Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Singapore/2021 archive

Category:SGpedians' notice board members has been nominated for merging

Category:SGpedians' notice board members has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Lee Hsien Loong - to GA and FA

I'm looking at doing a revamp of the Lee Hsien Loong page, with a view to taking it to GA and perhaps FA. It is already quite well written, and as I see it, the main challenges are as follows:

• ensuring that the content included is both relevant and notable
• keeping it to readable length
• ensuring neutral coverage, with due weight to different opinions

This is quite a mammoth task, which may take some time. I'm very much looking to work collaboratively, avoid content disputes, and to recognise those who have already brought this article to its current high standard. Where I see points that I think are of particular controversy, I'll open a discussion on the talk page. Cheers. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kohlrabi Pickle: (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Hello. I had launched the first revamp of the page last year, but it's still lacking a lot of information with regards to his first three terms, and I never had the time to complete the Indonesian section of the foreign policies section. But do let me know if you require assistance. My next two pages to improve would be Heng Swee Keat and Sylvia Lim. Seloloving (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Great stuff, thank you for your message. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Photographs of Singaporean politicians

Over the last few months, I've approached a number of organisations (think tanks, government departments, political parties, etc.) for improved photographs of Singaporean politicians, because the existing ones are outdated, pixelated, or nonexistent. I'm happy to share that the PAP and WP have both responded positively, and we can expect new and better-quality photos of Singaporean MPs soon. Once they are available on Commons, I'll leave messages on their articles' talk pages to inform other editors, and we can work on brushing the articles up. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That's great! If I may ask, how did you get them to respond positively to your requests? I and a few other editors have tried asking in the past with no success. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Darylgolden, sorry I didn't see your comment earlier. I might have just got lucky, but I'm not sure what I did differently from the rest of you... I'm happy to talk more on the "Email a user" function, if you like. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits by Garfield 3185

@Garfield 3185, Robertsky, Justanothersgwikieditor, and Kohlrabi Pickle:. Kohlrabi Pickle, I am aware you have exams, so please feel free to not reply if you do not have the time.

Hello, I am pinging you all today, so as to verify if it's just me having issues with Garfield's editing. I may be entirely alone in my opinion, and therefore wrong in my judgement of Garfield. Garfield, please do read this with an open mind. I admit outright I have erred at times when I reverted your edits en-mass without communicating with you first due to frustration, of which I reverted some of my own reverts later.

Over the past few months, Garfield has contributed immensely to the pages of the Singaporean politicians, and at times actually contributing edits which are useful. Nevertheless, most of us have in some way or another interacted with them over the months on their talkpage and expressed concerns on several areas - to which Garfield has generally responded and accepted. This is the reason I do not regard their edits as disruptive.

Nevertheless, by making mass edits across dozens of pages, sometimes within a single day, and without an edit summary despite constant requests, it makes it very difficult to discern the motive for the edit. This is especially so since most of our politician bio pages are already in rather bad shape. Their mass edits involve recently combining most of the lead in the GRC/SMC pages into a single paragraph without any reason stated. What's more, it's very difficult to mass-revert dozens of pages unless you have AWB.

I have no doubt Garfield has good intentions, but I do not think I would be a very good mentor to them. Does anyone else have anything to propose? Seloloving (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to let everybody know that now when I do edits to any pages. I would do a check and update minor changes to be sure every politican is on the same page. Is it not weird that everybody all have different information when they have something all in common ? Garfield 3185 (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Garfield, thank you for responding. If you are referring to your current mass edits of adding Nationality and Citizenship tags to all the politician bio pages, in my opinion, it's precisely that they are all Singaporeans, and all have something in common, which makes it unnecessary to include in the infobox, which is already very messy. The only politician that would justify a citizenship tag, frankly, would be Chen Show Mao, who was born in Taiwan. A citizenship tag there would provide context and clarification, but not for the rest. If you look at US or British politician bio pages, most of them do not include the two tags. Seloloving (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Then what about Amy Khor , Grace Fu , Lee Bee Wah and Khaw Boon Wan were all born in Malaysia but were obtained Singapore citizenship as they were elected as politicans. But anyway if you feel that is not necessary then feel free to revert all the pages but for this recent edit, I felt is a must include information. I not being stubborn for this and hope you don't feel it that way but for this minor edit, I felt is a must include information and why must we compare with other countries. Garfield 3185 (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I also felt like I am being against almost all the other editors in Wikipedia. Whenever is a good or so called bad intention, is always this or that. Which I am trying to work hard and learn but if is really have personal problems in personal life please do not lash it out here. Garfield 3185 (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I not going to respond as I knew that all would help one another to go against me. I am always wrong yes. Garfield 3185 (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Garfield, note that I have not en-mass reverted your edits for this precise reason - that some of your edits may be justified. Secondly, it's not about comparing with other countries, but the practices on other well established pages to reduce infobox cruft. It is my opinion that unless the tag is necessary or have some importance to the person's history (ie, a prominent Aboriginal Australian, immigrant to another country), it is really unnecessary. It may be minor, but overall they contribute to the length of the infobox, especially for PAP politicians holding multiple positions and titles. I have also not reverted your edits to the People's Action Party page, as I operate by consensus and not against you. If no other editor has expressed any concerns on the page despite my request, I have acknowledged my concerns were unjustified and did not take it further.

We have no intentions of going against you. We have all reported problematic editors to the administrators' board at least once, and as far as I see, nobody has expressed any intentions to do that to you, as we know you are operating in good faith, have worked hard, and is willing to listen and learn. Nevertheless, it is my hope that someone will be able to mentor you before you begin mass edits, and gradually improve on your editing. Seloloving (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Garfield 3185: Personally I always fear getting a notification as usually it means someone tagged me for something I done wrong, leave a talkpage message and complained about something (which incidentally I got one today, feel free to see my talkpage) etc. Personal experience aside, other editors (including me) and in general, tends not to praise for a job well done or for continuous good effort so it seems like whenever there is a comment or discussion, it tends to be negative as people are looking for resolutions and not praising. I only had a barnstar from robertsky after so many years for wikignoming on sg articles and the occasional thanks from the thousands of articles I de-orphaned but the number of "complaints" on my talkpage outweigh all these. I just want to say, its not personal, its not you are always wrong, it is simply a statistics bias. On issues Seloloving brought out :

1. Edit summary - Please do wrote edit summary as it helps in checking what changes are made. Personally, trusted editors or long term editors which includes you, I will assume your edit summary is truthful and I will not check on your edits. I monitor a list of changes and edit summary is ultra helpful whether I check the diff or just let it slide. Do look at WP:FIES and I think it explains well how I appreciate edit summary.
2. For adding of nationalities etc, I was on the fence about it. I saw the changes and I do not feel strongly about the addition so I keep my quiet. While writing this, I noted MB's edit summary here on WP:INFOBOXNTLY which pretty much settles MOS on infobox.
3. While your edits are what I consider wiki gnoming, small improvements on articles etc, do note certain information is still a bit sensitive and should be discussed. If you are not sure, create a section and just ask. There are more stalkers here than what we may think so. I frequently pop to various wikiprojects talkpage and ask if I am not sure and defer to their practice and opinions.

Try to take it as a continual feedback on your edits and learning best practices. I frequently check other similar article (highly notable articles) and follow them closely as what is on the article is likely discussed and agreed upon already. As said, try not to treat this negatively and learn from it. In my point of view, Seloloving is trying to improve general standards of sg related articles, which I appreciate it, and meant nothing else. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Garfield 3185: It must be frustrating to see your edits reverted en masse, a couple of times admittedly by myself (with reasons). But not all your edits are wrong. If they were, many more of your edits would have been reverted or you would have been banned long time ago for 'not building an encyclopaedia' (an actual class of rationales for a ban here). What I have here are a couple of observations about your reverted edits and also from my editing experience here, and suggestions on how to minimise or prevent mass reversions from happening.

Many of your reverted edits are replicated across many pages, and these so happened to be in contrary to established consensus, implicit or otherwise. Sometimes no one will tell us about these consensus or guidelines until we got reverted (it just happened to me a couple of days ago). This is common for relatively newer/younger editors like us as Wikipedia is a big space with a long community history, baggage, rules (whatever you call them). The amount of guidelines, and something contradictory ones, doesn't help as well. I conduct mass edits too. Most of the time these edits go unchallenged because I did my groundwork to make sure that such edits are not disruptive, within guidelines and/or established norms.

As those who have been pinged by Seoloving here can attest to, I have been working on television artistes' BLPs on a mass editing basis for broad stroke changes, and then content filling/editing for surgical changes, in order to bring up the standards on these articles up. And the process takes a long time, 1.5 years on, and I am still not done. Why? Distractions aside, many of the broad stroke changes actually started small and slow. I sought comments and consensus from editors for 'breaking' changes. I implemented them only on a couple of pages to gauge wider community reactions, and possibly engage in further debate/RfC (example). The set of changes are then further refined before being pushed to the 245+ pages.

On to your edits: If you had limited your changes to a small number of pages first, like 5-10 pages, and wait for a couple of days, other users would be able to judge if these changes are ok or not. If OK, they would leave it alone, otherwise someone would come along and revert with a reasonable rationale. Also a more proactive engagement with other editors can help to reduce the number of reverted edits or prevent them from happening in the first place. Some changes, no matter how minor in ones' eyes (except for grammar, typo corrections usually) are actually major to others, especially it is a mass edit. A quick check in a BLP talk page or here or other WikiProjects before the mass edits will usually reveal any potential issues with the edited content first.

Take your time to digest the above and adjust your editing pattern/behaviour at where you feel necessary. Cheers! – robertsky (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think the other editors have said all the right things. I'm going to add a more disciplinarian perspective. Editing on Wikipedia requires WP:COMPETENCE. This is key to building an encyclopedia, and as this explanatory note points out, A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. For better or worse, Singapore-related articles have a very small pool of editors dedicated to them. Far from expanding Singapore's coverage on Wikipedia, we barely have the critical mass to maintain or clean up our existing dilapidated articles. This means that the point on competence is especially critical here. We cannot afford additional messes. Accordingly, I think that we are past the point of good intentions. All of us need to concretely ensure that we are contributing productively and in areas of our competence. In accordance with these, two days ago, SBS3800P was finally given a two-week block for disruptive editing that was a nightmare to supervise; no edit summaries, content being sometimes accurate and sometimes not, and being completely impervious to constructive advice from the community. The blocking admin indicated that if the behaviour continues when the block expires, an indefinite block will follow.

Garfield, it may be worth seeking a mentor through WP:ADOPTAUSER (I had one when I first started). Beyond that, I would take the advice of the other editors seriously. Given the other comments, you should also include edit summaries in every possible instance. As Robertsky points out, if the edits are too difficult to manage, this may result in restrictions on editing. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Summing up Thank you for your inputs everyone. To reiterate my purpose of starting this discussion, this is not meant to be a condemnation of Garfield, but an encouragement for them to either slow down their editing pace, or seek a mentor. I sincerely hope that Garfield, if you are reading this, you can seek anyone of us - including me - for questions or anything you are unsure about, before editing dozens of pages as once. Your edits are appreciated, but nonetheless, there is a line which in my opinion, you are close to crossing, and none of us wishes for that to happen. We are a small community, every editor is precious.

@Robertsky: Were you the one whom mass-reverted the last batch of edits adding party icons to the pages? Would there be a way to undo the recent edits per WP:INFOBOXNTLY, with the exception of the people born overseas, without triggering a deluge of alerts to Garfield? Seloloving (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Seloloving, I can't remember. I think the only way is to perform an intermediary edit on the same set of changes, and then remove the changes, that or Garfeild opts out of notification alerts. Some of the edits have been undone by himself. – robertsky (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, seeing as Garfield is still refusing to take our advice and refusing to leave an edit summary for mass changes across dozens of page, even as their editing is presently alright, I will leave it to other editors to gauge and decide on a future course of action. I will revert any edits if I deem appropriate, but will minimise interaction with Garfield. Seloloving (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a model for this at WP:DDE, starting from to make clear the community disapproves. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent

“Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent” has either been nominated for “containerization” (which apparently means that it will only contain subcategories), or alternatively for deletion together with all its subcategories on the basis that they are “insufficiently defining”. Please join the discussion at “Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 21#Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent”. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Commons on Singapore photographs

There is an important discussion on Wikimedia Commons about the position to take on images from Singapore here: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gan Siow Huang 1.jpg. This has significant implications for whether the photographs submitted by people in Singapore can be accepted on Commons, and it is important that the discussion receives good participation. I invite members of the WikiProject to share their views at the discussion. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jacklee: I know this is outside your specialisation, but do give your comments if any. Thanks~! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits on SPH radio stations

Just for alert. Apparently radio stations by SPH have been redirected (stations like Kiss92, UFM1003, One FM 91.3, Money FM 89.3 and Hao FM 96.3, as well as the SPH Radio) because of lack of independent and verifiable content as taken by two editors. How do we resolve this when the stations by Mediacorp and SAFRA Radio pages are still standing? I'm calling for a review of the pages to fix any shortcomings. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

TheGreatSG'rean, er... find articles through NewspaperSG? Many of these radio stations are established or re-established (a number of times) since Singapore's independence, There should be offline sources for their histories. – robertsky (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the SPH Radio articles have articles from SPH newspapers. Not sure if that's a conflict of interest though, media companies do report on their own launches at times. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

TheGreatSG'rean, do limit sources to CNA (TV network) and Today (Singapore newspaper) as most radio stations are SPH radio stations so The Straits Times' articles are non-independent and maybe considered as primary sources. Also work on the article in sandbox and once ready, revert the redirection and update the article immediately. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

We have to note that there was a time when the media in Singapore was a duopoly, with the print media essential a monopoly by SPH. During this time, SPH's news articles may only be the sources, thus if there is no choice but to include them, a stringent evaluation of the content should be used instead, i.e. press release vs notable event/mention, or if it is negative news, whether it is an attempt to whitewash or sugarcoat the station's involvement (i.e. neutrality). – robertsky (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Restructuring of Broadcasting in Singapore

Hi all, I am restructuring Broadcasting in Singapore into Radio in Singapore as majority of the content is on radio. There is already Television in Singapore and Mass media in Singapore, which the latter will be the final redirection of the Broadcasting in Singapore title. Content not related to Radio in Singapore will be shifted into the Television and Mass media articles. Feel free to help restructure these three articles. Note to TheGreatSG'rean: this might be of interest to you since there are gems like this to serve as a jump points for sourcing for the SPH radio articles as well. – robertsky (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Alrighty. I will try and see where to help. I think we should restructure them, at least we make them comprehensive in their own way without lumping the topics. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Features articles under review

All Featured Articles that are currently tagged as WikiProject Singapore articles were promoted prior to 2016. Old FA articles are being re-checked through the Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 process. Members of this Wikiproject may be interested in reviewing these articles, and taking relevant following steps (marking as satisfactory, fixing, or bringing to WP:FAR) as necessary. The articles in question are:

• Flag of Singapore
• Toa Payoh ritual murders
• Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945)
• John Martin Scripps
• Singapore strategy
• Tropical Storm Vamei
• Durian

Best, CMD (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, about time. Thanks for the notification! – robertsky (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Credit belongs to the URFA people. These articles all seem decent enough (the worst seems to be Durian), so hopefully they won't need much work. CMD (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Weight of rudder theory of Silkair Flight 185

Please see Talk:SilkAir_Flight_185#Introduction:_Suggest_to_remove_last_part for questions over WP:WEIGHT of the rudder malfunction theory of Silkair Flight 185. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed move to new article

@Kohlrabi Pickle, Robertsky, and Justanothersgwikieditor: I need some help. For a article like a White Paper, is it warranted to split the point from the Women in Singapore article or just leave it as it is? Just thinking since an example is the Population White Paper article currently in existence. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

TheGreatSG'rean, admittedly I didn't follow closely on this White Paper. If the White Paper generates significant coverage and there's enough depth in the details, I say a split is plausible. – robertsky (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'll say let's wait until it gets released, then we review the issue again. Hope to get more opinions before deciding what to do next. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

TheGreatSG'rean : Same as robertsky, if there is enough content (debate and coverage) to warrant a split, then split it out. I will say similar length as Population White Paper is a good yardstick. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles, including Singapore related articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. --John B123 (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

On MRT articles and other stuff

Hello there. I have been browsing through the archives of this talk page and see a few interesting MRT-related discussions that I have missed out on.

@Pentagon 2057: sorry for a very late reply, but I do agree on creating a dedicated task force for MRT-related articles. However, there are very few dedicated users working on MRT-related pages at the moment and it seems to be an entirely one-man show (cough cough). I can understand many others may be busy, or wish to work on other articles to diversify their editing. I am afraid that this "task force" will be limited to just a few people, so it might not go very far. I will back its creation once there are more active users dedicated to working on our station articles.

On a related note, I realise I have not told people here about my essay on improving station articles. I have done that on the main MRT talk page, but it seems not many have seen it. So I am posting it here to a broader audience who are part of this Wikiproject. I hope it could be pinned somewhere for easier reference.

One thing to end off, I am somewhat taking a wikibreak at the moment and temporarily putting a stop to other major projects (I still plan to work on other station articles like Woodlands and the North East line). Mainly because of my frustration that the FA review for Dhoby Ghaut MRT station just got shot down pretty quickly. I encourage interested users to check the remarks on the talk page and the archived review and work on it if they want to.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@ZKang123: I agree, the number of people working on mrt articles has dropped significantly as compared to when i first started editing, and safe to say i have been on an extended wikibreak myself for quite some time. The work you have done so far is extremely commendable and i apologise that i was not able to contribute more, but do take and enjoy your well deserved wikibreak and i look forward to working with you again when we both return. Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 15:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pentagon 2057: Do you have plans on when to return?--ZKang123 (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I will return to the MRT system history after the LKY article, unless ZK beats me to it. Seloloving (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@ZKang123: I definitely do intend and hope to return soon but unfortunately i cant give an exact date as have other commitments now and my drive to do editing is just not there now. Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 15:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for article: Ninja Van

Hello: I would like to request for Ninja Van to be created. I have created a preliminary draft at Draft:Ninja Van. I would appreciate reviews and comments. Hongsy (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh and would appreciate any and all edits as well. Hongsy (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hongsy, pushed to mainspace. – robertsky (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Honourific title

Should retired/ex-politicians retain their honourific ("His/Her Excellency/" or "The Honourable")? Thoughts anyone? Seloloving (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Seloloving, any usage of the honourifics when they left office? If not, I don't think the articles should retain the honourifics. – robertsky (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence so far that retired/deceased politicians are referred to by an honourific after days of searching. Seloloving (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Woodlands Bus Interchange

Hi all, with the new Woodlands Integrated Transport Hub (previously called Woodlands Regional Bus Interchange) reopening this coming Sunday (13 June 2021), what should the article be moved to from the current Woodlands Temporary Bus Interchange? Currently Woodlands Bus Interchange is redirect to List of former bus stations in Singapore. From my understanding, LTA no longer named it as Woodlands Regional Bus Interchange in their newest press release and news media also uses Woodlands Integrated Transport Hub in their reporting. However in Wikipedia, we don't use the Integrated Transport Hub moniker but just Bus Interchange for instance Yishun Bus Interchange which LTA actually called it as Yishun Integrated Transport Hub in their press release. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

We can wait a few days to see if new sources from news media begin calling it the Woodlands Bus Interchange, upon which you can propose the move. Seloloving (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Seloloving: The latest news source is from Straits Times published on 13 June [1]. Woodlands Integrated Transport Hub continues to be the term used and as mentioned previously the same term applies to Yishun Bus Interchange as well, news source and LTA called it Yishun Integrated Transport Hub in their releases while on Wikipedia we don't use the Integrated Transport Hub portion for our title naming convention. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean: Hello fellow Wikipedian, as you moved the article to Woodlands Regional Bus Interchange. Would like to see what your opinion is. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Also I will like to see photos of the two interchanges. We dont have great shots of the temporary interchange and the photos of the hub yet. I might come down tmr to check out the place.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: Either we keep this name (as in the Woodlands Regional name), rename this to Woodlands Bus Interchange or Woodlands Integrated Transport Hub. If we took the third option, we will need to rename every single interchange. If we took the second option, we will need to move the redirect. I only moved it as a temporary solution since it's unclear if we should name as Woodlands Bus Interchange or WITH. If you were to ask me, we should rename eventually as "Woodlands Bus Interchange." Hope that clarifies. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean: I agreed with moving to "Woodlands Bus Interchange". After moving, add this hatnote {{For|the former bus interchange of the same name|List of former bus stations in Singapore}}. to the top of the article. And also updating the lead section to mentioned it was previously called Woodlands Regional Bus Interchange. What do you think? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: Sounds good to me. I support that. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Expiry of copyright for television broadcasts

I just realised that the Copyright Act section 222 says:

Copyright shall not subsist by virtue of section 89 in —

(a) a television broadcast or a sound broadcast made before 10th April 1987; or

(b) a television broadcast or a sound broadcast made after that date that is a repetition of a television broadcast or a sound broadcast made before that date.

Doesn't this mean effectively all television broadcasts (except government works) before 10 April 1987 are now in the public domain? Would we be able to finally attain good imagery of our early political figures like David Marshall, Lim Chin Siong, Goh Keng Swee and so on, in addition to significant events in Singapore's early history (first containership, reclaimation of ECP, first HDB and so on)? Can anyone tell me if I am reading it right? Seloloving (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Seloloving, got to get them unshackled from NAS first. ╮(︶▽︶)╭ – robertsky (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I am working on that. I wrote an email to NAS two months ago to request them to release the copyright of all photos taken before 1950 and going forward. They have replied me twice that they are still looking into the matter. Seloloving (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Seloloving, it is a big ask. haha. especially if they have yet to completely digitise them all. – robertsky (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep, but here's to hoping for those already online at least. :( Seloloving (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Singaporean Mahjong rules reference

Hi all, I am looking for a reference for Singaporean Mahjong rules but so far I can only find one book, Amazing Mahjong: Learn to Maximise Your Winning Potential and Have Fun, talking about the rules for the Singapore variant. Our National Library does have it but only a few copies at libraries which are not exactly near to me. So I am appealing for help :

1. Do you know/have any other online references or books for Singaporean Mahjong rules?
2. If you stay near these libraries [2], help me borrow the book, take photos of relevant sections and send to me.

Appreciate any help on other references or getting a hand on this book! Thanks --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, those libraries are still too far away from where I stay. Would anyone else here stay closer to Yishun, Woodlands or Jurong? (I sound like an MRT announcer...) Seloloving (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey no worries, @Robertsky: was almost to Woodlands earlier this week but bailed... --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Managed to make a trip down to the National Library and read what I needed. Thanks guys! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

LTA announcement for tomorrow.

Hey guys. Take note of an announcement by LTA for tomorrow at 11am. Once the announcement has been made, please edit the relevant pages accordingly and appropriately. I might be busy, so if anyone wants to edit soon after the announcement, I will like yall to bear this in mind.

If it is on the stations' opening, use the following sample text:

On 30 June 2020, the LTA announced that the station, together with the rest of (insert line segment), would be opened on (date) that year.

It is still likely it might be something else. But whatever it is, if it is still worthy of being added, update the pages and add the relevant citations using this tool. Thanks.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I will try if I have the time. Thanks for the note. Seloloving (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested semi-protection for NTU

Hey guys, I have requested semi-protection for Nanyang Technological University. Administrators, for your approval please. Hongsy (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Noting here that Hongsy also requested this at WP:RfPP, and the article was semied for two days. CMD (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed copyright changes

Hello there. This may have a significant impact on the use of photographs and media on Wikipedia and commons, so better take note.

There has been a series of proposed amendments to the copyright act. One proposed amendment includes:

Expiry dates for copyright protection of unpublished works

1. Under the suggested amendments, unpublished works will no longer enjoy perpetual copyright protections

1. All works, whether published or not, will be subject to a limited period of protection

Keep track of these changes.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I will be monitoring them once they are passed. Seloloving (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Better Photo for SAR 21 Infobox?

Hi all, I was looking at the article for the SAR 21, and was wondering if anyone had a better photo to replace the one currently in the info box. The current photo shows a cut-out version of the SAR 21, which is a demonstration piece, and not functional. It's also cut off at the muzzle, and quite small. I have asked for inputs on the talk page. Would anyone be able to contribute? Thanks. - Sentimex (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikimania 2021

Our biggest Wikipedian / Wikimedian gathering is a few weeks away! It will be on August 13-17. It is free and open for everyone! Go to https://bit.ly/wikimania2021 to register. For more information, you can go to the Wikimania wiki. See you there! --Exec8 (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

River Valley High School and relevance of award

At present, there's an ongoing dispute between me and another editor on Talk:River_Valley_High_School,_Singapore#Award, regarding the relevance of a mental health award given to the school by Silver Ribbon. In light of the recent circumstances, the notability for inclusion of the award has resulted in a debate between the two of us. It would be good if neutral editors can provide a opinion on the issue.

This request is not yet posted on RFC or third opinion as both requires for some discussion to be held first. So I am posting it here. Seloloving (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

RSN discussion on The Straits Times

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Reliability of The Straits Times. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Vanda Miss Joaquim

New stub: Vanda Miss Joaquim (drag queen). Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act

Hi WikiProject Singapore, I would like to bring attention to this article on Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act which is listed on the Wikipedia:Did you know today. It is clearly unbalanced, with a whole slew of "Opposition" opinions against it and just one "Support" for it - and some of those opinions have undue weight given the standing of certain commentators (e.g. mere individuals not representing organisations). It smells a lot like advocacy to me, especially when ridiculous, attention-seeking allegations like "attempted coup" are repeated there. I would fix it by removing around half of the "Opposition" opinions (especially the attention-seeking ones), but given that I'm editing from an IP, my edits would likely be reverted. --121.7.1.169 (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm an advocate for facts, that's all -- if you have more "support" statements, go ahead and add them! I wouldn't be surprised if a bad film with a 0% RT rating had more negative reviews in the "Reception" section--would you?! Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't remove the NPOV tags without solving the issue and calling it vandalism on my part. That is against Wikipedia policy. Again, you have made exactly zero comments on whether the article does indeed have undue weight. We are talking about "opinions" here, not "facts" - in adding opinions, they can be biased, but must come from reliable sources and have proper weight assigned to the balance of opinions. --121.7.1.169 (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't need a random IP address to tell me what policy is or isn't. Go rant on Facebook--the only "unbalanced" (unhinged!) voice here is yours. Seriously, get a grip dude. Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Clearly uninterested in discussion and launching personal attacks. Again, avoiding the topic at hand. That just goes to show how much you care about the Wikipedia community and actually improving Wikipedia articles. --121.7.1.169 (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I've contributed more to Wikipedia than you ever will and this is the last time I'll be responding to your trollery. Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

You must be joking, I've been here since 2005 and am a member of various Wikipedia editor groups - that's why I'm familiar with the editing policies. I choose to edit from IPs based on privacy concerns. Don't assume. --121.7.1.169 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

So I was right -- you are a boomer! Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Dhoby Ghaut MRT station is now a featured article!

Congratulations to ZKang123 for working hard to promote Dhoby Ghaut MRT station to a Featured article![3] Hope that in time to come, Wikiproject Singapore can have more featured articles coming from you!

Once again, congratulations! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Amazing stuff. What an addition to the already extensive MRT work ZKang123 has done. CMD (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A bit late to notice, but thanks! Next one coming up is Chinatown MRT station.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

When Lau Pa Sat was gazetted?

Hello Wikiproject Singapore, I have asked for the information on the talk page. Do you let me know that? Thank you for your cooperation.--Junknote (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I Not Stupid outdated plot

I will like to ask if that revert by experienced editors was either right or wrong by the book and whether if the edit could have been done better. For the plot, it follow the current standards of WP:MOSFILM and its current guidelines and also the correct set of plots but the revert was mainly due to the poor copyediting. On the other hand, the outdated plot uses the outdated format (believe me, I have seen many film articles before) and its structure is not that poorly designed. If you think that this revert is wrong and needs vetoing, please feel free to discuss here. The main goal is to keep the new plot correct, albeit with some changes (and that edit also fixed a few mistakes or added missing info that is not noticed). These are the facts. 122.11.214.200 (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

For reference, there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:I Not Stupid#Plot issues. To anyone seeing this notice (assuming the IP editor is looking for input from the project), please comment there instead to avoid running parallel discussions. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

IP and impersonation

Hello there, TVSGuy here, stopping by after trying to pick some cleanup works. I checked from the article, Identity (game show) (and some couple of articles such as (America's Toughest Jobs ), a show which had previously aired on Singapore, but was plagued by some randomly created users and IP addresses that vandalized the article. There was no doubt that it was from Singapore, due to the IP addresses and impersonation, which violates the username policy and evading a block. I came by here is to ask if you can enhance any protocols for this, cause there was also happened to have a group of random IP addresses that have also vandalized the articles to evade a block, but then that was not from Singapore... Thank you for reading. TVSGuy (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a long-term abuse problem (relevant SPI case)... not sure what else can be done besides revert and immediately send to WP:AIV, or send affected pages to WP:RFPP. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Reaching out

Hello Wikiproject Singapore, I recently joined the Wikimedia Foundation and would like to set up an introductory call to get to know the Wikimedians in Singapore. Is there an active group of editors/ community organisers here? Would you be open to connecting sometime in November? Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you.--JChen (WMF) (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

JChen (WMF), late to this. Apparently I forgot to re-add this talk page when I decided to reset my watchlist. There are a bunch of active editors here, many who are responding to many other threads on the Talk page here. We don't have a community organiser currently, if I am not mistaken. – robertsky (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice: changes to the political party templates

Just noticed a mass removal of templates at the Index. Political party colours, shortnames have been consolidated at Module:Political party, and thus many of the existing templates have been deleted. The doc at Template:Singaporean_political_parties/doc has been updated by admins with the new alias templates that can be used to retrieve the requried values. If there is a need to add new party or update existing party colours/shortnames, the data dictionary under the Module can be updated accordingly. – robertsky (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

GA nomination for Battle of Singapore

Hello all, I just want to inform you all that I've nominated the article Battle of Singapore for GA and ask for your help wherever possible. Thanks, Nigos (talk c) 14:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Nigos, welcome back. happy to help out. have added both the page and the nomination page to my watchlist. – robertsky (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Nigos (talk c) 04:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Alex Josey

Yesterday I came across the article Alex Josey. (I was searching for info on the [Singapore-irrelevant] person H. H. England.) It was largely as it was when created a decade earlier by an editor interestingly named "Simon.josey", with references that were/are mostly of various degrees of unsuitability, extending even to "Linda Josey (2011) pers comm." I've done some work on this article, but it's still terrible, expecting the reader to believe that sources are somewhere (where?) within archives, expecting the reader to take Josey's own word for his adventures, etc. Josey was, we learn, a biographer (hagiographer?) of Lee Kuan Yew, and he does appear to have some Singapore-related notability. I know little about Singapore; I hope that somebody here might take this on. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)