Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Singapore

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ashram molter (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 24 April 2018 (new topic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SGpedians' notice board Welcome to the talk page of the SGpedians' notice board, where you can discuss Singapore-related articles and issues. Enjoy! =)
Shortcut

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Please monitor this IP

Would SGpedian editors please monitor this IP: 42.61.246.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) because an editor has been repeatedly making false claims, especially about the MRT/LRT. Thanks! ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. They have removed many of the useful station schematics and first/last train timings. I think they can be kept. Will revert in seven days if no action is suggested here. Mattsung (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the removal of the station layouts and last train timings from MRT station pages?

Lots of MRT station pages have lost their station layout and last train timings. Why is this so? An example will be the removal from Tampines MRT Station as seen here . It isn't helpful that many of these removals are done by one person who doesn't seem familiar with the train system here. Mattsung (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, that is why you do not need that information on first and last train timings. Operators' websites are there. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a guidebook information, but however we can then infer that MRT stations will go cashless in due course. Thirdly, I do foresee that some of the exits are removed from the respective pages, it could be for security reasons but it can be found on operators' websites. Timothy H2 (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tim is absolutely correct we're not a brochure - If you want train times and train exits then look at the train operates website and a map too,
It's no different to someone putting the exits of a Singapore shopping centre .... they're not needed and they're only relevant to the locals of that station .... –Davey2010Talk 03:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - Firstly, station layout and exits benefit not just locals but also millions of tourists who visit Singapore each year. Secondly, security concern raised by Timothy should not be an issue since these info are already in public domain cached somewhere on the Internet. Thirdly, a search on similar Wikipedia articles for Hong Kong[1] and New York[2] contains such information. There is no reason to use a different yardstick for Singapore. Jane Dawson (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well we're not a brochure - Millions of bus station articles don't have exits because it's not notable and rather pointless.... As for those 2 articles - I've removed the brochure from those too. –Davey2010Talk 13:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I also changed the layouts of Taipei Metro stations as well. And to tell you, Wikipedia is not a guide too. We will do the same for all metro stations around the world. Timothy H2 (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this issue I noticed while lowercasing LRT pages that some LRT stations still have the layouts. Do i remove them too? 1.02 editor (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. R22-3877 (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Website Mothership as reliable source?

Will the website Mothership serves as a reliable source?

Thanks! --09:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Mothership is founded by former Minister George Yeo and has close links with PAP.[3] It is best to quote from an array of sources such as the Independent, the Online Citizen and Yahoo News to achieve a balance, especially on issues pertaining to politics. Jane Dawson (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Above what you have said, Mothership is still a blog and Wikipedia does not cite from blogs. Furthermore, its political affiliation to the PAP brings it further from a neutral point of view. -1.02 editor (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability depends on context. There is no hard and fast rules to classify a website as a "blog" just because it uses Wordpress Engine or is written in blog format. Mothership reports on news and is classified by MDA as a news website, similar to the Independent and TOC. The point is to be aware of the political agenda carried by different news organization, differentiate statement of facts from opinions, and add content of encyclopedic value. Jane Dawson (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RSN on Independent.sg

There is an ongoing discussion on reliability of using the Independent.sg as a source. Please participate here[1] Jane Dawson (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move of LRT line articles

I have just posted a move request regarding the LRT line articles at [[2]]. Please comment and add your opinions to the discussion. R22-3877 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sengkang

Is there a copyeditor that is willing to help out at Sengkang? There are still some issues to be addressed. Thanks 1.02 editor (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GAs

Can we instead of the ga drive format we collaborate together on a single article and bring it up to GA/FA? Singapore would be a good start. 1.02 editor (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a good idea to put Singapore on peer review first to get a general idea of what needs to be done to get it up to FA status. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 14:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, don't mind if you put it under PR as my quota is currently used. Thanks 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 14:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually upon some examination the main outstanding issues are updating the article with more recent info and the culture section. So there may not really be an immediate need for a PR. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 13:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ask do you intend on getting Singapore to GA or FA? I would prefer to nominate it for GA first, then FA (FAC is not a nice place to be, I'll rather it go through GA first as it was delisted and hence is not FA-ready) 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 09:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that GA is a good starting point given the current state of the article. WP:MOS compliance isn't anywhere near FA level yet, and some parts of the history section may need to be rewritten for neutrality. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 14:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all project members

please help to get Singapore to GA/FA. Any good faith contributions is most welcome. A list of possible problems is listed here. Thanks! 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 09:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Dot SG

I'm new to Wikipedia (but am a long-time copy editor in real life) and I saw that Pink Dog SG was in need of a copy edit, so I have done that. I made mostly very minor changes to clean up and smooth out the writing. The article still has issues with referencing, though, including some dead links, spots that should be referenced but aren't, and apparently too many primary sources. That's all beyond my capability on Wikipedia at the moment, but I wanted to raise it here in case someone wanted to take that on. Ashram molter (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Station
  2. ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Square–42nd_Street/Port_Authority_Bus_Terminal_(New_York_City_Subway)
  3. ^ https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/04/11/whos-fueling-the-mothership/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Singapore&oldid=838035150"