Talk:Camps and bases of the Singapore Armed Forces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Singapore (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

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

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

Overseas "bases" and camps[edit]

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

Some of these bases are pretty well known, and are mentioned in Pioneer magazine, so I believe these should be alright. Cant say the same for every single base out there thou, obviously.--Huaiwei 14:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Not too sure about it, I thought they are all training detachments within the physical bases of these countries' military, not isolated bases that house only Singapore units. "Oversea bases" tends to give the impression that they are permanent and the units there are operational. --Vsion 15:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral stand-both parties are correct--Quek157 14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why revert?[edit]

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