porean admin. If I am promoted, I will be happy to assist any S'porean WPedian in need. Even if I'm not, I'm still willing to help. Archtransit (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask the blocking admin (Raul654) to explain his block. Since taking her O Levels in late 2006, La goutte de pluie has been relatively inactive; however, Rifleman 82 had a successful RFA in November 2007 and should be added to the list of Singaporean admins. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD on Singapore Airlines Flight 380

I would like to call on all members here to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines Flight 380, where a horde of users seem intent to downplay an obvious significant moment in the history of flight, and to disregard Singapore Airlines as a major contributor to its significance. This is not a call for nationalist reactions, but a call for basic unbiased common sense to prevail. Thank you!--Huaiwei (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Our best friend is at it again, now shifting his attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Airlines awards and accolades, where Singapore Airlines awards and accolades is also nominated. This is the second Afd nomination by the same fella with regards to the SQ article.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to inform that Singapore Airlines Flight 380 has survived the AfD. However, I call on the community's help to bring it up to at least a GA standard in time to come. Thank you!--Huaiwei (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive renomination exercise to delist existing GA/FA articles

Dear folks, I wld like to call upon your urgent attention to monitor our hard-earned GA/FAs carefully in order to pre-empt any potential disruptive trolls/anons (usually with ultra-nationalistic agenda & POV) and their sympathetic (or misguided) accomplices. Fyi, Singapore was one of the recent 'victims' along with countries such as Lithuania, Argentina, Morocco, Papua New Guinea etc under the official banner "to raise and uphold the quality of Good articles" (See my earlier comment here). A few recent high-profile SG-related articles were caught in an edit war with insults thrown on Singapore & fellow SGpedians too. Fearing that more SG GAs may be degraded & subsequently delisted thru' such acts, I stepped in earlier to issue a final warning to the user which spared our SG articles from his attacks for the time being. Instead of lying low & cleaning up his acts later, the user still continue his disruptive acts/reverts/racist remarks on other articles & its contributors such as Russia, United States, Indonesia, PISA & many more while promoting Macau for FAC. He was blocked recently and currently being reported again for his recalcitrant ways at this page. Also more details on his talkpage too at 1 2 3. Do be on the look-out for such trolls & any of their spill-over effect during your patrols in future. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeing much of this at my end, either on the SG articles I worked on to pass GA or at the Belarusian articles that are at the FA/GA standard. However, I will keep my eyes out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive users have always been an issue to be tackled with here, which for some reason happens to be on Singapore-related articles. It may be due to Singapore's unique situation on the global arena as a rather controversial entity, thus inviting the attention of some individuals who cast a suspicious eye on anything positive concerning this country. Singaporeans who attempt to counter these activities directly can be deemed to be brainwashed "government lackeys", thus attracting even more intense reactions, often degenerating into ridiculous mud-slinging which can drag on for years. This is the issue that Singaporeans will always have to face (even in real life), but I feel the best long-term response may be to simply strive hard to write in a well-balanced manner beyond what we may be conditioned to write on as per the spirit of NPOV. It may not be easy (my own difficulties on Singapore Airlines related articles is one great example. Just see the preceding section for a life demonstration), but once that is achieved, there is simply little disruptive editors can do.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to apply Ockham's Razor to the following alternative explanations:

1. There is a vast, shadowy, multinational conspiracy of editors which exists solely to suppress and pervert True(tm) information about Singapore in general and your edits in particular.
2. Every now and then, you're wrong.

I await your well-balanced, non-mud-slinging reply in the spirit of NPOV. Jpatokal (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And the answer is as demonstrated herein: [1]. Nationalism at its finest, no less?--Huaiwei (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Aldwinteo and Huaiwei. Although Coloane has a history of disruption on Singapore-related articles, the GA reassessment request he filed for Singapore would not have closed as "delist" had the article met the GA criteria. Not everyone who proposes the delisting of Singapore-related GAs, whether through a GA reassessment request or one of the GA sweeps, is motivated by "ultra-nationalistic agenda & POV". For example, last week, Canadian Paul, an experienced GA reviewer, sweeped through the "Actors, models, performers and celebrities" category of GAs and placed Fann Wong on hold, citing several minor concerns. I believe that he hopes the article will be improved so it can keep its GA status. Since Fann Wong is "nearly there", why not address the issues? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe Aldwinteo is raising this issue against anyone reviewing a Singapore-related FA or GA as you are suggesting. While all of us would like to assume good faith, bad faith editors do abound once in a while, and if left unchecked, can leave a trail of damage which may go unnoticed. It is simply uncommon for a user as new as Coloane to call for a GA review that early in his editing career (this was his 20th edit, in fact), and I doubt it is coincidental that condescending and insulting remarks are made by the same individual against an entire nationality. It was only through my tussles with him in one article did I discover his colourful editing history, which has not only sparked disputes with Singaporeans, but also with many other users. Perhaps Aldwinteo's tone may be a tad extreme, but I do not see it as an issue to warn others of potentially disruptive editors.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Except for hardcore vandals & trolls, I've always assume good faith as I rarely post comments or intervene all these while as I'm a Exopedianist in Wikipedia. I'm fully aware & familiar with the procedures, the going-ons & discussions of the respective WikiProject groups, i.e. GAC/FAC/GAR/FAR/GA/FA sweep groups due to my involvement in the GA project which I undertook on my own initiative for SGpedia since Sep 2007, which the SGpedian community have credited me for earlier. I share my concern here earlier when I noticed increasing cases or repeated users that abuse or 'game the system' for selfish reasons, revenge or whatever cause (Nationalistic/POV/Anti-'certain group/country' etc), that disrupts the Wiki community or degrade the quality of the articles at the expense of good faith & hard work of past & existing contributors. Besides the abovementioned case, there're a few similar cases which I did not mentioned that were dealt with earlier or currently been reported at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents now. u can check out the cases or its archives there and at the GA/FA sweeps for details. I hope fellow SGpedians do read & understand my msg in the proper context. On this note, I end my conversation here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Blog (SGpedia)

Greetings, there is a blog to share your views about Wikipedia with SGpedians', notifications of community meets, and also to post kopitiam topics (not related to Wiki, anything you like). Here, you can post anything you like. If you wish to write on the blog, please let me know. The blog is semi-private, so if you want to read/write, do email me. All are welcome to post and read. Terence (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

MAJOR PROBLEM WITH SINGAPOREAN ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT PAGES

Tonight, vandal ColourWolf's proxies struck again, vandalizing The Golden Path (drama), along with my user talkpage. After I defeated this wave of attacks, I have checked other pages that I suspect was hit in the vandalism attack, and it appears that there are even more pages that are vandalized. Liang Po Po: The Movie's page had a very fake and phony synopsis on it for months, and no one took notice.

I am urging you all to please take a look at ALL Singaporean arts and entertainment pages for factual errors. ColourWolf's reign of terror has gone on long enough, and SGpedians need to rise to the challenge, and truly make pages on Singaporean issues truthful. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

ColourRedux, apparently a sock puppet of ColourWolf, posted a reply here, but his post was reverted by Chensiyuan. In the post, he claimed that he has given up, but recommends we delete articles on Channel 8 dramas. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

J.L.W.S., we cannot bow to these wikiterrorists! It is absolutely deprived morally, as well as being unashamedly corrupt! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Whether I am ColourWolf or not doesn't matter. What matters is that the vast majority of the Mediacorp dramas are so obscure that it gives people the chance to introduce fake information without gathering much attention. In fact, there are still Singapore articles that still have remnants of ColourWolf's edits. Inaccuracies are still a high in Singapore articles.Nosey Fellow (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbiteroftruth, I think you misunderstood my post. I merely summarised and paraphrased his reply, but did not state whether I agree or disagree with him. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

MRT articles containing excessive and unencyclopedic detail

Upon perusing some MRT station articles, I found that someone has taken it upon themselves to list every single train delay or accident in MRT articles, even where the "incident" in question is simply a 20 minute delay. Here is the worst example I have seen, in Farrer Park MRT Station:

"On the evening of 25 December 2007, Some technical difficulties were experienced along the North East Line caused delays for train services. A member of the public who was affected by the delay said she waited for at least 20 minutes for the train at the station."

I feel that this information is unencyclopedic and also fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delays and suicides etc. happen on all train systems. As far as I know, we don't make a habit of mentioning every single one in our other train system articles. - Mark 00:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Only major incidents should be noted. Mark, I think you're justified in going ahead and removing the unencyclopedic information. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Only incidents like that of one many many years ago when 2 trains collided are noteworthy. IMO, even suicide cases are not encyclopedic enough to be mentioned. - oahiyeel ^talk 03:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, should change to lists like List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom - Fernvale (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I have a bone to pick with deletionists who think "Singaporean" means "non-notable", I certainly do not want Singapore-cruft to remain on Wikipedia. Are MRT stations, local drama serials, etc. really notable? If so, we need to develop guidelines on how such articles should be structured and what information should (and should not) be included. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say MRT stations sure are notable, just based upon the fact that just about every other train station in the world has an article already. As for the local dramas, assuming they are shown on Channel 5 or 8 or similar, then they would reach a large audience and therefore should satisfy the notability requirement. - Mark 15:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a train enthusiast, but I agree that there are aspects of MRT and LRT stations which make them notable, including their history, architecture and the part they play in the MRT network as a whole. I notice there are articles about present and former London Underground stations, for instance. As for local drama serials, I don't see why these shouldn't be notable. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there's no reason why articles about niche subjects shouldn't be included for people wanting to find out more about them. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, note that there is a related discussion above at #MRT Accidents wiki-worthy?. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If they are notable, we should develop guidelines for such articles, covering how they should be structured, what information should (and should not) be included and where to get reliable sources for them (remember, reliable sources establish notability). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope this discussion doesn't die out like the previous one. Here's a set of guidelines that I have come up with:

• Introduction: name, station number, location
• History: opening date of each line, major incidents (mock terrorist exercise, train collisions, terrorist threats, bomb hoaxes)
• Future: connections, extensions
• Prominent extras: e.g. Bishan (superstition), Art in Transit, other relevant info that makes the station stand out (and by that I don't mean the type of info listed below)
• A short list of nearby prominent structures (shopping centres, major buildings, major attractions). Not supermarkets, pri/sec schools or jcs, food outlets, libraries
• Bus connections (this section needs to be standardized throughout all the articles)
• Locator map
• s-rail template (before and after stations)

• Finally, an infobox needs to be drawn up to summarise all the information: name, alphanumeric codes, a picture of the station, URA planning area, operator, opening dates, associated bus interchange, no. of platforms, no. of exits. Any other related info is welcome.

These are sections that I think we generally agree should not be in the articles:

• Slips, falls, trips, pushes and suicides
• Trains stopping, stuttering or failing
• STOMP articles - which is pretty much tabloid news
• First train, last train
• Shops and facilities within the station

Some people feel that more of the above info is better, but they are useless. It's just unnecessary padding to make the article seem large. Feel free to discuss the above. 리지강.wa.au _talk 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fann Wong has lost its GA status

On 8 January 2008, Canadian Paul re-reviewed Fann Wong as part of the GA sweeps and placed the article on hold, citing several issues with prose, referencing and the lead. The primary contributors did not address the issues; Ryan-D is currently serving his National Service while Voda voda appears to have left Wikipedia. As a result, the article was delisted after the seven-day hold period elapsed.

Please note that unlike the disruptive Coloane, Canadian Paul is an experienced GA reviewer and I will assume good faith, that he is motivated by a desire to improve the article, rather than "ultra-nationalistic agenda & POV". Since the issues are relatively minor and easy to address, I nominated Fann Wong for the GA drive and adopted it. Could others adopt the article and collaborate with me to address the issues, so that Fann Wong can become a GA again?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who are ignorant on GA sweeps & GAR, the abovementioned reviewer is one of the 17 official GA sweepers as per this taskforce list only. To become one is by invitation only as extended by any member of this taskforce: "only experienced reviewers who are established (trusted) within the project should participate in this initial sweep". (I was approached by a senior GA reviewer to help out with the WP:GAN backlog but I politely turned down his invitation recently). Also, an official GA sweeper adheres strictly to a Code of Conduct wrt their conduct & assessment. Otherwise, anyone not on this taskforce who delisted or nominate any existing GA articles straight away without any due process or claims to be a GA sweeper, has to 'show cause' or practise due diligence by checking on such individuals, their history log profile or post an inquiry to alert the bonafide folks at the GA sweep talkpage. Same goes for any imminent FA sweeps too. Fyi, the disruptor u mentioned still continues with his exploits & personal attacks until he was stonewalled by a group of admins recently at the U2 FAC (his caustic remarks were later removed by admin), & was referred promptly for community ban at ANI once again. His case is still pending now but he chooses to 'retire' suddenly a day after his case was being brought up.[2] A proxy appears soon after on the ANI page to defend his actions despite the weight of evidence & possible COI earlier. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should stop focusing on Coloane. Instead, we should try to improve Fann Wong by addressing Canadian Paul's concerns. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted copyvios

Today I deleted nine articles, all about Singaporean hospitals or libraries, which were all copyright violations. All the revisions of these articles were tainted by the copyright violations. I would appreciate people more familiar with the subjects considering if they are notable and, if so, writing stubs for them.

The list of articles which I deleted are as follows:

• Ang Mo Kio - Thye Hua Kwan Hospital
• St Luke's Hospital, Singapore
• Adam Road Hospital
• Jurong West Community Library
• Bedok Community Library
• Toa Payoh Community Library
• Queenstown Community Library
• Bukit Merah Community Library
• Marine Parade Community Library

I found them when I noticed a user had removed a bot-added copyvio notice from a page he or she created, and investigated further. The reason I did not re-create the articles myself at this stage is because I am unfamiliar with whether individual public libraries are considered sufficiently notable to have an article for each. - Mark 10:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

新年快乐，恭喜发财，万事如意，身体健康，学业进步！

Chinese New Year is here again! Have a pair of Mandarin oranges, everybody! However, since I am not married, I cannot give you guys hongbaos. May the Year of the Rat see SGpedians write more GAs!

Speaking of GAs, would anyone like to collaborate with me on Fann Wong or Odex's actions against file-sharing? Both articles have considerable GA potential. All they need is a little polishing, which I am willing to do, as long as others will pitch in and help.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Gongxifacai! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

National Day celebrations on Wikipedia

In a discussion I started on National Day last year, I suggested that "we try to get a DYK (or even FA) on the main page on 9 August [2008]". This suggestion inspired me to develop a proposal, detailed below, for comprehensive National Day celebrations on Wikipedia. You may consider this proposal premature, as it is only February, but writing FAs and GAs requires months of dedicated effort. Did you know...that those who perform in the National Day Parade have been known to start rehearsing nine months in advance?

The celebrations will entail:

• Having Singapore, or an article about something that is relevant to our national pride, as the main page FA on 9 August. "Relevant to our national pride" should be broadly defined; examples of things that are "relevant to our national pride" include, but are not limited to, national symbols, sportsmen or other people who have done our country proud, unique aspects of our history or culture and unique achievements of the Little Red Dot. Note that 9 August is the date the FA appears on the main page, not the date it passes FAC. The article should pass FAC at least two weeks in advance or Raul654 is unlikely to entertain our request to feature it on the main page on 9 August.
• Two Singapore-related articles attaining GA status on 9 August. As a member of WikiProject Good Articles, I can arrange with members of the project to have both articles nominated and reviewed on 9 August. In fact, I would be happy to write one or both GAs, as well as assist any SGpedian writing a GA for our National Day celebrations.
• Each of the four DYK refreshments on 9 August containing an entry from a Singapore-related article. All articles should be chosen in advance, with considerable research being done before the articles are written on 5 August. I might write at least one of the DYK articles.
• Creating a section on this talk page on 9 August, for everyone to wish the Lion City a happy 43rd birthday and have some friendly banter.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, J.L.W.S. No, February is not too early to start thinking about a project like this. It does sound interesting. Have you checked if it is Wikipedia policy in the first place to permit having so many elements relating to the same country appear on the home page on the same day? I don't want to be a wet blanket, but I'm just wondering if it is at all possible. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there is any policy against having a Singapore-related FA and Singapore-related DYK on the main page at the same time (GAs do not appear on the main page, unfortunately). The DYK rules state: "No DYK installment should have more than two entries relating to one country, topic, or issue, and no more than one is even better." In my opinion, having one entry from a Singapore-related article in each refreshment is fine. However, if there is sufficient support for this proposal, I will seek approval from "Upstairs", by posting on relevant policy/process talk pages. If Upstairs says cannot, then cannot lor.

For this to be a success, we need SGpedians to write the FA, GAs and DYK articles. Any volunteers? SGpedian legend Aldwinteo, with 7 Singapore-related GAs to his name, appears to have retired, but Jacklee, the primary contributor to 5 Singapore-related GAs, is still active. There are others, such as Chensiyuan, who are prolific GA (and even FA) writers, but unfortunately do not contribute to Singapore-related articles; they should be invited to be part of this. As I mentioned above, I will write one of the DYK articles and one or both GAs.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Due to personal commitments & travels, I'm currently semi-retired since Nov 2007 but still assisting the community as a 'Watchman' in countering vandals, trolls or POV pushers whenever possible. I may embark on the GA project once again after I've fully settled back in S'pore a few months later. Fyi, u folks can approach a SGpedian newbie, Marcuslim (contributions) another history/heritage writer like me, to contribute more DYKs as part of this on-going DYK/GA drive. u can check out one of his latest writings - Chua Ek Kay created on Feb 14 (Do touch-up & nominate it for DYK if nec). I'm currently guiding him along the way but do appreciate u folks to advise or assist him whenever necessary so that we cld have a bigger pool of DYK/GA writers instead of the same old tired faces now. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hildaknight asked me to commonet on this. I'll *tentatively* say I have no objections to have a Singapore-related FA while no more than one DYK at a time are also Singapore related. Raul654 (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another proposal for the National Day 2008 celebrations: jazzing up the SGpedians' notice board. I've been tinkering with a new home page on and off for a while. Have a look at what I've done so far at Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board/underconstruction. Suggestions for improving it are welcome below, as well as help with fixing the large gap in the right panel – I can't figure out how to get rid of it! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Singapore's diplomatic representation

There is an error in the Wikipedia list as it does not include Singapore's Embassy in Bangkok. More generally, I'd like to ask why Singapore has such very limited representation overseas. It is a wealthy country and can afford it. For example, according to the Wikipedia list, there is no representation at all in South or Central America, while the representation in Asia omits both Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Maybe the list is in error. Perhaps the relevant Ministry can fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.8.76.152 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

NUS research on Wikipedians

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am an honors undergraduate from National University of Singapore doing a thesis on motivations to contribute to Wikipedia. Please help me out by taking part in this online survey, https://esurvey.nus.edu.sg/onlinesurvey/wikipedia_survey.htm.

The approximate time to complete this survey is 10 minutes. Please be assured that your responses will be kept strictly confidential and only be restricted within the use of my academia. Your help will be deeply appreciated. Thanks a million!

Yours sincerely, MeiHui

Participant Information Sheet

A study on knowledge-sharing motivations in Wikipedia.

Principal investigator: Dr. Cho Hichang Organization: National University of Singapore, Arts and Social Sciences Department, Communications and New Media Department. Email add: cnmch@nus.edu.sg

Co-investigator: Chen MeiHui Organization: National University of Singapore, Arts and Social Sciences Department, Communications and New Media Department. Email add: u0400730@nus.edu.sg

Purpose of research

The aim of the study is to study the motivations behind contributing to Wikipedia.

You are invited to participate in a research. This information sheet provides you with information about the research. The Principal Investigator (the research doctor or person in charge of this research) or his/her representative will answer all of your questions about this research. Read the information below and email the Co-investigator, Chen MeiHui, at u0400730@nus.edu.sg any questions about anything you don’t understand before deciding whether or not to take part.

Eligible participants and duration of research

Only members registered under Wikipedia between the ages of 21 to 70 are allowed to take part in the online survey. The survey link will be send randomly to them once in the period between February and March. The members will be contacted via their Wikipedia email accounts.

Approximate number of participants.

The number of participants is targeted at approximately 200.

What will be done in this research

The data you indicate in the survey forms will be used solely in the research. The data will be analyzed as statistics and quotes.

Protection of Privacy & Integrity of Data

Identifiable information will never be used as the survey is conducted anonymously. The data the respondent provided in the surveys will be used strictly for our academic purposes. As such, there will be strong protection of privacy and integrity of the data.

Risks to participants An online survey will be disseminated to the participants. There are no risks associated with the participation in this research.

What are the possible benefits to me and the others? There are no monetary or direct benefits to the participants of the online survey. However, the responses collected will contribute to academic research. The results of the online survey will help us to understand what factors motivate members of Wikipedia as well as the factors that inhibit others from contributing. These will have implications on what can be done to increase contribution from the Wikipedians as contributions from members will be pivotal to the success of a user-generated content type of virtual community (i.e. Wikipedia).

Refusal to participate in this research Your decision to participate in this research is voluntary and completely up to you. You can refuse to participate in this research. Contact Details for further enquiries

Please contact the Co-investigator, Chen MeiHui at email u0400730@nus.edu.sg for all research-related queries.

For an independent opinion regarding the research and the rights of research participants, you may contact a staff member of the National University of Singapore Institutional Review Board (Attn: Mr Chan Tuck Wai, at telephone 65161234 or email at irb@nus.edu.sg). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woaikandianshi (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have proposed SPH MediaWorks Channel U‎ to be merged into MediaCorp TV Channel U‎. Please leave your comments at the talk page! - oahiyeel ^talk 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

New home page

Here's another proposal for the National Day 2008 celebrations: jazzing up the SGpedians' notice board. I've been tinkering with a new home page on and off for a while. Have a look at what I've done so far at Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board/underconstruction. Suggestions for improving it are welcome below, as well as help with fixing the large gap in the right panel – I can't figure out how to get rid of it! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, isn't anyone interested in this at all? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. However, what are the goals of the new design? Facilitating collaboration? Attracting new SGpedians? Answering that question will help you make various decisions regarding structure and aesthetics. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the current notice board looks tired and needs freshening up. Having a revamped home page that looks more professional may certainly attract more editors to sign up as SGpedians. I'm not sure, though, that merely changing the way the home page looks will facilitate collaboration, so I wouldn't put that down as one of the goals. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Vamei GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed Tropical Storm Vamei and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with other WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

SGpedians, please give a round of applause to Hurricanehink. He did a great job addressing all of Nehrams2020's issues. As a result, Tropical Storm Vamei will retain its GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nanyang MBA

This article currently reads like an advertisement! Could someone with sufficient knowledge help to edit it appropriately. Also, it has been suggested for merger into the Nanyang Technological University article, or renamed into a more appropriate title i.e. Nanyang Business School. - oahiyeel ^talk 03:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

NS logo.jpg

Someone please see Talk:Serangoon_MRT_Station on the "fair use message" on Image:NS logo.jpg. I don't really know Wikipedia well enough to address this. Thanks! --unkx80 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A fair-use justification has already been added to Image:NS logo.jpg by another editor. Have a look at the image description page to see how to do so for future reference. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright of Straits Times and other SPH publications

Dear all, it has come to my attention that the usage of images from Straits Times electronic copy, became quite a concern with some users, and they've shared their kind concerns with me. While I take the lead from a reply by ST journalist Sandra leong on copyright infringement, and kindly being posted on Tomorrow.sg's website at http://tomorrow.sg/archives/2006/07/30/straits_times_infringes_on_copyr.html, I would still like to refer to the kind opinions of fellow Sgpedians who have been here longer than I did, and shed some light on this issue. As a fellow person passionate about Singapore issues, I do not wish to continue to ruffle feathers of other users (apologetically done so to the kind users who have shared their initial concerns with me) With that, I hope to hear the views of other Sgpedians here. Thank you! :) -- Marcuslim (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Marcus. As you're aware I've been in conversation with you on the topic. For the benefit of other SGpedians, let me expand on what I've said on the matter.

• The discussion on Tomorrow.sg related to concerns that people had over The Straits Times making use of photographs from websites without the consent of or even attributing the authors. Journalist Sandra Leong's response was that no issue of privacy was involved as there is no privacy law in Singapore.
• What Ms Leong said was true, and therefore no persons featured in the photographs (or their personal representatives, if they are deceased) have a legal claim for breach of privacy.
• However, Ms Leong conveniently sidestepped the issue of copyright, which is distinct from privacy law. (This point was raised by several people who participated in the Tomorrow.sg discussion.) There most certainly are copyright laws in Singapore which prohibit the reproduction of copyrighted images without consent: see the Copyright Act (Cap. 63, 2006 Rev. Ed.).
• Even if The Straits Times (or any other publisher) has used images in breach of copyright, this does not give any of us a right to copy those images from The Straits Times and reuse them on Wikipedia. That is still a breach of copyright and contrary to Wikipedia policy, even if the copyright owner is unknown.
• The only ways that a copyrighted image can legitimately be used on Wikipedia are (1) if permission is sought from the copyright owner for the image to be licensed to Wikipedia under a free licence, or (2) an appropriate fair-use justification is provided for each use of the image in an article. If an image is used in three articles, then three separate fair-use justifications have to be provided: see, for instance, "Image:Coxford Singlish Dictionary.jpg". What constitutes an "appropriate" fair-use justification is difficult to say – it depends very much on the particular administrator assessing it. In general, the justification has to establish the importance of the image to the article and to explain why the copyrighted image cannot be replaced by a free alternative (perhaps because it is of a deceased person, captures an unrepeatable historical moment that is important to the article, or because it is unique – logos and book covers, for instance).
• Altering a copyrighted image by reducing it in size or resolution or by cropping it does not give one a copyright in the altered image. The altered image is regarded as a derivative work of the original image and is still subject to the original copyright. Therefore, altered images should not be uploaded to Wikipedia under GFDL or Creative Commons licences. As mentioned previously, such images can only be used if permission is sought or if fair-use justifications are provided.

I think I've correctly understood the law and Wikipedia's policies on the matter, but am happy to hear any other views on the matter. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's more or less correct, but one important nitpick: Wikipedia is run under US jurisdiction and can thus claim fair use under US law, but the Straits Jacket is in Singapore and thus subject to Sing copyright law. However, the Copyright Act sec. 35-37 do provide for "fair dealing". It's quite similar, but note this (emphasis mine):

Fair dealing for purpose of reporting current events

37. A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of current events —

(a) in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and a sufficient acknowledgment of the work is made

So yes, the ST can use others' work for reporting on current events, but only if they credit the author.

In your shoes, I'd take the ST to the Small Claims Tribunal: it's an open-and-shut case as far as the law is concerned, and their legal might is of no use there. Jpatokal (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that The Straits Times can rely on the defence of fair dealing for reporting current events, provided they properly acknowledge the works that they reproduce. (By the way, claims for breach of copyright can't be brought before a small claims tribunal. The jurisdiction of such tribunals is limited to claims relating to disputes arising from contracts for the sale of goods or the provision of services, claims in tort in respect of damage caused to property, and claims relating to disputes arising from contracts for the lease of residential premises not exceeding two years: Small Claims Tribunals Act (Cap. 308, 1998 Rev. Ed.), section 5(1).) The essence of my previous message, though, is that whether or not The Straits Times abides by the law, the use of images on Wikipedia needs to comply with Wikipedia policy. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an explicit reference for copyright being excluded? I don't see why "any claim in tort in respect of damage caused to any property" would not apply to intellectual property as well and the damage caused to the property owner by unauthorized reproduction. Jpatokal (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. You may well be right. Neither "tort" nor "property" is defined in the Act, and a checklist stated on the Small Claims Tribunals website does not indicate that intellectual property claims are definitely excluded from the jurisdiction of the tribunals. I'm not aware of any case that has decided the matter one way or another. By the way, the website also indicates that the current monetary limit for small claims is $10,000 ($20,000 by agreement), and not $30,000 as Marcus indicated. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To my understanding about copyrights from a layperson's point of view, the whole purpose of this copyright law is to protect the creator's rights from any other commercial sales / profiteering by other people who have, benefitted non-commercially as a result of this production by the creator. And if there need be to extract / cite information from its original source, we do need to provide credits and copyright information with of its creators.

To bring in Small Claims, and other jurisdiction, would mean there is profiteering involved in this case, doesn't it? And yes, I agree with Jack that such matters doesn't reach Small Claims Tribunals as they're more involved with ligitations involving commercial sales conflicts, and with items not more than SGD $30,000. In the case of our "Wiki-peding", wouldn't it suffice to jz simply accredit the source and owner of the photos, i.e. to the Singapore Press Holdings, for any ST FILE PHOTOS reproduced on Straits Times?Thanks for taking time to shed light on laws, Jacklee -- Marcuslim (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Marcus. You're right about the general purpose of copyright law. However, when using copyrighted images on Wikipedia where permission of the copyright owner has not been obtained, it is not enough just to provide the source and copyright owner. "Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline" needs to be complied with. As I mentioned, this guideline requires a detailed fair-use rationale to be provided for each article that the image is used in. It is also necessary to include a suitable copyright tag on the image description page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack, thanks for the new insight. I now appreciate your reasonings with clearer picture, knowing now it's not so much that the practice of copyright is in question, but it is more about application of our conducts when applying this copyright, and applying it that complies with Wiki's laws.

I have also spoken to a friend about this, and my friend sheds light that it may be difficult to obtain permissions from SPH, as she understands there is no authority that looks into rights and permissions on a user level, i.e. you can email a letter to them but nobody will reply. I did that too, and indeed this is the case. So how shall we get around this issue? -- Marcuslim (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I would suggest:

1. See if you can find a free image that can be used in the article. Check the Wikimedia Commons and Flickr.com (images that are tagged with the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) and Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) licences can be imported to the Commons using a tool called Flinfo). Or can an old image that is out of copyright be used?
2. Failing that, consider who you can contact to try and obtain permission for an image to be licensed to Wikipedia. Often, the owner of a website on which an image appears is the person to contact. If the photograph that you wish to use is of an individual, does he or she have an agent, manager or publicist? What about the company or organization that the person owns or works for? See "Wikipedia:Example requests for permission" and "commons:Email templates" for sample e-mails that you can use. I've had some success with this before.
3. Otherwise, consider whether the article really needs to have the particular non-free image that you wish to include. If so, as I mentioned above, upload the image and provide a detailed fair-use rationale complying with "Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline" for each article that the image is used in, and a suitable copyright tag on the image description page. What you must do is explain why the image is important to the article and why the copyrighted image cannot be replaced by a free alternative (perhaps because it is of a deceased person, captures an unrepeatable historical moment that is important to the article, or because it is unique – logos and book covers, for instance). For an example, see "Image:Coxford Singlish Dictionary.jpg". However, be aware that non-free images uploaded with fair-use justifications may be deleted by administrators if they do not feel that fair use of the images has been made out.

I hope that helps. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your safest option is not to use any images, lest you get into trouble with the anti-fair use brigade. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made some progress on finding out more about copyrights from SPH, and basically their answer is no money no licence. You have to pay - and pay quite a large amount - for the right to publish any of their images online for mass viewing.

SPH's recently launched search engine [[3]] will clearly indicate the prices and their usage rights, when you use their image search engines. Don't worry - searching is free. Otherwise, you may contact the following person who's in charge of access to archived SPH articles or to request copyright permission.

Sebastian Chow

Senior Manager

Database & Newslink

New Media - Internet Business Unit

Marketing

Singapore Press Holdings Limited

Tel : 65 3192060

E-mail: [4]

I hope this discussion has been useful, and continue to be for all Sgpedians with questions on copyrights in SPH. Many thanks to Jack and all users who've contributed to the discussion. Cheers --Marcuslim (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

National Day main page FA discussion

Last month, I posted a proposal for comprehensive National Day celebrations on Wikipedia, which Jacklee described as "interesting". The most challenging task in the proposal would be "having Singapore, or an article about something that is relevant to our national pride, as the main page FA on 9 August". Therefore, we should start selecting, and collaborating on, an article as early as we can.

I have identified four articles which are of high quality and are about something "relevant to our national pride". All we need is an SGpedian who is willing to improve one of these articles to FA status:

• Singapore - This article has improved considerably since it lost GA status in July last year. It is now very well-referenced, although rather messy. Topic-wise, this article is my first choice.
• Flag of Singapore - A national symbol is definitely "relevant to our national pride". Moreover, the primary contributor, Jacklee, is still active and has previously written an FA (about British author Richard Hakluyt). All that prevents this article from attaining GA status is a rather weak lead section and several other sections not being written in summary style. Once the article becomes a GA, FA status should not be too far away.
• Singapore Changi Airport - The success of Changi Airport and the awards it has won make it "relevant to our national pride". Unfortunately, since attaining GA status, the article has been the subject of several content disputes of varying severity; in addition, several sections are marked as short and requiring expansion.
• History of Singapore - Currently a GA and rated A-class. Apart from a copy-edit, not much is needed to get it to FA status.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Beef chow fun ban?

I heard from various sources that the Singaporean Government bans Beef chow fun from being cooked within the country, due to its unhealthy properties, and that big punishment (jail, my friend said death penalty, but I doubt it for such a "trivial crime") awaits for those who eat of make this dish. Are runors of a ban true, and if it is, is the government still enforcing it? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's still illegal, but the punishment for the offence is that you get force-fed vegetables and made to serve another three years of national service so that you get fit and healthy again. ;-) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My local coffeeshop says no, they still serve me the dish when I order it. Man, the things these hoaxers do to see how gullible we can be sometimes... *BURP* -- Dave1185 (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ferry Terminals

Could somebody please find information on the HarborFront Passenger Terminal, the Tanah Merah Ferry Terminal, and the Changi terminals. There's a new seaport under construction right? I read something about cruise ship operators not liking to unload their passengers next to freight trailers but Singapore not having a wide enough berth for them in a tourist terminal. Really, I don't know much about these places. Could somebody write something for them. If I did it, there would be little more than a stub. A stubette really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaronDierkes (talk • contribs) 09:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Teban Gardens and Pandan Gardens

Firstly, I would like to state that I hailed from Teban Gardens. Secondly, I'm looking for user(s) who would be able to help me with more details or other interesting facts that can be added into pages of Teban Gardens or Pandan Gardens. Thank you. -- Dave1185 (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What can I say but thanks a million to Huaiwei & Chensiyuan for the help rendered to the two articles above. Still, that doesn't mean that it cannot be improved upon, so if anyone of you grew up here or has friend from here, please help me contribute more to this small little town to write down its page in history, I hate to see it go the way of Taman Jurong. Thanks again guys! -- Dave1185 (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

{{User Singapore}}

I've updated the userbox {{User Singapore}}. It is now possible to specify that you are a "friend of Singapore" by typing "{{User Singapore|status=f}}", or that you "live in Singapore" by typing "{{User Singapore|status=r}}". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Samsui Women

Can someone improve on the page? I did my best, but alas, I am not Singaporean, and my knowledge of Singapore history is limited. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi abiteroftruth, I applaud your interest in this group of hardworking women. To share some facts, Samsui women typically comes from the place call Shan shui which means three rivers. While most people think of Samsui women as those who don on red headgears in respect to a tradition which started by Su Dongpo's mistress in the early dynasties, the truth is Samsui women also don blue headgears - and they come from the Teochew province in Guangzhou. Also, not all Samsui women work as labourers in construction sites. Some become majies (house maids) servants to European famillies living in Malaya. Hope this helps in your direction to writing the article -- Marcuslim (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Homerun (film)'s GA nomination currently on hold; input appreciated.

Homerun (film)'s GA nomination was placed on hold by AnmaFinotera, who appears to be an inexperienced reviewer. I disagree with some of his comments. Thus the review would benefit from input from others who are familiar with film articles, the GA criteria or both. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has achieved GA status. Special thanks goes to my copy-editor, Haemo! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal interviews and voice recordings as valid references

Hi everyone, I've began my own quest to talk to artists, and attend live discussions about art and artists. I was wondering if Wikipedia accepts citations from recorded interviews? If so, how does one present it as a reference? Thanks for your advice -- Marcuslim (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your interviews of artists are not acceptable as references unless they are published in a reliable source, such as a mainstream newspaper or magazine. Perhaps you could ask the artists to point you to useful resources? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Color Codes for different genre artists

With the creation of Ng Eng Teng's page, I'd like to start the ball on the thought of standardizing color codes for different pages created under Category:Singaporean artists - one color for each genre. Through the page on web colors, I picked out the Gainsboro color (#DC DC DC) for Singaporean sculptors, as it seems to aptly describe the color of stone and steel which they use commonly in their work. I'd like to hear other suggestions from other contributors what other appropriate colors would be good for genres listed here. Thanks! -- 03:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Singaporean painters -
2. Singaporean ink painters (this one's at the back of my head now) -
3. Singaporean calligraphers -
4. Singaporean photographers -

Progress report: We have reached 20 GAs!

On 17 April 2008, Ho Yuen Hoe achieved GA status, becoming our 20th GA and Aldwinteo's 9th (he is one GA away from double figures)! Homerun (film) also achieved GA status this morning; it is my second GA. Keep up the good work, SGpedians! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank u for your kind compliments. As for total GA count, I wish to clarify that the abovementioned article is my 10th GA (incl. a Thai geograhy article), not 9th as mentioned earlier. I got a few selected SG history/heritage articles to improve & nominate on hand before I call it a day next. Fyi, our total Singapore GAs is 21, not 20 to date. (Count this) -- Aldwinteo (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I only counted your Singapore-related GAs, although I am pleased to know that you wrote a GA about a Thai village, as such contributions also help fight systemic bias. Ho Yuen Hoe is our 20th GA; our 21st is Homerun (film). Hopefully you will contribute two DYKs (and maybe even a GA) to the National Day celebrations programme before leaving. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Have I not being doing that all along? When will these requests ever end? As a lay Buddhist myself, one shld learn & be mindful of the cause of Annica (impermanence) & learn to let go of attachments with Upekkha (equanimity) & skilful means (For example, look around at the strong emotions attached, silly antics displayed & retaliations that exist even in the virtual space of Wikipedia) Most importantly, one has to know to do the right thing when the time is given to u. If I do return to Wikipedia one day, I'll focus more on Buddhism-related theme (already written some to date) & the Pali Canon, as I'm familiar with the original Tripitaka (Sutta texts) as taught by the Sangha in Pali or Sanskrit from young. With Metta -- Aldwinteo (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dawn Yang

The article on Dawn Yang has recently been nominated for deletion. I had never heard of her before, but if she is a celebrity who appears on magazine covers in Singapore, that would seem to make her notable. However, I have hardly been able to find any reliable sources about her that would help support keeping the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

China and PRC articles request to be renamed

As this is likely to be of interest to Singaporean users, User:SmuckyTheCat is requesting that China be renamed, and replaced by the People's Republic of China article at "China". 70.55.88.176 (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Draft Guidelines for Lists of companies by country - Feedback Requested

Within WikiProject Companies I am trying to establish guidelines for all Lists of companies by country, the implementation of which would hopefully ensure a minimum quality standard and level of consistency across all of these related but currently disparate articles. The ultimate goal is the improvement of these articles to Featured List status. As a WikiProject that currently has one of these lists within your scope, I would really appreciate your feedback! You can find the draft guidelines here. Thanks for your help as we look to build consensus and improve Wikipedia! - Richc80 (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to rename "Pedra Branca dispute"

There is a discussion on whether to rename "Pedra Branca dispute" as "Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia v. Singapore)", as this is the official name of the International Court of Justice case: see "List of International Court of Justice cases". Your comments on the article's talk page are welcome. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Dryburgh

Hi, please could I ask someone from here to give my new page on Margaret Dryburgh a rating please. Thanks. --seahamlass 11:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles from Singapore football nominated for deletion

I have nominated three articles of Singapore football for deletion, two of which are Singaporean players, namely Mohd Mardani and Ram Shanker, the third is a foreign player by the name of Rivaldo Costa.Frankie goh (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Singaporean comics

I'm coming from the WikiProject Comics World Comics working group in search of advice on categorization of Singaporean comics, and ways of correctly describing subjects related to Singaporean comics. Are Singaporean comics considered "manhua" or should be they be called and categorized as "Singaporean comics"? Are all comics originating in Singapore written in Chinese, or are some original works published in English and other languages, too? (I'm not referring to works translated from other languages, like Chuang Yi's manga translations.) Is it correct to call Foo Swee Chin a manhua artist or is Singaporean comic book artist best? I hope this makes sense. We're starting our focus with Korean and Chinese-language comics, and we will be getting things organized and revved up for comics from all over Asia (not Japan), South America, Africa, and Oceania, too. We absolutely welcome any of you interested in comics to join us or just take a look at what we're up to. Things are very rough right now, just behind-the-scenes work, but we value your opinions and expertise very much. Thanks so much for your time! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 21:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi hamu, there is already a category for Singapore comics artists under Category:Singaporean comics artists, so you can actually use it to develop local talents in that genre. At this point i've taken the liberty to combine people from this genre under that category, while requesting for removal of the other category called Category:Singaporean cartoonists. In my opinion the small industry in Singapore justifies the use of Comics artists category, that there isn't need to segment cartoonists and comics artists. Hope this existing category is helpful for you to build on. -- Marcuslim (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Very much so. Your input on category organization has been valuable. It's going to be slow-going, but I certainly hope we can expand on current and future Singaporean comics articles. If you know folks interested in that area, invite them over to Wikiproject Comics World Comics work group. :)

Hi Hamu, you may like to approach people from the Imaginary Friends Studios or the Association of Comics Artists Singapore, to help you contribute to your Wikiproject Comics. Good luck! -- Marcuslim (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 579 of the articles assigned to this project, or 17.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Chuang Yi

Hello all, I'm working on reworking the article on Chuang Yi and because I live outside of Singapore, my hands are a little tied on some issues. I was hoping some locals might be able to help. I understand that CY distributes a number of American comic books, and I am trying to figure out if they are basically just selling the American versions, or if CY is actually involved in developing the contents of the comic books, say to comply with local censorship laws or to use lingo and cultural references more accessible to Singaporean readers. Also, are the comic books formatted like American comics (kind of like a skinny magazine on newspaper-like paper) or are they in book form like the Asian comics CY publishes? I just want to make sure I'm using correct terminology in the article. Thanks so much for your time! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 05:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Chuang Yi publishes in book format, not the DC comic format. And as far as I know they distribute chinese translated comics as their main biz. Hope this helps -- Marcuslim (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Singaporean Vandal returns

User:ColourWolf has returned via IPs, and has massively inserted fake contents in many Singaporean pages. Please check all Singaporean pages for integrity Arbiteroftruth (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Although I hardly edit nowadays due to lack of time, I watch many of the pages he attacks and will be on the lookout for vandalism. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Phua Lay Peng Denise to Denise Phua

I have proposed that Phua Lay Peng Denise be moved to Denise Phua. Singaporean Chinese who have an English given name are usually referred to by their English given name, followed by their Chinese surname. SGpedians are invited to participate in the discussion on the talk page, which will last about five days, after which a decision on whether to move the article will be made. My PW group is doing a project about her and hence I plan to write a GA about her. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinese entertainer infobox

Template:Infobox Chinese, Taiwanese, Singaporean, Malaysian actor and singer → Template:Infobox Chinese actor and singer

There has been a requested move at WP:RM for this move. 70.55.86.69 (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How to get Latitude and Longitude values from Google Maps

Hi, i found a way to get these values from Google Maps. Basically they do not display latitude and longitude values, but there is an easy trick to get these numbers. This technique will provide the latitude and longitude coordinates of the center of the map displayed by Google Maps. First type in the name/address of the location that you're seeking, on the Map. It will center the map on that address/location. Then copy and paste this code into the location bar of your browser and press enter:

javascript:void(prompt(,gApplication.getMap().getCenter()))

A little dialog box will pop up displaying the coordinates in decimals, which can be copied and pasted for use elsewhere. This code can be bookmarked and then used in the future by selecting the bookmark. But take note not to move around the map before entering the javascript, as it affects the calculation.
Lastly, for those who want to take a step further and convert this to degrees and minutes, you can do so by copying the decimal figures found, and pasting them at this website called Calculatorcat.com.
cheers -- Marcuslim (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Automated archiving of talk page

This talk page is getting inordinately long. I propose getting a MiszaBot to automatically archive conversations that have not been added to for 60 days. Does anyone object to this? If not, I will go ahead and set it up. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to setting up automated archival by MiszaBot. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've set it up. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut hand-over

In three words, WP:SG is yours. (I would have found a way to make a joke out of this if this were WikiProject Hong Kong, but never mind. :-)) I can imagine why the Manual of Style has wanted to reserve the shortcut, but it is now abundantly clear that nearly nobody uses it. Perhaps it will receive more traffic if it leads to its natural destination, here. See this thread for more information. Waltham, The Duke of 22:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! We needed it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to put Sompah MRT Station up for AfD

Sompah MRT Station was created by User:Loa mun sheng. The page states that the station is part of Stage 3 of the Downtown MRT Line between Tampines and Expo. As of 29 July 2008, 12.12am (GMT+8), there have been no press releases from the Land Transport Authority to show that such a station exists, although it has been widely speculated that there would be a station in that vicinity.

I do not understand the procedure set out to put a page up for deletion and I hope someone more familiar with the process would be able to initiate this instead. I have previously put the page up for speedy deletion, but this was reversed by User:Maxim, stating that my previously stated reason does not fit the speedy deletion criteria. Thank you. 리지강.wa.au _talk 16:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC) --리지강.wa.au _talk 16:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sompah MRT Station - oahiyeel ^talk 16:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Loa mun sheng has struck again, this time creating Somapah MRT Station, which, yet again, doesn't exist and there is no verifiable documents which we can draw from to prove that there is such a station. Could the one (I believe it was oahiyeel) who put up the AfD the last time please do it again for this one? Thanks. 리지강.wa.au _talk 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• It is done, I have tagged the article for speedy deletion as per CSD: G4. Anyways, I have told the user to state his source clearly or the article will be deleted for good. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted shortly after I posted a comment on the talk page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

accident section in MRT station articles.

Some IP edits have made changes to the accident section in several MRT articles. I have no idea if they are genuine edits or simply vandalism. Please see diffs here, here and here. There might be more on other articles that I hadn't noticed.

Also, this brings me to the next point: are these accidents really noticeable enough to warrant an entry on these pages? Accidents happen everyday in every part of the world, and it would seem to be "overkill" to list all of them. Maybe just the more noticeable ones; like the 1st ever MRT accident or something really huge and rare like the car that went onto the track etc... - oahiyeel ^talk 06:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The changes look like vandalism, as in some cases references have been deleted. Go ahead revert them. One of the difficulties is that the original information in the articles wasn't properly referenced to begin with, which means that it is difficult to verify if the edits were aimed at fixing inaccuracies. However, since the edits are unreferenced, I think it is better to err on the side of caution and revert them. I also agree with you that most of these accidents are not notable enough to be mentioned. Accidents probably only warrant a mention if they involve someone famous, lead to some well-publicized court case, or if they prompt some sort of safety review by the authorities. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Date format poll confirmation

There is ongoing discussion on the talk page for the Manual of Style (including a series of polls) aimed at achieving consensus on presenting dates in American (August 9, 1965) or International (9 August 1965) format on an article by article basis. The poll gives full instructions, but briefly the choices are:

• C = Option C, the winner of the initial poll and run-off. (US articles have US format dates, international format otherwise)
• R = Retain existing wording. (National format for English-speaking countries, no guidance otherwise).

If you wish to participate or review the progress of discussion, you may follow this link. --Pete (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Grand Prix

Dear folks, in view of the highly anticipated first F1 night race & the various day-time Asia Cup Races by Porsche Carrera, BMW, Aston Martin this weekend from Sep 26-28 (hosted yearly until 2012). Kindly monitor the abovementioned & its associated articles - the Singapore Street Circuit (Evaluate to see whether it's best to merge this one with the main SGP article) & the nearly forgotten historic Thomson Road Grand Prix circuit (part of the 4.8 km long circuit still exists today), for any disruptive edits/attacks by vandals, POV trolls or clueless newbies. In case anyone who is keen to expand or improve the article content for DYK or GA nomination in future, please refer to the 'Further reading' section that I've included earlier for writeup details. I hope that our GP history, from its humble Formula Libre street race beginnings nearly 47 years ago, which was superceded afterwards by the Macau Grand Prix after its untimely demise in 1973, will not be forgotten again, esp by the post-SGP generation & visitors coming beyond the region. Thank you. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Street Circuit and the GP article should not be merged. They are essentially 2 different things. You may wish to check out articles relating to F1 to see the norm. :) At the same time, I've suggested renaming the Street Circuit article, please see Talk:Singapore Street Circuit#Official name. - oahiyeel ^talk 07:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

From my interaction with some F1 officials, sponsors & motoring writers such as Ian De Cotta (senior correspondent with Today newspaper) of The S'pore Grand Prix - 50 Years In The Making (2008) earlier, I was wondering why the article was named as such by the editors over there in the first place, or why it was not even renamed to its official name after official press releases or as mentioned in various sources later? Anyway, whether an article is to be renamed or merged, I'll leave it to the responsible editors, or the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One to discuss & decide its merits in future. Lastly, for those who wanna get a taste of 'racing' on the Marina circuit, or unable to attend the races this weekend, u can try your hand here for kicks. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

NLB call for Infopedia writers

The National Library is looking for writers for the Singapore Infopedia (http://infopedia.nl.sg/). This application is open to Master's degree students. • Articles will focus on selected topics on Singapore's history, culture, people, and events. • Articles will be between 800-1000 words long, excluding the list of resources. • Writers will submit a minimum of 1 completed article per month. • Writers will be paid at a rate of $100 per article.

Interested applicants may email their resume, together with a recent sample of their writing to: Ms Roberta Balagopal Senior Librarian Lee Kong Chian Reference Library Email: roberta@nlb.gov.sg Application closing date is 15 Sep 08.

• Not sure if this is allowed. Sorry if isn't! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.217.50 (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It's okay, but not many would qualify for it (I certainly don't =P) - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Neither do I; I am in my first year of junior college. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • As an honours graduate, I would not have qualified either even if I saw this notice last month!--Huaiwei (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to contribute to "Topic outline of Singapore"

Wikipedia:WikiProject Topic outline is working on topic outlines of all nations. You might like to contribute your expertise to improving Wikipedia:WikiProject Topic outline/Drafts/Topic outline of Singapore.--Palaeovia^talk 02:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to rename "Middle Rocks, Malaysia"

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

Rename "Middle Rocks, Johor" to "Middle Rocks".

---

I have proposed that the article "Middle Rocks, Johor" be renamed to "Middle Rocks". I feel that adding "Johor" to the article name is unnecessary as there is no other article named "Middle Rocks", nor does there appear to be such a place anywhere else in the world. Do weigh in with your comments on the article's talk page so that consensus can be reached on the issue. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's participation. Consensus was reached to rename the article "Middle Rocks". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Categorization of images at Wikimedia Commons

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

I've been categorizing Singapore-related images over at the Wikimedia Commons. I can't identify the location of this image. Is it Boat Quay, Clarke Quay, or somewhere else? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Robertson? Guessing. Chensiyuan (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's pre-renovation Clarke Quay (the pic is dated 2002). You can see the Swissotel Merchant Court building in the background. Jpatokal (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Peer review for Denise Phua

I have just finished writing Denise Phua and believe it has GA potential. Hence I have nominated the article for the GA drive and filed a PR for it. SGpedians are invited to review the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

requested moves: Cantonese and Standard Cantonese

Cantonese and Standard Cantonese are both up for renaming at WP:RM 70.55.200.131 (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

An Invitation from the Philippine Wikipedia Community

Hello folks,

The Philippine Wikipedia Community will be holding its 1st Meet-up in Cebu City (the fourth one in the Philippines) on June 23-24, 2008. This coincides with the first Philippine Open Source Summit, also to be held in Cebu. The Philippine Wikipedia Community is an Implementing Partner of the Open Source Summit. We invite you to join us in this event. If you are in the IT or IT-enabled services industry, this would be a great opportunity to meet people from the 4th best outsourcing city in the world. This is also a good excuse to visit our beautiful beaches :)

If you're interested in joining the Wikipedia meet-up, please join our discussion. You can register for the Open Source Summit here. If you would like some assistance with local accomodations, you may email User:Bentong Isles.

The Philippine Wikipedia Community
WP:PINOY

Proposal to lists Spore articles with excessive vandalism

I am a relatively new contributor to wikipedia and interested to contribute. I note that there are some Singapore articles with excesive vandalism that require protection or monitoring by active wiki editors to ensure integrity, ie Singapore's "GIC" and "Temasek"

Can someone point me to a concise step-by-step means of monitoring and reverting changes? In particular, a way to monitor (vandal's) phrases/paragraphs which constantly reappear - because these vandals simply "undo" the last Revert. How can we set up a Bot that can monitor and undo these changes automatically.

Is it difficult to allow only registered IDs to edit pages which are hardly edited, like the above? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.10 (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! To keep an eye on articles that interest you, add them to your watchlist by clicking on the "Watch" tab at the top of each article: see "Help:Watching pages" for more information. Whenever you view your watchlist, you will see the latest changes that have been made to those articles. For more information on reverting changes see "Help:Reverting", and to learn about placing warning templates on vandals' talk pages see "Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace". Do note the three-revert rule. If you encounter problems or have other questions, post another message here.

There are already bots that monitor and automatically revert obvious vandalism, such as page blanking and the insertion of vulgarities. However, bots aren't smart enough to detect all types of vandalism, only humans can.

Wikipedia's general policy is to keep articles editable by all, including unregistered editors. Only if an article receives sustained vandalism will it be semi- or fully-protected. If you feel that a particular article is receiving high levels of vandalism, please list it at "Wikipedia:Requests for page protection". In addition, if you notice that a certain editor is currently in the midst of a vandalism spree, report him or her at "Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism".

Finally, do consider creating an account, and don't forget to sign and date your posts by adding four tildes ("~~~~") at the end. Happy editing! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move for Light Rail Transit (Singapore) to Light Rapid Transit (Singapore)

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

No consensus.

---

I would like to invite comments from all in the above RM as the following page Talk:Light_Rail_Transit_(Singapore)#Requested_move. Please keep all discussions in that page for easy reference. Thanks!--Huaiwei (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To all editors, I would like to call for more impartial input from uninvolved editors in the above debate, without which the dispute will only drag on between just two individuals. Please assist us to come to consensus. Thank you in advance!--Huaiwei (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Tak Boleh Tahan, Gopalan Nair, SDP and CSJ

I was really surprised to find no mention of the Tak Boleh Tahan campaign and current trial on WP, nor any updates in about two years about LKY's defamation suit against CSJ, Gopalan Nair (the article doesn't even exist!), SDP's pending bankruptcy, etc. I've kickstarted a basic Tak Boleh Tahan article, but this will need some help! Jpatokal (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Singapore

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

The image has been deleted from the Wikimedia Commons by the administrator Zscout370 as it is a derivative image and no consent for its use was obtained from the copyright owner

---

Dear fellow SGpedians, our COA is in danger of being deleted! Anyone knows any way we can save it? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Coats_of_arms_of_Singapore.svg - oahiyeel ^talk 07:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the only way is to contact the National Heritage Board and ask for the small version of the crest that currently appears in the Wikimedia Commons to be licensed under a free licence for use on Wikipedia. According to the web page http://www.nhb.gov.sg/PE/resources/national_symbols/state_crest.html, enquiries on the use of the coat of arms may be directed to:

Ms Joyce Lee, Assistant Manager (Heritage Programmes)

Tel 63324494

joyce_lee@nhb.gov.sg

Ms Elizabeth Njo, Assistant Manager (Psychological Defence)

Tel 63324495

elizabeth_njo@nhb.gov.sg

Perhaps it can be pointed out that (1) only a small, low resolution of the crest will be used; and (2) it is in Singapore's interest to allow the use of the coat of arms in a Wikipedia article about the coat of arms itself as well as other Singapore-related articles because, given the popularity of Wikipedia, such articles provide useful information about Singapore both to Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans.

Note that in order to comply with Singapore law, simply moving the coat of arms image to the English Wikipedia and providing a fair-use justification for its use in various articles is probably insufficient. This might solve the copyright issue. However, it does not address the fact that under the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Rules (Cap 296, R1, 2004 Rev Ed) use of the coat of arms on any "writing, material or object" without prior written permission of the Minister for Communications, Information and the Arts or an authorized officer is prohibited by rule 3 and is an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 by rule 14(1). This is the text of the relevant sections:

3. — (1) Subject to paragraph (3), no person shall, without the prior written permission of the Minister or any authorised officer —

(a) print, publish, manufacture, sell, offer for sale or exhibit for sale;

(b) cause to be printed, published, manufactured, sold, offered for sale or exhibited for sale;

(c) send, distribute or deliver to, or serve on, any other person; or

(d) cause to be sent, distributed or delivered to, or served on, any other person,

any writing, material or object in or on which appears the Arms or any token, insignia, emblem or other thing that so nearly resembles the Arms as to be capable of being mistaken for the Arms.

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), no person shall, without the prior written permission of the Minister or any authorised officer, use or apply the Arms on any writing, material or object.

(3) This rule shall not prohibit —

(a) the display of the Arms by any Government department on or within the premises of any building owned by the Government or occupied by one or more Government departments; or

(b) the use or application of the Arms on any writing, material or object produced or commissioned by any Government department, or any public officer, for the purposes of the Government.

14. — (1) Any person who knowingly contravenes rule 3 (1) or (2) in relation to the Arms shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.

This might mean that any editor in Singapore who makes use of the coat of arms in Wikipedia articles is at risk of being prosecuted. (The authorities have no jurisdiction over editors who are outside Singapore.) To comply with these Rules, permission from the authorities for use of the coat of arms is required. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is clear indication that permission has been sought and granted from the copyright holder, which in this case is the government of Singapore, the said image will be deleted. Fairuse carries little weight in the Singaporean context, especially when it comes to properties related to the government itself.--Huaiwei (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Whether fair use of the coat of arms can be justified or not is beside the point. Fair-use images do not belong on the Commons. Therefore, unless permission from the Government for use of the image under a free licence can be obtained, the image must be removed from the Commons. Whether the image can then be uploaded to English Wikipedia and used under a fair-use rationale is a separate matter. I think it might be possible to justify fair use, but that only deals with the copyright issue. It doesn't change the fact that the use may amount to an offence under the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Rules. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If I can offer my honest opinion, the coat of arms looks traced from the official government document. After looking, I found that my assumption was true, thus I have to delete the image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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

CfD: Category:Singaporeans born outside Singapore

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

Category renamed to "Immigrants to Singapore".

---

I have nominated the category "Category:Singaporeans born outside Singapore" for deletion. Do participate in the discussion at "Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 25#Category:Singaporeans born outside Singapore". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) related articles.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

An editor has move the Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit to Safety on Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (diff). For consistency with the parent article, I had moved this to Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore), together with other related articles. Mr Huaiwei has challenged that the moves are unnecessary and wants to revert them. I'm sick and tired of dealing with him. If anyone would be interested to engage in a discussion regarding this issue with him, please to do so, and when you guys manage to come to a consensus, make any necessary changes. Thanks. - oahiyeel ^talk 07:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Feeling "sick and tired of dealing" with anyone is not a valid reason not to discuss any potential major change to articles, and it is about high time you learn to work in a team, this being the second time you have taken the decision to make major discussions either without allowing time for others to provide their thoughts, or failing to initiate a discussion at all prior to the move, as you have done here. The Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) is where it is because there are existing articles of entities with the same name (and even then, that is debatable, for all entries listed in Mass Rapid Transit already takes another name). However, this does not apply to related articles which do not have direct duplicates. It is not necessary to practise consistency in naming in terms of disambiguation. As I have mentioned in Oahiyeel's talkpage, making unnecessarily long article names decreases their likelihood in appearing in google searches, and this is not in our interests. I would therefore request that all said articles be moved back to their original locations immediately until consensus is found to move otherwise, failing which I will take the initiative to undo the changes myself.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there are at least five transport systems in the world called "Mass Rapid Transit", and from the name, there's no way to guess which one "Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit" is referring to. ("The" MRT?) So yes, it should be disambiguated. Jpatokal (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And which are the five systems? From the Mass Rapid Transit article, we have:

• The Mass Rapid Transit, the official full name of the system in Singapore.
• The Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit, the full official name.
• The Taipei Rapid Transit System, where the initials MRT actually stands for "Metropolitan Rapid Transit", and whose official page refers to it simply as the Taipei Metro.
• The Bangkok Metro, the common name which is also used liberally officially, including its website which reads http://www.bangkokmetro.co.th.
• The Delhi Mass Rapid Transit System, which is now actually referred to officially as the Delhi Metro.

Do any of these articles actually take the Mass Rapid Transit name the same way the Singapore system does? Nope. Because if there is, each of the articles above should be at Mass Rapid Transit (Kaohsiung), at Mass Rapid Transit (Taipei), at Mass Rapid Transit (Bangkok) and at Mass Rapid Transit (Delhi), which they are not. The Singapore system's domination of the full Mass Rapid Transit name is actually pretty obvious.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

All of those five can be called "Mass Rapid Transit", which is why they're listed at Mass Rapid Transit. (The MRT disambig in fact lists 8, and even that's missing a few, eg. the Bangalore MRT.) For example, in the results of a Google search for "mass rapid transit", 13 out of the first 20 hits do not refer to Singapore's MRT.

But this is all rather beside the point. There are cases where subarticles don't need disambiguation, because the context is obvious from the title: eg. Apple picking can only refer to the fruit, and History of Apple can only refer to the company. However, it's not at all obvious from the name that Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit refers to Singapore's MRT. Trying Google again, "Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit" gets a lot of WP hits plus links about MRTs in Bangkok, Taipei, India, etc, so clearly even the subarticle name is by no means exclusive to Singapore. Jpatokal (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fact number 1: None of those articles are using the "Mass Rapid Transit" name with disambiguation. Fact number 2: None of those entities in question are known officially or less officially in full exclusively by the phrase "Mass Rapid Transit" in the way the Singapore system was. The last I checked, you added the Bangkok and Taipei entities to the list, both of which no longer use the phrase extensively. The MRT can certainly list far more, for the initials "MRT" can refer to alot more possible words, including, of course, the Metropolitan Rapid Transit in Taipei, and no one is actually debating on that, nor is anyone calling for the Singapore system to be moved to MRT despite that being its most common name. The order of entries appearing in google can hardly be used as a reasonable indication, but I do note in particular that the Singapore system clearly appears right on top. Exclusivity is not the primary argument here. Notability is when it comes to claiming article naming, and the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit system obviously ranks far higher than the systems in Bangkok, Delhi, Kaohsiung, and to some extent, even Taipei, in this arena.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me put the question very simply: if Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit should not be disambiguated, because Singapore has (in your words) "domination of the full Mass Rapid Transit name" and "obviously ranks far higher", then why does Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) need a disambiguator? Jpatokal (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If the edit histories are anything to go by, you created this article at Mass Rapid Transit on 31 December 2003, before moving it to the current location on 18 July 2004 without really asking anyone about it. Even at that juncture when you added the Bangkok and Taipei systems to the disambg page to justify such a move, the two articles were at Bangkok Subway and Taipei Rapid Transit System respectively, and not competing for the "Mass Rapid Transit" name itself. So really, I would actually like to know why you had this change of heart yourself.

But the naming of the original article is actually quite besides the point. You yourself showed that there is simply no policy nor guideline dictating that supplementary articles must be named exactly the same way as their parent articles. Or was I misinformed?--Huaiwei (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I created the Singapore MRT article? Cool! I didn't even remember. But the reason for my "change of heart" is quite obvious: until July 3, 2004, Singapore was the only operating "Mass Rapid Transit" system with an article on Wikipedia. Then Bangkok's MRT opened, and the Delhi MRTS was written up, and now it's been followed by Kaohsiung, plus soon Bangalore etc.

But as you said, "the naming of the original article is actually quite besides the point". Instead, the point — which you failed to address — is this: if Singapore MRT needs a disambiguator, why does "Safety on the MRT" not need one?

And no, I'm not arguing that "supplementary articles must be named exactly the same way as their parent articles". Quite the contrary, I would be quite OK with "Safety on the MRT (Singapore)" or "Safety on the Singapore MRT", which both make it perfectly clear that this is about the Singapore MRT, not MRTs in general or somewhere else. Jpatokal (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

But you would have noted that the Bangkok article was not trying to claim the Mass Rapid Transit name, and neither are any of the subsequent systems which sprung up. So how does that explain your decision to disambiguate the article in this format, when an alternative format (using disambiguation links) as seen in the MTR article would have sufficed?

Why the MRT article is disambiguated while Safety on the MRT is not? Simple. Because there are no articles on Safety on the MRT (Bangkok), Safety on the MRT (Taipei), and etc.

Well then thank you for acknowledging that consistency is not a logical or tenable argument, the very argument that dearest Oahiyeel has insisted on and which sparked the entire debate.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You're going in circles. There are many MRTs, Singapore doesn't have a monopoly on the name, that's why the name is disambigged, and that's why Safety on the MRT also needs the disambig. See my next comment below. Jpatokal (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And you are simply repeating yourself. There are only three systems called the Mass Rapid Transit with wikipedia articles, and the Singapore system is the most notable of the three. There are no articles on the sub-articles such as history and safety, hence there is no current need to disambiguate. See my upcoming responses below.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha. Ha. How are the name changes "potentially debatable"? Esp since they are not misleading in anyway? And wow! What an abuse of WP:AWB :) - oahiyeel ^talk 05:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Since we are already in debate, I reckon that your comment it already proven redundant. ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Oahiyeel and Jpatokal. "Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)" is the most appropriate name for the article because (1) it avoids the possibility that readers will visit the article thinking it deals with safety on mass rapid transit systems generally, or mass rapid transit systems in a different part of the world; and (2) it is in line with the naming of the article "Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you would have similar concerns that readers of the Art in MTR article would assume they are going to read about art in the Museum of Television and Radio?--Huaiwei (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlike MRT, there is only one transport system called "MTR". Additionally, "Art in MTR" is actually the proper name of a corporate initiative, not an article about "Art in the MTR". (That said, I'm less than convinced that "MTR" is the best name for the transport system in question, but that's neither here nor there.) Jpatokal (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh really. Apparantly, MTR Western runs buses, so MTR Feeder Bus and List of MTR stations must be somehow related. And since we are now into the issue of proper names, I sure hope the future projects of the MTR does not cause people to believe that the Montour Railroad is building more lines, the MTR Gaming Group is building more casinos, and that the Mavalli Tiffin Room is going to open more restaurants?--Huaiwei (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, "other stuff exists" is not a particularly strong argument. Anyway, doesn't the fact that the MTR articles may be poorly named (as Jpatokal recognized) lend support to "Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)" being the more appropriate name for the article in question? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you may be familiar with wikipedia's policies and guidelines, WP:OSE is 1. merely an essay, which holds no ground in such debates, and 2. WP:OSE is an argument (allegedly not to be) used in debates over article deletions, and not article naming, which are two completely different issues. A naming dispute is governed by the naming conventions, and since this debate is over disambiguation, we should refer to WP:DAB. Which part of WP:DAB supports your viewpoint? As for MTR being poorly named, you may take note of the fact that it is a featured article, and that three past attempts to move the article, two of which I was involved in, has failed[5][6][7]. So like it or not, the existance of a precedence do show that there is no immediate requirement to start disambiguating every reference to an article which is disambiguated. If so, are we going to move City Hall MRT Station to City Hall Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) Station and Circle MRT Line to Circle Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) Line?--Huaiwei (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation is not necessary for Singapore's City Hall MRT Station or Circle MRT Line, because there are no other City Hall MRT Stations or Circle MRT Lines elsewhere. Maybe someday there will be, and on that day, they will have to be disambiguated -- but until then, they are perfectly unambiguous. Jpatokal (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And that is where you are wrong. Circle MRT Line's official and common name is actually just Circle Line. And there is apparently a very famous Circle Line in London as well as ten other entities being referred to as the "Circle Line", some of which are also rail lines. City Hall MRT Station, normally just called City Hall Station, has counterparts in New York, in Seoul, in Philadelphia, and five other similar names stations around the world. So since consistency is one of the main argument here, shall we start moving all our station and rail lines?--Huaiwei (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me correct myself: Additional disambiguation is not necessary for those articles. Consider the following three names.

1) "Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)"

2) "Circle MRT Line"

3) "Safety on the MRT"

Number 1 is not ambiguous. It's clear from the name what it refers to (the Mass Rapid Transit in Singapore), it cannot be reasonably understood to refer to anything else, and it will stay that way.

Number 2 is potentially ambiguous. There are no other "Circle MRT Lines" anywhere, so at the moment there is no real potential for confusion (try Google: circle mrt line, even without quotes, returns only links related to Singapore as far as I can see), but it's not "future-proof" as another Circle MRT Line (or Circle Line MRT or what have you) could be built.

Number 3 is ambiguous, period. There are a large number of MRT systems that could be covered by such a name, and the name doesn't make it at all clear which is "the" system it's talking about.

So, my interest in this discussion is noting that Safety on the MRT is not an acceptable name according to WP:PRECISION, and a better name must be found. I do not hold strong views on what that name is. I do not find the current Singapore MRT naming conventions particularly consistent, but as long as they don't fall into "type 3" ambiguity, I doubt it's worth the considerable hassle of changing them. Jpatokal (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And as I have said earlier:

1) There are two types of disambiguation: disambiguation pages and disambiguation links. The current format uses the former, on the simple assumption that "there are more than one rail system with the same name". Yet this ignores another issue of notability. The Singapore system is by far the most notable amongst all similarly named entities, and disambiguation links could have been a far better option from day one.

2) "Circle MRT Line" is in itself a disambiguation page. However, it does not reflect official nor common names of the said rail line, and violates current naming policies pertaining to common names. So if we are to apply the disambiguation correctly, this article should be named "Circle Line (MRT)". But since we consider "MRT" as too general, the option in accordance to the rest of the arguments here would necessitate an article called "Circle Line (Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore))". It may appear silly, but that was precisely what you guys are arguing for in essence.

3)However, the name is not at "Safety on the MRT", but at "Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit". If we now refer back to point 1, WP:PRECISION need not be applied, because the Mass Rapid Transit name is dominated by the Singapore system. The ambiguity presented by this article is not much better than an article like "Circle MRT Line", as your partly alluded to. But may I also ask how do you expect a person not familiar with the world's rail lines to know that there is only one such rail line in the first place?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION and WP:NAME are not about "notability", they're about ambiguity.

WP:NAME: Do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings.

WP:PRECISION: If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase.

So, the question is, does the phrase "Mass Rapid Transit" have other meanings than Singapore's Mass Rapid Transit?

Now, I've earlier shown that 13 of 20, that's two thirds, of the first Google hits for "Mass Rapid Transit" are not about the Singapore MRT. Here's another indication: mass rapid transit -singapore gets 300,000 hits, while allowing "Singapore" only increases that to 380,000. That equates to 78%, over three quarters, of "mass rapid transit" content out there not being about, or even mentioning, Singapore. Do you consider this 22% mind share "dominant"? Jpatokal (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back to this discussion, Huaiwei. So, do you consider this 22% mind share "dominant"? Jpatokal (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Before we go about analysing your methodologies to arrive at that 22%, could you apply the same methodology on the next five most prominent entities which uses the term "Mass Rapid Transit", and show us the result here?--Huaiwei (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I did my homework, now it's your turn. So, do you consider this 22% mind share "dominant"? Jpatokal (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are again requested to publish the requested details on other competing entities for the name "Mass Rapid Transit", without which I cannot make a reasonable conclusion. Why the reluctance to publish this information?--Huaiwei (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Publish"? You're the one making up random requests, go go Google it yourself if you're genuinely interested. And do you consider that 22% mind share "dominant", or are you reluctant to publish your opinion? Jpatokal (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• My point in mentioning "Wikipedia:Other stuff exists" is that given the way Wikipedia develops, it is almost always possible to find some articles that will support one's point. But that doesn't mean that those articles don't themselves have problems.
• "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)" says "If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase". In this case, "Mass Rapid Transit" is ambiguous.
• I agree there is no general rule that articles related to a disambiguated article must all be named in exactly the same way as the disambiguated article, but in this case I feel it makes sense to name the article "Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)" because "Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit" is potentially ambiguous – it could be an article about safety on mass rapid transit systems generally, or about safety on one of the other systems in the world that goes by the name "mass rapid transit".

While discussion here proceeds, I have formally listed the article (which is currently named "Safety on Singapore Mass Rapid Transit", by the way) at "Wikipedia:Requested moves". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the same goes for the history, fares & ticketing, facilities and security articles... - oahiyeel ^talk 19:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, listed. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• However, you are comparing with a featured article no less, an article which is expected to follow all wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This is not an instance of simply plucking any badly-named article for comparison, clearly.
• As has been argued above, "Mass Rapid Transit" is not necessarily ambiguous, not any more than the MTR-related articles are. Instead of moving articles when no other conflicting article exists, disambiguation links could have been better alternatives. As it stands, the notability of the MRT in Singapore is far greater than any similarly named article (and that includes the Kaoshiung and Bangalore ones, but excludes the Bangkok, Delhi, or Taipei ones, for none of these are named "MRT" today).
• Thank you for acknowledging this aspect of the debate. As for the issue of ambiguity, see above.
• Thanks for the initiative, but I hope it doesen;t result in a forking of discussions.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You stated earlier that "...nor is anyone calling for the Singapore system to be moved to MRT despite that being its most common name." Are you now reversing this stance, and calling for Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) to be moved to Mass Rapid Transit after all? Jpatokal (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My earlier comment was a stated fact. There is simply no one calling for the Singapore system to be moved to MRT now. Do you see me launching a move request on the above article at this juncture? Nope. However, I make no bones about stating that I have all along believed that the Mass Rapid Transit article should be resided by the Singapore system. My failure to take a more active stance to realise my personal believe does not indicate a stance reversal, and I am obviously not going to start one just to prove a point.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So we have consensus? - oahiyeel ^talk 03:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

All in favor except Huaiwei, as usual... Jpatokal (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, Wikipedia is not a democracy. A whole bunch of folks can paint the lone ranger as an irritant for having a different view, but ultimately, it is the arguments and solution with the best adherence to wikipedia policy which will prevail.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mm, such mavericky maverickness! Now chew on WP:PRECISION: "Be precise when necessary; don't title articles ambiguously when the title has other meanings." Jpatokal (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And I do believe you do realise that application of WP:PRECISION is still based on whether precision is necessary in the first place? Surely you are not so new to wikipedia not to discover that there are countless discussions on the same issue involving other articles?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what a strong statement. Maybe you would like to read this statement by an established & well trusted editor on WP about fetishizing policy. Also what happened to your insistence on consensus for almost every change to WP? :) - oahiyeel ^talk 04:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well one can swing from citing policy to support his view, or choose to ignore all rules when they do not suit his stance, so I do not simply buy what any "trusted editor" says, especially when it conveniently suits your agenda at this juncture. And as per my comment below, could you elaborate on just how am I moving away from WP:Consensus through the above debate?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

When you said "A whole bunch of folks can paint the lone ranger as an irritant for having a different view, but ultimately, it is the arguments and solution with the best adherence to wikipedia policy which will prevail." Isn't it already obvious there has already been a consensus and that you are now conveniently trying to change your stance so as to suit your arguments. - oahiyeel ^talk 18:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you consider this a change of stance, then it can only mean one thing: that you have a weak grasp of Wikipedia's main policies related to WP:Concensus and its related policies. WP:Concensus has never been about a majority-win mechanism, because Wikipedia is not a democracy. When participating in many "straw polls" around wikipedia, the same point is always highlighted: in WP:AfD for example, its states "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote" It is precisely in the same spirit that I write my above comment, which is directly relevant to WP:Concensus. WP:Concensus clearly states "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority." Your constant call to end the debate because I am in the strict minority points to your obvious immaturity in handling disputes in wikipedia, your tendency to take things personal, and your apparant disregard to respect the wikipedia dispute resolution process. And why all these? Just because there is someone here preventing you from getting your way.--Huaiwei (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder who's taking this personal now? All the arguments presented here have already described (at length) that 1) The title is ambiguous 2) That the Singapore MRT does not have exclusivity to the name "Mass Rapid Transit". As it stands, this is the very same reason why the parent article is "Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)" and NOT "Mass Rapid Transit". My constant call to end the debate as you have put it was due to ZERO progress on the discussion for almost one month AND that an administrator had ALREADY made the moves to the relevant articles. It is you who have returned (from your long break for whatever reasons), reverted the moves by the administrator, and re-ignited the debate. And for the record, after your actions, you did not present any further discussions to the topic, hence I have proposed to request for an admin to end this discussion. As for you calling me immature in handling disputes, I would say you probably have to look in the mirror to see how mature you are in handling your own disputes. - oahiyeel ^talk 10:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to debate over just who is taking things personally, you have only your own editing history to fall back on. Now lets see. I have rarely directly communicated with you in wikipedia because I have for a long time regarded your work as one of high quality. In fact, back January 2008, I dropped a line in your talkpage informing you of my use of some "cheem" codes you helped to write, and to check them for errors[8]. You ignored my comment, but nevermind. No hard feelings. The second time I had to write to you was in the aftermath of your unilateral move of the Light Rapid Transit (Singapore) article when there was no response in the talkpage after three days (which is a very short time by wikipedia standards, particular amongst Singaporean editors) (Talk:Light Rail Transit (Singapore)#Correct_name.3F). I therefore dropped a note in your talkpage asking that you restore the articles [9].

Up till the end of the first debate which lasted till 5 May 2008, the discussion has remained largely civil in the article talkpage, but an astonishing comment appeared in my talkpage which read:

“ You know, if you are not interested in seeking out more opinions from other editors, and wish to go ahead to make the changes despite no consensus from anywhere, and reason using biased/WP policies/bordering on WP:OWN etc.etc., and I quote your friend above: "you are seriously putting off a lot of people here", then go ahead and do what you deem fit; because you are seriously putting me off. (Before you go accuse me of doing the same when I made the initial changes, please assume good faith that I had genuinely expected that to be the correct name; thus the edits. As such you are free to revert them if you wish so; even if either name has yet to be proven to be the official one.) Any responses to this or in fact anywhere else, where I feel it redundant / useless to give you any form of reply, I will not be doing so. For that matter, do not expect any more responses from me about this issue. Last word: you would do better to prevent and be less involved in content disputes, 3RRs and editwars around WP. WP will be a better place without tons of such issues plaguing it. Best wishes ”

Despite the exceptionally rude comment, my response was as follows:

“ I conduct myself based on the importance of WP:V or other core policies of this website, not on whether how others think of me. We are writing an encyclopedia, and not a forum where popularity counts. I am afraid you do not deserve any exceptional treatment in this regard for your blatant disregard for that policy. As for your comment on my 3RRs, editwars, etc, etc, let me just point out quite matter of factly that you are absolutely in no better position to tell anyone off this way, unless you demonstrate adequate understanding in what actually transpired in each of those disputes, and on the personalities I was dealing with. Until then, I would expect in the very minimum that you keep your comments to yourself and to respect each editor for what he is worth. Since you have indicated your unwillingness to discuss further in this topic despite being given more than ample time to do so in light of your personal commitments, I will henceforth proceed with the reversions. I hope this will be a lesson learnt for you that hasty changes of this magnitude should always be discussed with ample time given for responses, to conduct a more comprehensive research beyond just internet searches, and to learn to evaluate the credibility of each source vis-a-vis each other. Cheers. ”

And it was this exchange which henceforth, you have decided to be intentionally disruptive in an unrelated debate where I was involved, and has used various uncivil remarks against me. I highlight the following:

• Back on 24 June 2008 you reverted someone's attempt to insert a Limitedgeographicscope template in Fares and ticketing on the Mass Rapid Transit, saying it's an article about sg mrt, of cause it would be limited[10]. Strangely, you hadent found it necessary to rename the page at that time.
• From 5 August 2008, you created Template:Light Rapid Transit (Singapore) and categories named "Light Rapid Transit" despite the naming dispute remaining unresolved[11]. Of course by then, a move and edit war has already erupted over the LRT articles, despite you yourself having said "As such you are free to revert them if you wish so" in that fatefull comment you made on 5 May 2008.
• On 5 October 2008, you said "i was the original creator of this template. and i intend it to be the same as the article title. it was never create as a redirect, so there's no "change back to redirect"", sounding as thou you lay ownership claims over it[12] (emphasis mine).
• On 4 October 2008, when the issues related to the MRT articles first began to brew, you said "Mr Huaiwei has challenged that the moves are unnecessary and wants to revert them. I'm sick and tired of dealing with him."[13] (emphasis mine)
• On 8 October 2008, you deleted all of my comments from your talkpage, including the first from January 2008, saying "eyesore + cleanup"[14] (emphasis mine). When I attempted to maintain an archieve of those comments in two article talkpages where the dispute was brewing, you showed that you were entirely unapologetic for your rude comments[15][16].
• On 8 October 2008, you said "what are you? a dick? you're recreating double redirect. completely no effort put in to check what you have done. disgraceful."[17] (emphasis mine).
• On 8 October 2008, you made an vote opposite of mine in Talk:Pedra_Branca,_Singapore#Malaysia-Singapore_border, yet says "It should be in the body of the article"[18].
• On 17 November 2008, when I made a well-intentioned advise to you to add more details on copyright and photo ownership details in Image:C751A front.jpg[19], you responded by deleting my comment, saying "me. happy now? i wonder who's going around trying to discredit who"[20] (emphasis mine). In the corresponding image details, you simply changed the "Source" field from "photo" to "me".

Throughout this entire period, other then my recent comments concerning your level of maturity and your familiarity with wikipedia policy and guidelines, I have strived to remain civil and avoided directing any crude remarks towards you. On the other hand, you have taken my past history of disputes with others as justification for being uncooperative and rude towards me. Considering just how little we have actually crossed paths in wikipedia, I find this sudden negative behaviour curious to observe. I have also noticed, almost without exception, the involvement of another editor in the above exchanges, the later of which has displayed almost the same negative behaviour as you had.

So if you are going to label me as being "personal", I challenge you to provide full evidence to support your comments as I have done above, without which you have just added another instance of incivility...all by your own doing.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Can both of you please go whinge and moan somewhere else, like WP:RFC/U? This has nothing to do with the topic or the SGpedian board anymore. Jpatokal (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you make such a request only when that kind of detailed information is coming from...you-know-who? Are plain facts making some individuals uncomfortable?--Huaiwei (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Both of you. Jpatokal (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, would all discussants please try and confine their comments to the topic at hand and not talk about the conduct of editors. That can take place on user talk pages or at WP:RFC/U. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If I can summarize the debate so far, it seems that the main issues that need resolution are these:

• Is there ambiguity in the article title "Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit"? Huaiwei says no, other discussants say yes. (The relevant Wikipedia guideline is "WP:PRECISION".)
• Is "Mass Rapid Transit" the primary topic? Huaiwei says yes, other discussants appear to think not. (The relevant Wikipedia guideline is "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC".) One way of determining this issue may be to initiate debate over whether "Mass Rapid Transit" should be renamed "Mass Rapid Transit (disambiguation)" and, consequently, whether "Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)" should be moved to "Mass Rapid Transit". The views of members of the India, Taiwan and Thailand WikiProjects should be sought.

It may be fruitful to focus on reaching consensus on these issues. One more thought: "MTR" may be a featured article, but I'm not sure we can assume that it complies fully with all Wikipedia guidelines. A review of the relevant featured article reviews indicates that the title of the article was not an issue. This could mean everyone thought the article name was in line with all relevant guidelines. But it could also mean the fact that the name might be ambiguous did not occur to anybody. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All I have to say is that there is indeed the obvious element of ambiguity in the article title, which was why the editor Elipongo made the article move in the first place. - oahiyeel ^talk 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If ambiguity is as obvious as claimed by the actions of one user, one if left wondering why the article History of the Mass Rapid Transit has remained at its present location from 1 July 2005 to 3 October 2008, for instance.--Huaiwei (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive of discussions

As oahiyeel has recently attempted to censor all past comments on this issue in his talkpages by labelling it an "eyesore"[21], I provide a link here for ease of reference[22]. Refer specifically to the section headlined "Moves involving Mass Rapid Transit articles"--Huaiwei (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It may not be to you, but it is an eyesore to me. :) Thanks for providing the links to show your comments that bothers on non-good faith assumptions, and wanting to teach people on consensus and yet, as above, changed your stance to become adherence to policy in which you have also failed to acknowledge the ambiguity of the said articles as pointed out by other editors. - oahiyeel ^talk 04:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Adherence to policy includes consensus building, so I fail to see how that constitutes a "change of stance"! :D--Huaiwei (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing of discussion

The moves were made by administrator JPG-GR after it was posted on WP:RM by Jacklee. So despite there being obvious consensus here and an administrator moving the articles, User:Huaiwei has still insisted on moving the articles back, potentially starting a move war. Wow, back to what he does best. - oahiyeel ^talk 13:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's keep it civil. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

potentially starting a move war indeed, for the last I experienced, you chose to impliment moves without concensus, was pressed again and again for input, refused to discuss in an amicable manner dispute evidence presented, decides to wage a move war when you chose not to reconsider your stand, and now consistently chooses to be uncivil in any subsequent dealings with me. Taking the opportunity to close the discussion while I was temporarily away seems to be a convenient means of "closing" discussions. Well now that I am back, the discussion will of course have to continue.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you not potentially starting a move war when consensus was already obvious and the move was administered by an administrator - which does it not effectively signal the close of this discussion? - oahiyeel ^talk 16:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Huaiwei, as far as I am aware there were no further discussions on the matter after 9 October 2008, and no indication from you that you were away. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Jacklee, I believe life is too unpredictable for anyone to consistently foretell a period of non-activity and to make such an announcement in wikipedia.--Huaiwei (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Now what? User:Huaiwei says discussion have to continue, but have yet to add anymore to the discussion. The articles have previously been moved by an administrator, he has subsequently moved it back. All discussants here, except for Huaiwei, have generally agreed to the move to the more precise title. If Huaiwei has no more substantial arguements, lets not waste anymore time and effort on this (which can be better used elsewhere) and I will request for an admin to move the articles and close this discussion. - oahiyeel ^talk 02:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for a week (i.e., till 22 November 2008). Any editors who have new points to add or proposals on how to take the matter further (such as making further inquiries) are free do so. If by 22 November 2008 it is felt that nothing new has emerged, an administrator can be approached to assess whether consensus has been reached. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think giving it more time would be good. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 04:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and in the meantime, I would like to call for greater non-partisan participation in a related debate over at Talk:Light_Rail_Transit_(Singapore)#Requested_move. Depending on the result there, I foresee implications on how our articles on both our MRT and LRT systems will eventually be named, so please do speak up before things begin to spiral out of control.--Huaiwei (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Same question: Now what? - oahiyeel ^talk 14:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Notify an administrator (e.g., User:Mailer diablo) and ask him to evaluate if consensus has been reached and the discussion can be closed. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Jacklee, ever thought about running an RFA? I think you would be a great admin. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

FYI

Regarding editors who edit Buses in Singapore, someone apparently posted this : http://sgforums.com/forums/1279/topics/339363 - Mailer Diablo 18:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Bus Interchange and MRT Station pages

I think we have some issues about the bus services tables in the bus interchanges and MRT station pages which needs to be ironed out:

1) WAB services 2) Euro 3, 4 and 5 3) Premium Services. 4) References

To people who edit those pages

1) Is there a need to put WAB sign for all services which have B9TLs, K230UBs, OC500LE even though some of them have not been certified? Doing so would cause confusion. You do need to know that people using Wikipedia may not be bus fans, who knows they may even be wheelchair bound people and they may think that some services are WAB services even though they have not been certified. Furthermore, some services with the wheelchair sign beside them only got one or two cameos or hasn't used WABs for a long time.

2) Euro 3, 4 and 5: Again, is there a need to put these info? Do you think people care about what buses SBST and SMRT use on their services. Also, if you put Euro 3, 4 and 5, why not also put Euro 1 and 2 and pre-Euro in (I'm sarcastic here in case you don't know). Put it bluntly, its trying to tell people that we are new into higher emission standards. Throw face only.

3) Again, is there a need to put in premium services which don't start service from the interchange or terminal when the article is about services in the interchange or terminal. Yes, we do know that SBST's website does put the interchange/terminal where the buses are despatched from, but this again leads to confusion. Also, some premium service (especially SMRT ones) aren't even despatched from the interchanges, even though they serve the town. There is simply no need for such info to be included in the interchanges' pages.

4) For the references portion of interchange pages, is there a need to put in ALL press releases for services starting from an interchange even though there is no mention about the press releases in the article. Some of the press releases have little importance to the article at all, for example, road diversions.

Yip Pin Xiu

A discussion is taking place about the "Yip Pin Xiu" article. Do join in. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

YJ Pillay

I think we need an article about this guy. The photo is public domain, since it is a work of the US Government. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Updates to proposed guideline "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Singapore-related articles)"

I've updated "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Singapore-related articles)". Comments on the current text and suggestions on additional matters that should be dealt with by the proposed guideline (particularly for the sections that are currently blank) are welcome on the guideline's talk page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've finished a cleanup of the proposed guideline. Does anyone have any comments on it? If not, after about a week I will apply the {{Policy}} template to it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would request for more time to go through these guidelines. Care should be taken in this regard, for the article was started with ill-intentions over a brewing formatting dispute in another article.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Huaiwei and I have both worked on the proposed guideline. Does anyone have any further comments on it? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there have not been any further comments since 24 November 2008, I have made the draft a guideline. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I Not Stupid Too and Yip Pin Xiu are currently on peer review

Greetings, fellow SGpedians! Looks like we are approaching 40 GAs! I have written two more articles: I Not Stupid Too and Yip Pin Xiu (which appeared on DYK yesterday). Both have GA potential and I have filed peer reviews to prepare them for GAN. Fellow SGpedians are invited to participate in I Not Stupid Too's peer review and Yip Pin Xiu's peer review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

COA again

I think I found a suitable replacement at WIPO. They, supposedly, have a collection of state symbols users can download. This seems to be the most correct arms I could find. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the web page stating that users can freely download and use the images? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are thinking of that Russian site, their drawing is very inaccurate and if the arms doesn't belong to the former Soviet Union, we can't use it under a free license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Soviet Union? No, I mean what web page from the WIPO site states that the state symbols, including the Singapore coat of arms, can be freely used? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good :) - oahiyeel ^talk 17:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Singapore.jpg. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my question: where on the WIPO website does it say that the state symbols can be freely used? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded the image under fair use, because the copyright is held by the SG Government. WIPO is just an organization that keeps copies of this symbols. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WIPO says that their information can be reproduced by anyone, as long as we give credit to WIPO for the image and as long as we follow any copyright terms attached to the image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't realize it had been uploaded to English Wikipedia and not to the Wikimedia Commons (where the old coat of arms image had been uploaded). That should be all right from the copyright perspective (or at least an arguable case for fair use can be made out if the image is not overused, for instance, by being placed in navboxes), although the point about compliance with the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act (Cap. 296) hasn't been addressed yet, so that is a potential source of difficulty. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at the laws later, but our use will be fine. We are using it for educational purposes and we are not describing ourselves as agents of the SG Government. I remember having to look at the same rules for the various coat of arms from the former USSR. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As regards the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act, see my comments at "Coat of Arms of Singapore" above. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am looking at the 2004 law right now, and from my reading of it, it says the arms cannot be used in a way that denotes possible confusion with the government. Clearly, we display the coat of arms in a way that no one can confuse us for being a government ministry. Also, we are going to limit the location of the arms to just two articles. We should be fine, but if really, really want, I could contact Ms. Njo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the effect of the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Rules (Cap 296, R1, 2004 Rev Ed) that were made pursuant the Act. For ease of reference, I reproduce the relevant sections:

3. — (1) Subject to paragraph (3), no person shall, without the prior written permission of the Minister or any authorised officer —

(a) print, publish, manufacture, sell, offer for sale or exhibit for sale;

(b) cause to be printed, published, manufactured, sold, offered for sale or exhibited for sale;

(c) send, distribute or deliver to, or serve on, any other person; or

(d) cause to be sent, distributed or delivered to, or served on, any other person,

any writing, material or object in or on which appears the Arms or any token, insignia, emblem or other thing that so nearly resembles the Arms as to be capable of being mistaken for the Arms.

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), no person shall, without the prior written permission of the Minister or any authorised officer, use or apply the Arms on any writing, material or object.

(3) This rule shall not prohibit —

(a) the display of the Arms by any Government department on or within the premises of any building owned by the Government or occupied by one or more Government departments; or

(b) the use or application of the Arms on any writing, material or object produced or commissioned by any Government department, or any public officer, for the purposes of the Government.

14. — (1) Any person who knowingly contravenes rule 3 (1) or (2) in relation to the Arms shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.

Rule 3(1) therefore prohibits, among other things, any person from publishing or causing to be published any "writing" in or on which the coat of arms appears, unless the written permission of the Minister for Communications, Information and the Arts has been sought beforehand. The term writing probably includes web pages, as the Interpretation Act (Cap. 1, 2002 Rev. Ed.) states that it includes "other modes of representing or reproducing words or figures in visible form". This means that any editor in Singapore who makes use of the coat of arms in Wikipedia articles is at risk of being prosecuted. (The authorities have no jurisdiction over editors who are outside Singapore.) Of course, it's hard to say whether the authorities would really take action against individual editors. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Or us as a hole, because they know for a fact we are not trying to misrepresent ourselves as agents of the government. That is usually what 9/10's of these laws. Even so, most of the time, Wikipedia only cares about copyright, not about the surrounding regulations when it comes to symbols. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sent an email to Ms. Njo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Fann Wong

Does anyone know when she changed her Chinese name to the one she uses today? Her name showed up as 范雯芳 in "Chronicle of Life" (缘尽今生). Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Alert System for Soldier Deployment?

I saw in Honour and Passion that there appears to be some alert system on TV that tells a soldier when they need to return to camp. Is that real, or just made up in the series? If it is real, it might be notable for Singapore's military articles here. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Shut up, Arbiteroftruth, you are incompetent, and you have banned 3 innocent Wikipedia editors so far. As far as I know, those alert systems are non-notable for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.222 (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC) （Comment made by sockpuppet)

That comment is out of line. Please be civil in your dealings with all editors. To answer Arbiteroftruth's question: yes there is an alert system. It's called the open mobilisation system – see http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/topics/nsmen/opsready/Mobilisation.html. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The Enlistment Act of Singapore lists many methods that MINDEF could use to call soldiers up. Part VII, Chapter 30, Section C mentions the use of the television specifically. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Lejel Home Shopping vandalism

This guy (under multiple IPs), who is almost certainly the same guy who went around inventing Indonesian airports, airlines and routes a while back, has been going around "Lejel Home Shopping" to tons of Singaporean MRT stations and shopping malls. This is an Indonesian TV shopping network [23] and (AFAIK) has no presence at all in Sg, certainly not in MRT stations. Please help clean up! Jpatokal (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)