Talk:Jin Long Si Temple

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Jin Long Si Temple was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 22, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed
October 15, 2012 Articles for deletion Kept
Did You Know
Current status: Former good article nominee


Is this really how it is referred to in English? The name is redundant, as "si" already means temple, but I suppose if that's what it's called...Rigadoun (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's called that way in English according to their flyers and on-site information board for visitors. I understand that they choose to add the "temple" part for the benefit of non-chinese speakers in their correspondence. -- Aldwinteo 15:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Dating concern[edit]

May I suggest rephrasing terms like "66-year-old" and "120-year-old", given these are bound to become less accurate every year? Biruitorul 20:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Except for its discription purpose, all the date-centric references has been amended now. Thank u for your feedback & interest on this article -- Aldwinteo 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the corrections. My only further suggestions on the three remaining year-centric entries would be as follows:
1. "a nearly 120-year old Bodhi tree" --> "a Bodhi tree dating to the late 1880s"
2. "an age of approximately 120 years" --> "an age of approximately 120 years (as of 2007)"
3. "Over the past three years" --> "Since 2004"
However, these are mere ideas and I leave it to you, the author, to decide what to do. Biruitorul 02:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
All done as per your 2nd feedback. u & other editors are most welcomed to amend on this article or any of my previous works if nec, as long as its informational value & content is not degraded for the common good of Wikipedia. Rgds, -- Aldwinteo 03:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Updating of "Relocation" section[edit]

The "Relocation" section of the article requires updating as it mentions the High Court case but not the subsequent Court of Appeal decision in the matter. See Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General for information on this. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Perhaps I should withdraw the GAN. What else do you know about the relocated temple? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
See Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General for information about what happened after the High Court case. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)