From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Singapore is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  Quality: C-Class
Checklist icon
 ???  Importance: not yet rated

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016[edit]

Please remove 'Caucasians and others' from the list of Ethnic groups in the infobox and replace it with just 'Others', because it would make more sense to have the infobox conform to the 'CMIO' classification system in Singapore. The list of ethnic groups in the infobox should be limited to Chinese, Malays, Indians, with Eurasians and simply 'Others' listed below. There are many more substantial non-CMIO communities in Singapore, like the Arabs and Peranakans, and it would make more sense to group them all under 'Others' instead of exclusively featuring one smaller group on the infobox. Thanks! Tiger7253 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done BushelCandle (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


singapore has many different people with their aboriginal histories for the past as they were very not educated during the past times.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2016[edit]

Can someone please change the links of the ethnic groups in the infobox to Chinese Singaporeans, Malay Singaporeans and Indian Singaporeans because it makes more sense to redirect to those pages instead of Chinese people, Indian people etc. Specifically, the Chinese and Indian Singaporeans are ethnically different from the majority of Chinese and Indian people, most Chinese in Singapore are Hoklo and most Indians in Singapore are Tamil as opposed to the pan-ethnic term Han Chinese which refers to the many types of Han people that come from various parts of China or the Hindi-speaking majority of India who are ethnically different from Tamils. Both Chinese Singaporeans and Indian Singaporeans also share a distinct culture from China and India respectively. It also makes sense to change the links because the link for "Eurasians" listed below in the infobox directs to Eurasians in Singapore instead of Eurasian (mixed ancestry) which refers to many different Eurasian groups from around the world. Thank you. ( (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)) (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, BushelCandle (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that BushelCandle (talk · contribs) however I'm sorry because I did not make myself clear could you do this to each of the ethnic groups just like "Eurasian" write the name for example "Chinese Singaporeans|Chinese" so that it just appears as Chinese but when clicked on it, it links to Chinese Singaporeans and you should do the same for "Malay Singaporeans|Malays" → Malays and "Indian Singaporeans|Indians" → Indians. Thank you. ( (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC))
Well of course I could do, but could you explain your thinking on that, please? Isn't it better to signal clearly where the internal link will lead to? BushelCandle (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I thought of that because other pages like Myanmar and Malaysia only say "Chinese" and "Indian" instead of "Malaysian Chinese" or "Burmese Indian". ( (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC))
Actually, I agree with having 'Chinese Singaporeans, Malay Singaporeans, Indian Singaporeans' in the infobox as opposed to a redirect like 'Chinese Singaporeans|Chinese', etc., because that creates a bit of ambiguity. The new edit gets the point across that Singapore's various ethnic groups are distinctly Singaporean. Great suggestion! Tiger7253 (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Tiger7253 (talk · contribs), but I thought that saying Chinese, Malay and Indian would be better like they did with Myanmar and Malaysia the links for Chinese and Indian link up to their respective pages on the Chinese and Indian communities in Myanmar and Malaysia. ( (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC))

Image Map[edit]

Hi all,

I am the creator of the image map that can be found in the 'Singaporeans' page, and now on the main article about Singapore under the Demographics section. All information for the map was sourced from the following articles:

- Chinese Singaporeans, Malay Singaporeans, Indian Singaporeans, Languages of Singapore, and Culture of Singapore, all of which have well-cited references about the various sub-groups of Singapore's three main ethnic groups.

I would like to hear suggestions from the editors about the image map (eg. if it can be improved or changed in any way). Thanks! Tiger7253 (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the map looks really good and it's good that it's on the right, so people on a desktop computer and a mobile will be able to see it properly. I don't think anything needs to be done to it because it serves its intended purpose which is to inform people of the ethnic origins of Singaporean people. ( (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC))

Hi, I will be reversing some of your good faith edits as follows:

  1. Singapore article is a summary of the nation. It is sufficient that you have already inserted the map with its details in 'Singaporeans'.
  2. Malay, as a national language is retained for historical reasons, explained in the body. Highlighting it in infobox can mislead readers - as a first or dominant language.
  3. This article is mainly about Singapore after its colonial founding and independence, so 'formation' the infobox reflects that, like most other countries' articles. I note that you arguments[1]] to expand similar events in India's infobox was also rejected. Wrigleygum (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that highlighting "Malay" in the infobox potentially may mislead casual readers that it is the primary or dominant language and have edited accordingly. BushelCandle (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

GDP disparity[edit]

I noticed that the GDP listed in the infobox doesn't tally up with the GDP listed under the 'Economy' section.

Infobox: GDP (nominal)     2014[14] estimate •      Total     US$308.051 billion (36th) •      Per capita     US$56,319

Economy section: 2014     S$390.089 (nominal, billion)     S$71,318 (per capita) Which value is the right value then? Tiger7253 (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

My mistake - I forgot that they're listed in different currencies (USD and SGD). 308 bil USD converts to about 444 bil SGD however so perhaps there's still an error here somewhere? Should the figure be updated or is it permanently pegged to a certain exchange rate now? Tiger7253 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
To help to avoid further confusion like this, I think that our Singapore articles should use just the $25 symbolisation to refer to Singapore dollars and the international ISO standard symbolisation of USD25 to refer to United States dollars (rather than $25 or US$25). Does anyone disagree that my proposed formulation is clearer and less ambiguous ? BushelCandle (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Geography Image Map: Islands[edit]

I created a clickable image map that labels and lists the main outlying islands of Singapore. Do let me know your thoughts.

Some islands also lack their own articles, which are:

9. Keppel Island, Singapore
10. Pulau Renggis
13. Pulau Sebarok
18. Pulau Berkas
19. Pulau Salu
23. Pulau Ular
25. Pulau Bukom Kechil
30. Lazarus Island
33. Pulau Seringat Kechil
35. Pulau Damar Laut
36. Pulau Pergam
38. Pulau Buloh
39. Pulau Seletar
40. Pulau Punggol Barat
41. Pulau Punggol Timor
43. Pulau Ketam, Singapore
46. Batu Belalai (Pulau Damien)

Tiger7253 (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Do not delete an article's recent talk history, unless for vandalism. It's a record of discussions and why edits were done -there's nothing to hide.
Spent more time researching the accuracy of historical references, like temasek and the Chola attack on Singapore that you inserted here and elsewhere. Rather than creating huge distracting maps -someone needs to remove it. (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I deleted a topic that was created by me because 1) it was a completely erroneous question asked by me that got no replies, anyway and 2) there were no discussions nor any edits done on the subject matter, so it was a completely dead topic that I felt at liberty to remove because I created it in the first place.
Furthermore, the Chola invasion of Srivijaya was never added by me in the first place. It was added by someone else based on a pre-existing Wikipedia article, and when I discovered said article for the event that has multiple references and an image ( - all I did was link the article up to the pre-existing text on the Singapore article so as to give it more veracity.
Feel free to disagree with the map, which I think is important because there is nothing on Wikipedia that adequately labels and denotes all of Singapore's main islands in an image - although it would be interesting to hear the opinions of the main editors first. Tiger7253 (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Chola invasion of Srivijaya article you link to does not even mention Singapore in it. Same thing in 2 other main articles - [Chola dynasty] and [Srivijaya] - nothing about Singapura being invaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiok (talkcontribs) 03:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Part of the problem is in earlier editors.
The diagram is shouting for attention - to be deleted really. I suggest you look at the main Majapahit and Srivijaya maps which have towns well annotated. Clicking is just a bonus, but its better to have a great overview like those examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiok (talkcontribs) 03:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Its still too big, eye sore, we need to remove it. Or he redo it and put it in geography, but it has to be default size, not overwhelming.
But What I like to know is why he is doing this?? obviously he knows the giant size is totally unsuitable, especially with just a lot of numbers. You have done some good edits elsewhere but to insert this here without regard only spoils your reputation after all that work. As it is, I think we have few Singapore editors who are free to maintain our pages and you can really help in a good way not being exhibitionist. Chilicrab (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Now that the map uses relative sizing and has been reduced in size, I disagree that it is either too large or should not be included.
I would like to hear arguments for positioning in a different section, though... BushelCandle (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The language here is getting a bit uncalled for. I do not understand what you're trying to insinuate by calling me an 'exhibitionist'. Perhaps you might want to consider looking up the meaning of that derogatory word in the dictionary, because you would find out that it has absolutely nothing to do with the honest edits I have been making. I made a mistake by making the image a bit too large, but it has now been resized, so I don't see what the problem is.
As to 'why I'm doing this', most country articles have clickable maps that delineate the various provinces/states/subdivisions, so all I did was bring Singapore's article up to scratch with that of USA, Canada, etc. by creating a map that lists all of our major islands. You seem to be suggesting that my edits are pointless, but articles will always change and will never remain static. In my opinion, the Geography section had a gaping hole in the article that needed to be filled in. The Geography section focuses on the main island for the most part but it is now more balanced after my edit. If you have an issue with it, you could always choose to discuss the irrelevancy of it and suggest its removal instead of resorting to namecalling and calling people exhibitionists because it is stated at the very top of this talk page that it won't be tolerated. Tiger7253 (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Exhibitionistic is not derogatory, just describing your tendency to post oversize diagrams here, and more than once - that readers cannot avoid starring at, even if no one wants to click on it. As for other definitions, but I did not mean exposure.
You said you made a mistake posting at the giant size - [[2]], but I see you continued adding updates for 2 more hours at that time - hard to say you did not notice it right?  I had to right scroll - off the monitor to see the whole image.
You also did it the first time at Singaporeans [[3]] - large map that paused on downloading,and mobile 4G.
At Singaporeans, you reverted an editor who deleted your oversized map, explaining "Info for this map was sourced from the following: Chinese S'poreans, Indian S'poreans, Malay S'poreans, Languages of S'pore, and is accurate."  How do you know all those 4 source articles are accurate - did you check for citations for every data point you used from those articles?  If not, the possibility of perpetuating errors is high, like your links to Chola invaded Singapore -which had no mention of such invasion. Chilicrab (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
"Hard to say you did not notice it" "but I see you continued adding updates" This makes no sense whatsoever. It appears that you completely misconstrued my message. I am relatively new to uploading diagrams to Wikipedia and am completely unaware of the sizing guidelines. I only became aware of it after it was recently pointed out to me, and had absolutely no idea that there was something wrong with the size of my diagram, but by all means, feel free to assume that I posted an enormous diagram because I had an agenda to 'distract people'. You are not giving me the benefit of the doubt here.
Furthermore, I am not responsible for the Chola part as it was never added by me in the first place, so it should be taken up with the editor who decided to add it. The entire reason why I linked the text to the 'Chola invasion of Srivijaya' article was because I found the entire premise of it dubious in the first place, so I decided to link it up in order to give it a semblance of credibility. As for all the references and links, they were pre-existing links that were added by the editor who wrote the entire thing in the first place. I did not introduce anything new here at all. I merely edited on top of whatever already existed in the article.
Lastly, about the Singaporeans map, there are multiple references on the articles I mentioned that link to official government statistics files/census sites. One of them --> ( I therefore created the map based on the various dialect/linguistic groups that exist in Singapore with full backing from well-cited and reputable sources. Tiger7253 (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I would like to personally thank you, Tiger7253 - both for taking the time, effort and care to create your clickable map and also for carefully and moderately responding to criticism.
I also think you are right to comment on the tone of some of the comments. It can be quite difficult to judge the 'tone' of comments correctly when you can not hear a tone of voice or see a friendly wink, but all users should remember that this discussion page is for collaborating to improve the article on Singapore and not for amateur psychoanalysis of the characters or motivation of editors. Assuming good faith is one of the pillars of our project that makes collegiate co-operation more likely.
Descending from the pulpit, may I point out to all our readers that, if large images bother you, if you create an account and then log-on, you are able to set the base width for display of thumbnails as 120px, 150px, 180px, 200px, 220px, 250px, 300px or as large as 400px in your 'Preferences'. (See Help:Preferences#Files). You can change these settings as often as you like. BushelCandle (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
That's why we only have past history to judge each other. So as you tried to remove that history here earlier, plus uploading at a huge size, I can only think the worst. 
Given your tone, I will do the same. But unfortunately, it does not change the opinion. You mentioned US, canada as examples, so lets check -
United States article has no clickable maps, but they have many colorful and appealing normal maps. All at default, none oversized. 
Canada has one clickable, but its comprehensive - state names, city names, colored, and legend. So no one needs to click anything if they just want the forest view. Surely, you are not comparing yours with this? Side-by-side, ours looks dull and will people will have a bad impression. If you can create something similar to Canada, its justified. But are you keen to spent time doing that?
I registered to just to remove your diagram, so 5 days now, I can do that. But if you are keen to work on it, go ahead. Meantime we put it in geography page at default size. And unless you want to do everything yourself, a wider community may help unprotected. Others may be better at creating diagram. If its great, we bring it back. Chilicrab (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that comparing our articles about huge continental countries such as the US and Canada where their islands are thousands of kilometres apart and a proportionally much smaller proportion of their landmass is especially enlightening. Singapore is a country composed of islands and the clickable map seems, to me, to do exactly what it promises: Display the relative positions and sizes of its main islands and provide clickable wikilinks to our main articles about each. For those unfortunate to either be visually challenged, or using inadequate screens, the map's caption provides another accessible route to important information.
Chilicrab: I read some of your comments immediately above as meaning that your account is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account.
You also consistently use the first person plural. Is this the 'Royal we' (or 'Majestic plural'), or do you mean that you are editing on behalf of more than one person, please? BushelCandle (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Re: Canada's clickable map ( - there is no way me, let alone anyone, would be able to replicate this map's outline and then apply it to Singapore. Singapore is too small for that. We don't have political subdivisions like states or provinces, we don't have a 'capital', we don't have international boundaries, we don't have multiple cities that can be labelled... all we have are islands. If you were to take a look at some of the islands that were labelled in Canada's map, you would see that is where I drew my inspiration from (by drawing a line to the specific island and naming it). I however decided to number the islands instead of naming them because our islands are too tightly clustered together and there is no way I would have been able to fit in all the names without writing them in an extremely small font size. This is also part of the reason why I mistakenly uploaded it at 1000px - because I was afraid that putting it at 500px would render the numbers too small to be readable. I think it is time you dropped the whole sizing issue - I already mentioned that I wasn't aware of the optimal size. Some of your assertions don't really make sense to me. You mentioned that you 'thought the worst', but most people would 'think the worst' if someone vandalised a page, but what I did was far from vandalism - unless if you think my map counts as vandalism, then I would appreciate it if you could be upfront because some of your assertions are confusing to me and really make me wonder what the entire issue is about since sizing is a pretty minor issue on the bigger scheme of things.
Furthermore, Canada's map looks great because the size of the country allows for the various subdivisions to be highlighted in different colours. If you'd like me to adopt those colours for the Singapore island map, I could do it, but I'd run out of colours pretty quickly. Not that that would be possible anyway because our islands aren't grouped into political and administrative clusters, and I would have to assign each and every single one of them a unique colour. The map I uploaded is therefore very simple and rudimentary because that is the reality of Singapore's geographical situation - simple, mundane, and uncomplicated. Tiger7253 (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I concur with your pertinent observations that Singapore is too small for that. We don't have political subdivisions like states or provinces, we don't have a 'capital', we don't have international boundaries, we don't have multiple cities that can be labelled... all we have are islands, Tiger7253.
Now, unless anyone can advance a rational and lucid argument other than Waaaaagh, I Don't LIKE It, I suggest that the clear consensus is that the clickable map remains, at a legible display size (and is hopefully updated as necessary); all as ascertained by my assessment of the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of this issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. BushelCandle (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Singaporeans map[edit]

Back to Singaporeans map - 
We cannot trust the current status of data you relied on from the existing articles. Because vandalising figures is so easy, more so if they have been there long time.  
Did you see the errors/vandalism I found yesterday? - in all 3 Singaporeans articles? - and its only a single population figure I looked to update. thats why articles are so hard to maintain, because its tedious.
So will you this? - checking the actual cited sources?  I will actually be most surprise if you do not find discrepancies. But all the better to update the article proper if you want to keep the map. Chilicrab (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for our Singapore article.

User:Chilicrab: I think it better that you continue any discussion of the "Singaporeans map" at Talk: Singaporeans and not here on the discussion page for a different article, please. BushelCandle (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


Am I the only one who finds the introduction too long and full of irrelevant and overly promotional superlatives? None of these data are problematic in themselves, but they should be in the body of the article, not crammed into the intro. Thoughts? Zurkhardo (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably not - but the others may be too shy/lazy/inarticulate to express their thoughts here.
Certainly, there shouldn't be any shockingly novel material in the introduction; per WP:LEAD, it's supposed to summarise in a balanced way material that is dealt with (perhaps at much greater length) elsewhere in the article. As for superlatives - Singapore is admired and envied in equal measure in many parts of the globe because it does things superlatively well in many fields of human endeavour. BushelCandle (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Zurkhardo. The lead has degraded significantly in the past year and a half, and as it stand it is bloated and wp:puffery. It could do with a wholesale reversion. CMD (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Degraded? Compared to which version?
Every point is backed by reliable citations. What seems puffery to you has taken the small city decades to achieve and is widely acknowledged and reported. What you deem irrelevant may be very informative for others and should not be dismissed.
I have mentioned New York City and London previously. Have a look at their article leads and compare. Perhaps attempt to reverse the superlatives and touristy info there, instead of easier pickings.Wrigleygum (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The version that editors (including myself for disclosure) created on the talkpage many years ago, which from what I can see in history was maintained quite stably until expansion into the current form began sometime last year. It followed the guidelines of WP:LEAD that bushelcandle noted above, which the current form doesn't. Neither of the leads of New York nor London shout "role model" to me, so I don't think they should be used as standards, but I will note that neither of them blatantly lists quoted titles from individual organisations, nor lists Lonely Planet rankings in their lead (or even the entire article). CMD (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem is not that information is wrong or uncited, but that it has no place in an introduction that is long enough as it is. We can easily encapsulate all those details with general and briefer reference to Singapore being a leading economic power, good performer in various international metrics, etc., and save the details for their relevant sections in the body. Look to featured articles like Australia and Canada and how they handle such matters without sounding too promotional or propagandist.Zurkhardo (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that both succinctness and tone are important. As ever, the devil will be in the detail as to how those goals are achieved.... BushelCandle (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
What is your opinion of the pre-expansion lead, where do you think it went wrong? CMD (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "degraded significantly in the past year and a half" — that's so vague, you need to provide a link to version(s) for comparison.
  • "quoted titles from individual organisations" — What's blatant about faithfully reproduced quoted titles? - its a principle of minimal change. And its brief, so a number of notable ones can fit in one sentence. The city-state is known mainly for its economic success, which in turn makes social possible. Take that away, there's not much that's interesting here.
  • "Lonely Planet rankings" — I would say being listed top choice city out of a thousand destinations that international airlines fly to around the world is notable. If no other country list it, maybe because there is only one top choice a year. And it may not happen again for the Spore for another 50 years, to SG100. This is for 2015 and not meant to be permanent, so you can remove it if you wish. Wrigleygum (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, take as comparison the state at the start of 2015. I'd make some changes to that too reading over it now, but unlike the current version, it is a summary of the most important points, which is its purpose per WP:LEAD. Listing individual ranking after individual ranking is not a summary, not is excessive individual details. As for being brief, even the 2015 lead is not brief, so the current lead is anything but. Lonely Planet rankings are perhaps notable, but in no way qualify for a "summary of its most important contents" for a reader's understanding of Singapore, much like most individual rankings. Furthermore things should not even be included in the article just because they happened recently, let alone the lead. CMD (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have to agree here. It's not that the information is wrong. It is just that there is way too much weight on certain international rankings. It is interesting that there is no information about Singapore's sketchy human rights record, restriction on press freedom and being a "flawed democracy". This reeks of advocacy to me. Is there consensus to revise the introduction? Zurkhardo, BushelCandle, Chipmunkdavis --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the body content? - most of it is still there. The last time I checked for "flawed democracy" rating by Economists months ago, Singapore was the only country that someone inserted this - anywhere in any country article.. although more than half of the world is below SG. But I didn't have the heart to remove it - everyone wants to see the flaws. I would suggest you take the time to check every country on the Economist's ranking and let us know if "flawed democracy" appears in their articles. Wrigleygum (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The question here is about the introduction. It needs to summarise the information in the body. The present introduction gives undue weight to a lot of rankings. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I certainly agree with the budding consensus that the introduction must be made more straightforward. Australia and Canada offer a good model for how one can highlights a nation's superrelatives without sounding too promotional or loading it with references.

ogg file player[edit]

Although many of our country articles carry an ogg player enabling our readers to click to hear what their national anthem sounds like, in a somewhat startling development, Chipmunkdavis has removed it (alleging that it "covers anthem name") on our Singapore article.

Anthem: Majulah Singapura
"Onward, Singapore"

It would be helpful if as much information as possible about the (non W3C compliant?) browser used by CMD and other system information could be provided (together with a screenshot) so that this alleged problem can be quickly fixed...

Are there similar problems with anthem file display at Australia, Armenia, Argentina, Angola, Albania, Austria, Azerbaijan, etc, etc ? BushelCandle (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The ogg files cause formatting issues because they're not meant to be in the infobox, there's no field for them. They're added because editors see them on other articles, and reflexively add them on other articles. Same reason ASEAN maps and AU maps keep getting added to article infoboxes. The files do cover text on any country article with a translation or transliteration. CMD (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm anxious to understand your problems and resolve them, Chipmunkdavis. To expedite a solution please would you specifically address each of the numbered questions below (preferably using the same numbering in your reply):
In the country infobox, translations of the anthem are in smaller text with (presumably) a smaller line height. Certainly there had been a mild obscuration of the descending part of characters where there was only one line break present when you made your startling deletion
However, when I reverted your edit I introduced additional code of ''[[Majulah Singapura]]''{{brk}}{{small|"Onward, Singapore"}}{{brk|2}}<center>[[File:Majulah Singapura.ogg]]</center> The parameter of "2" in {{brk|2}}inserted 2 line breaks instead of one which fixed this minor niggle when using Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Edge and IE browser versions. I assume that you did not actually check that this small change I made before you reverted my change solved the mild obscuration.
1) am I right in this assumption?
If my assumption is incorrect and my introduction of an additional line break did not fix the problem, then
2) would you provide as much information as possible about the (non W3C compliant?) browser you used and other system information?
Please provide screenshots of before and after views (or links to screenshots) so that this alleged problem can be quickly fixed
3) am I right in thinking that the "formatting issues" you write about is actually only the mild obscuration of the descending part of characters in the translation?
If I'm wrong, then please specify precisely what these other "formatting issues" are.
You wrote "The ogg files" ... (are) "not meant to be in the infobox."
4) would you provide links to any previous discussion that addresses this statement of yours, please? BushelCandle (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I have now cleared my cache, and it does displays without obscuring the letters since your edit. More white space, but it does display. If you look at the infobox code which you edited, you'll note there is no field for the ogg file, instead it is added on with various html code such as that used here. This can cause issues, especially as we have seen, when there is an update of some kind (I definitely know the original code didn't use to cover the translations, that started happening sometimes during the period I stopped editing). There have been various discussions over time, and the latest discussion I am aware of is Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 10#RFC: Audio links to national anthems, which closed advising against inclusion. CMD (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt, comprehensive and useful reply!
I've tried different coding to remove the only really coherent objection in the RFC you so helpfully referenced:
Anthem: Majulah Singapura
"Onward, Singapore" (About this sound play the anthem )
Does this changed code remove your misgivings? BushelCandle (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I commend your efforts. That's certainly much smoother code, and doesn't add more space to the already lengthy infoboxes. Furthermore it actually looks good on the mobile browser, which the previous formats never did. I am concerned though that although when I click the speaker button it takes me to the anthem file page where I can play it, when I click the "Play the anthem" text, it downloads the file onto my computer. Is there a way to get the text to act like the picture? Or not link? CMD (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Misleading statement: Correction needed[edit]

"Before independence in 1965, Singapore was the capital of the British Straits Settlements, a Crown Colony. "

The Straits Settlements were dissolved after the war. Singapore then became a separate colony, and in the late 1950s a self-governing state within the British Empire. Penang and Malacca joined Malaya in 1957. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

And of course Singapore was part of Malaysia from 1963 to 1965. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong photo caption?[edit]

"Hwa Chong Institution was the first Chinese institution of higher learning in Southeast Asia in 1919."

Higher learning is university level.

Hwa Chong, to my knowledge, only ever has been a school for children, not university students or equivalents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right. I just checked NLB, which says "first Chinese-medium high school". Will change it, thanks Wrigleygum (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Introduction written as advertisement[edit]

The entire introduction is about all the bright sides of the city, which is like an advertisement. A wiki article should state both sides of the coin.Xxjkingdom (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Xxjkingdom: See discussion above. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm here[edit]

Hi Lemon, you deleted another editor's RS-content without discussing first, and you are upset? Wrigleygum (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not upset. That information is a news coverage. Wikipedia is supposed to contain a summary version of important events. We also need to keep events in a historical perspective. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course its news, some a lot more coverage and greater implications than others. 25-years is like a generational event. Further, there is expectation that the Taiwan training arrangement may eventually be consolidated in Australia, as reported. If you disagree, we can take a public poll here or in the wiki public forum. These are minor matters to me Wrigleygum (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The problem here is that the importance of the event itself is not clear at the moment. A deal has just been signed. We don't know what is going to happen in the future, we don't know the impact and we cannot assume anything at the moment. In addition, the article is supposed to summarise the fact that Singapore has military agreements with other countries and it already does so. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
But clearly its a firm inter-govt agreement, and readers come here expecting to read the latest, even though wiki is not the best source for news. So if they go elsewhere instead, Wikipedia lose out right? somewhere I read that Wiki readership has dropped in its rankings. We can help make it relevant and interesting so they come to WP first. We can just take a poll, whichever way it goes.. does not bother me.
Btw, I have not said anything about your removal of my LHL edits. Seeing that you are being productive and doing generally good work around the clock, its within your right to remove anything without citation. I will get around to it. I'm apolitical but I know there will be many who may be unhappy with a writeup. otoh it's hard to reconcile that every other major country has a good length lead of their leader, whereas LHL's is so basic, almost exactly like LKY's article, before I spent some time on it last year.Wrigleygum (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually for stuff like this news, we have a place here. Inter-govt agreements are not notable per se. This article is supposed to summarise the information about Singapore. The content which you added would probably have found a better place here Australia–Singapore_relations#Military_cooperation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand your concern about the Wiki readership. But regardless, we need to go by policies. I guess others will comment soon. Just to let you know, in Wikipedia decisions are made based on consensus (following policies/guidelines) rather than a poll. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree with Lemongirl, that sort of detail is far too specific for this page. This page is meant to inform the reader about Singapore, which is different from discussing specific Singaporean topics. Much of the military section is already far too specific to add understanding of Singapore itself as it is, and single agreements fall well below what I'd expect from WP:SUMMARY STYLE. CMD (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 may 2016.[edit]

The article says that Singlish is a pidgin, but it has native speakers, so it is a creole. Could someone please edit the article to make this change? Hobomancat (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Per this[1] it is actually neither. I changed to a more neutral version though as it is not a pidgin either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Platt, John T. (1975-01-01). "The Singapore English Speech Continuum and Its Basilect 'Singlish' as a 'Creoloid'". Anthropological Linguistics. 17 (7): 363–374. 

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016[edit]

Hello Editors, your help would be greatly appreciated if the following section is amended.

...close relationships with China set the new nation's policies for the next half-century...

"China" should be changed to "the United States". References:

  1. Singapore–United States relations.
  2. United States-Singapore Relations.
  3. Lee Kuan Yew’s Role in Singapore-U.S. Relations.
  4. The communist threat in perspective.

I am a little surprised this misunderstanding in this page existed for such a long time. One more proof: Singapore buys US/NATO arms instead of Chinese scraps.

I believed most editors would second my suggestion.

For those who are less inclined to this change: Thank you very much. Your position is fully understood. I will make the change myself. (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yellow check.svg Partly done: Neither of the current sources support the "close relations with China" portion, so I've removed it. At the same time, the one usable source you offer (the third one) isn't enough to support inserting US instead. (Wiki articles and opinion pieces are not WP:RS; the second source is primary... much prefer a secondary source). The Foreign Relations section of the article covers both well enough I think. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead needs a trim[edit]

We have had a discussion on this before. I think the lead needs to be trimmed. See articles for United States, Australia, New Zealand. I think this edit is not required and is simply cluttering the lead with excessive data.

I propose a revert of this edit. Editors can reply with support/oppose and explain their views. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Pinging previously involved users Wrigleygum, Zurkhardo, BushelCandle, Chipmunkdavis, Xxjkingdom --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I have previously started to write a 'dissertation' on the SG lead which is quite lengthy - will continue on it and post it soon, sometime next week. It covers each paragraph and the rationale for inclusion.Wrigleygum (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Please don't. I'll preemptively state WP:TLDR. Long verbiage about long verbiage will definitely not help this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the info is valid, and belongs somewhere (though perhaps a bit WP:UNDUE for the lede). Rather than just revert, perhaps we should add a section on "International recognition" or some such, expand on that info, and then add a one-or-two-sentence summary of this for the lede. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I started an RfC below. The info is valid. It's just that it is cluttering the lead. For comparison, see New Zealand and Canada which are featured article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The info is valid, but compiling it all into a section on rankings or recognition would not be a good solution. Ranking, if notable, should be discussed within the sections covering their topics. The lead before the edit already contains a summary of the topics the rankings cover. CMD (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC about lead section[edit]

There is broad though not unanimous consensus that the lead needs to be trimmed, and that the statistics are overdone. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I am requesting comments about the lead section of this article as it has too much content. Concerns have been previously raised that it is too promotional and possibly gives undue weight to certain rankings (see concerns here [4], [5], [6], [7]). For reference, the lead of this article can be compared to the leads in Australia, Canada (both FAs), New Zealand and United States (both GAs). I tried to summarise some of the content, but I was reverted citing BRD. I would request the community to have a look and see if concerns about undue weight, NPOV and promotion are justified. In particular I have the following proposal:

  • Propose removal of content about individual rankings, it can be summarised. (basically I propose a revert of this edit)
  • Propose additional trimming of the lead.

Any other comments about how to improve the lead are welcome. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as in previous discussion. I personally think that the lead should be reverted to a much older state, perhaps its state as of a a year and a half ago or the last time it was discussed on this talk page. From there it would be useful to discuss what additions were productive. Regarding this edit however, it turns a concise summary sentence "Singapore is a major commercial hub, financial centre and one of the world's busiest container ports" into a list of numbers and rankings, which does not enhance the reader's understanding of Singpore, and is pure WP:Puffery to boot. CMD (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would support the revert if at least some of the sourced info is added to the body. Singapore is a very non-typical country, so some such info on how it's viewed is useful. I agree the lede is long, but I don't see how I can !vote for an unspecified "trimming". --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not opposed to integrating some of the information in the body. That can be discussed. My reason for creating an RfC was to ask for opinions specifically on the lead which is badly cluttered and full of puffery. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • If the information is not in the body it shouldn't be in the lead anyway. At any rate, I agree the notable ones should be added to the body. Some however, such as "International-meetings city (UIA)" and rankings for SIA/Changi, I have trouble justifying even for the body. CMD (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some tweaks maybe, but most of it is informative. I actually prefer the rankings so I can decide for myself if its significant Shiok (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per CMD. Enough of rankings and puffery. Singapore is well-known for using rankings selectively to put itself in a positive light. If the article is to be neutral then it should also include rankings about "highest cost of living in the world", "154th in Press Freedom of the World", etc. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Too fixated on too many rankings, many of which are time sensitive. United States and Hong Kong for example are pretty balanced ones, focusing on history and ending off with a few key indicators of its present state (pleasing to read, and chronological to boot).Zhanzhao (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment (PS Not a vote, but I feel this is important to point out). In relation to Mailer Diablo's comment about "highest cost of living", this varies by report, depending on the report's objective (a number of the "most expensive" reports were curtailed from studies of expats, for expats), and many of the reports were ranking cities rather than countries which makes Singapore an odd bird to describe, being commonly (whether rightly or not) described as both city and country at the same time by most reports and agencies. This confusion applies to Hong Kong as well. Both Hong Kong and Singapore are consistently ranked among top 3 as most expensive CITIES to live in, but the ranking falls when we are comparing COUNTRIES [8][9]. Do keep this in mind when considering the phrasing later on. Of course this would apply to other such rankings as well. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment It's been a while but I like to chip in. I find the current version clear and concise for so much data. Compared to many versions over the years, it's clutter-free which makes it easy to read, maybe because it's free of references, unlike New york. A bit long maybe I don't know, but good data which the world should know about Singapore. WP:PUFFERY - "claim that expresses subjective rather than objective views, which no "reasonable person" would take literally.[1] Puffery serves to "puff up" an exaggerated image". There is nothing subjective or exaggerated about Singapore's achievements. Rankings are objective, and probably why every other country highlight theirs in the lead. Warpslider (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose As RFC defaults to 30 days, I waited till the end to avoid drawn out discussions. I will post some response in the evening, as additional points werer brought up today and Monday is a busy time.Wrigleygum (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. Many of those rankings seem rather arbitrary and specific; if they have received coverage in reliable sources, they can be summarized in the lead and covered in the body. Certainly rather WP:UNDUE for the lead. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am drive-by opposing because there are too many here who are simply not objective. Most are commenting on the ranks, so just a glance at London, New York Hong Kong, I can see immediately there are more listings there than this article. For London, 3/4 quarters (3 of 4 paragraphs) are rankings and tourist attractions. Hong Kong uses the phrase "(some rank)… of the world" a dozen times! New York is so full of it I find it hard to read. Either all the big cities are all over-rated, or everyone is being petty on this city, go figure.<Panacealin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Panacealin (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Support Simplify! Clarify! Amplify! Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support/Oppose. Support shortening the lede in general. WP:LEAD suggests 4 paragraphs as a good rule of thumb, this article is currently at six. However, I don't think the specific approach to shortening whose reversion prompted the RfC is the right one. I would move some of that information to the body of the article rather than remove it entire, which would let us go even further shortening the lede without losing any information. Chris Hallquist (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per requester — my first impression on looking at it without reading in detail is that the lead is probably too long; reading through it and it's definitely giving more emphasis on comparative weightings than feels appropriate. (And, if Panacealin's comment above is accurate, then other global cities' leads should probably be reviewed too, though it's worth bearing in mind that we're talking about the lead for a nation-state, as well as for a city here, so comparison to other country articles is also important.) Looking at the current revision, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the lead should probably each be simplified into a single paragraph of roughly the length of paragraph 3, I'd suggest. Moving much of the excised content into the right sections lower down the article would provide an appropriate level of detail for a lead without removing content that is arguably encyclopædic, if a little over-aggrandising (per CMD). — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC), via Feedback request service
  • Length is the first item addressed in 'specific issues' and is comparable to the leading cities. And as a City-state, there are more aspects of both a City and Country to write about.
"..other global cities' leads should probably be reviewed too" - Not that I agree with you (since they set the pace for Singapore's lead) but if you decide to start an RFC on NYC and London, it would broaden discussions on this topic as they are more established and active. Now that we have a number of (previously) uninvolved editors and back from vacation, I will be updating the 'Specific issues' shortly.Wrigleygum (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I agree completely with the proposal here: the lead is much too long, and reads like an advertorial for Singapore rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Wrigleygum seem to have done significant work to put forth his arguments. The word count comparison provided are within the averages of even GA articles so its not an issue at all. There should not be a double standard that it is ok to ignore other cities with similar format, content and length, yet mark it as a negative here. And it is true that people hardly read past the lead unless I am doing research or very interested in the subject. So we need to put out the relevant information that tells the reader why the nation is important in a world. Just one item I recall to suggest is to include the widely reported OECD education rank which Singapore is best known for, in addition to the economic ones.- Warpslider (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2016 (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.

Should an island be counted as the southern most tip of a continent[edit]

We can read it in the introduction that Singapore is at the southernmost tip of continental Asia. I wonder if that should be revised as continent should be a continuous landmass, and that in this case, the southernmost tip of continental Asia should be Malaysia. If islands are included, then the southernmost tip of the continent should be Indonesia instead. In neither alternatives should Singapore be regarded as the southernmost tip of the continental Asia. Xxjkingdom (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually Singapore is linked via the Johor-Singapore Causeway, so its one continuous landmass. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Given every single source considers Singapore to be an island, it is emphatically not part of a continuous Asian landmass. CMD (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sport and recreation[edit]

Why does this section not state that Singapore has won every World Cup or World Championship that has ever been held? Surely that would be more in keeping with the rest of the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:57, 8 July 2016

No citations for that. But many hoping Peter Lim gets @Christiano citizenship so we have a chance next World Cup.hope.-- (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Singapore's lead: Specific issues[edit]

A more structured response with individual paragraph comments and other details could be WP:TLDR as someone suggested. So it's probably better to address immediate and recurring issues for now. I may consolidate an FAQ.

Brief overview[edit]

A vast majority of visitors will only read an article's lead, or just part of it. With info-overload and mobile devices, our [attention spans is shorter than a goldfish] - this guides us to concisely present the most important facts to know about the article's subject before they leave.
Most cities/countries have longer histories, culture, big nature, so forth. For Singapore since independence, it is best known for its economic success achieved in a short time span, stable governance and racial harmony. So this will be the lead's focus, with some rankings as objective measure.

Article Length[edit]

As a City-state, Singapore has aspects of both a city and country to write about. Longer is justified, however the lead has been kept within the average of similar articles. Word counts (of leads) for comparison:
UK - 641
USA - 577
London - 578
New_York_City - 682
Singapore - 620

Comparable Articles (NYC, London) using "Statistics format":[edit]

Articles of the top-2 most influential cities - New York City and London are most appropriate as Singapore is a city-state where its major rankings vs comparable cities make sense - i.e. hub of Finance, Forex, Port, Airport, so forth. Both NYC and London have adopted this format for years with the most active editors.
I started in earnest on this article last august by scanning major cities and country talk pages. So instead of repeating the same arguments here, you can read some of their discussions first (esp NYC, London). London is also rated GA-class article, an important fact no one mentioned above.
Quotes from NYC Talk page, supporting use of 'Statistics' format:
"And some people want figures in their prose. If you remove all figures for a city as superlative as NY it would look like a promotional brochure, some figures sounds more professional and encyclopedic"
"Because NY's good at so many things it's hard to make it sound very like WP:TONE and very not like WP:PEACOCK."
"Personally, I like the style of the Wikipedia NYC article better. It uses specific and precise details to support its points, which are rather interesting claims about New York's standing in the world. The Britannica style seems too vague and sweeping"
"Standard fare for a megacity lead, not much different in basic format from others. New York City just happens to be chock full of superlatives."
"Personally, I like this style as well. If not for stats, then readers would be wondering, "Why is New York City important?" "
As a whole, these quotes indicate a strong preference for "Statistics-style" (as opposed to old Britannica-style) format in the comparable city articles. Because it is concise, more data to be presented. Singapore's lead adopts the format but does not mimic their contents. For example, we avoid touristy landmarks altogether, instead photos can depict the city's attractions with greater impact, although they will be further down the article's body.

Rankings choice & Presentation[edit]

As Singapore is has more metrics than most others, the lead highlight mainly top-3 rankings (some others highlight only their top rankings). Generally highest achievement are listed first. The following were chosen to represent a range of sectors. In all, 9 rankings in Singapore lead is less than comparable city article leads:
  • "Easiest place to do business" (World Bank's flagship report)
  • most "Tech-ready" nation (WEF) - Global IT Report
  • top Meetings City (UIA) - A component of M.I.C.E., indicative of business hub vibrancy
  • city with "best investment potential" (BERI) - 18 consecutive years
  • 2nd-most competitive country (WEF) - a flagship report
  • 3rd-largest foreign exchange centre - currency trading hub
  • 3rd-leading financial centre
  • 3rd-largest oil refining and trading centre
  • 2nd busiest container port
  • To provide a focus and convey stats/ranks concisely, they are listed matter-of-factly in a single sentence/paragraph - more compact than other leads that have them spread across many paragraphs
  • Source of the ranking (notability) are useful and abbreviated in brackets, i.e. WEF, EIU - hovering over the link gives the organisation's name. Comparable leads often omit them, so readers have to search for the sources themselves.
  • Specific is preferred over "Expressions that lack precision" WP:MOS, i.e.
- "3rd most competitive" over "one of the most competitive" (which can refer to any of the top-10 or -20).
  • Statements that lack precision are also easier to dispute and remove
  • Brevity over wordiness. Short over long words
Some alternatives:
  • Global Cities Competitiveness Index (EIU), 3rd-World
  • Global Innovation (WIPO, Insead), 1st-Asia, 6th-World
  • Business Environment (EIU), 1st-World
  • Most Transparent country (WEF)
  • Least Corrupt economy, 1st-Asia, 6th-World

WP:Lead guidelines[edit]

WP guides do not stress strict adherence. For instance, WP:LEAD says to keep the lead free of citations, but hardly any articles follow this. Singapore article does.
Similarly, 4-6 paragraphs is not material, as they can always be combined. The consideration is that readability may be compromised.

Paragraphs (comments left out)[edit]

1 - Official name, nicknames, geography
2 - History
3 - Economic metrics
4 - Social metrics, demographics, language, culture
5 - Governance, trust poll, influence
6 - Parliamentary system, membership in international organisations
-added by Wrigleygum (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
-updated Wrigleygum (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Comparison Examples:[edit]

A quick extract follows - 9 rankings in Singapore (para-6) vs London (10), NYC (>a dozen)
1) London (10):
- leading financial centre
- fifth- or sixth-largest metropolitan area GDP in the world.
- world's most-visited city as measured by international arrivals[27] and has the
- world's largest city airport system measured by passenger traffic.
- world's leading investment destinations,
- hosting more international retailers and ultra high-net-worth individuals than any other city.
- largest concentration of higher education institutes in Europe,
- first in the world university rankings.
- first in the world in software, multimedia development and design, and
- shares first position in technology readiness.
- Wrigleygum (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
2) New York:
- most linguistically diverse city in the world.
- most populous in the United States,
- gross metropolitan product (GMP) of nearly US$1.39 trillion, ranking first nationally
- three of the world's ten most visited tourist attractions
- most photographed city in the world.
- world's busiest pedestrian intersections,
- most economically powerful city
- leading financial center of the world,
- world's two largest stock exchanges by total market capitalization, the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ.
- real estate market is among the most expensive in the world.
- Chinatown incorporates the highest concentration of Chinese people in the Western Hemisphere,
- New York City Subway is one of the most extensive metro systems worldwide,
- Columbia University, New York University, and Rockefeller University, ranked among the top 35 in the world
- Wrigleygum (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


As you're drawing on discussions from other stable articles to support your changes, I'll note that your changes moved away from a stable lead that had been agreed upon by multiple editors on this talkpage at an earlier point.
Regarding comparing to similar articles, I understand why you have chosen the ones you have, but that doesn't mean this should imitate them. There's simple comparisons going the other way as well. None of the current FA country lists have six lead paragraphs. Some even manage with three. Similarly, one FA city article has six paragraphs. Most have 3, some even 2. I haven't done a word count comparison, but I suspect the differences would show through even more strongly. (New York and London notably have four paragraphs each, albeit all a bit longer than the current six here.)
Regarding your specific quotes from the New York discussion, the first one makes the point that the lead shouldn't sound like a promotional brochure. The current lead fails regarding this in the first sentence, listing various nicknames (which neither London nor New York does) and then listing a couple of superlatives (whereas New York and London merely note their being the most populous cities in their countries, and in London's case that it is the capital). Much of the remainder of the lead reads similarly.
The second and fourth quotes correctly note that it is hard to avoid superlatives, yet reading the New York lead none of their superlatives are as brazen as the ones here. Nowhere for example does the New York lead directly note a list of standings, nor does it go out of its way to point out which organisations have given it the rankings it has. Furthermore it notes widely understandable standings (eg. "linguistically diverse", "most photographed city"), as opposed to technical (eg. "technology-ready nation", "most admired company") and obscure (eg. "International meetings"). Nor does the New York lead read link an attempt to list everything it ranks positively on, with a descending list from 1st in the world to 3rd in the world, and without refinements to smaller regions like Asia when its world standing isn't at the top.
The third quote is correct that the New York lead uses specific details to support its points. It's details are well-integrated into its text, whereas the ones here are not.
As for the fifth quote, the stats in the lead here don't show importance so much as they read as promotional listings, hence the IP post above "Why does this section not state that Singapore has won every World Cup or World Championship that has ever been held? Surely that would be more in keeping with the rest of the page."
In summary, your comparison is flawed. The lead here has issues not found in the New York and London leads, and has a completely different style, reading as a promotional advertisement than a serious overview. CMD (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd agree. Way too many wiki-links and rankings for a lede. Even UAE, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Hong Kong does not have that much. To add on, they have rankings that actually reflect the city/city-state/state negative aspects. There obviously needs to have some form of balance. - Mailer Diablo 18:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that the number of rankings in the lead is over the top, and amounts to WP:PEACOCK. It also appears that only positive ratings have been selected. I've just removed some surplus detail (there's no need to discuss an airline's standing in the article on it's home country!) and added the Freedom House classification noted later in the article to even up the stuff about the system of government. But there's scope for much bigger changes. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Most of your edits are fine but RFC on the lead is in progress, so will revert those for discussion. Changi-SIA standings shows a small country like Singapore can succeed in building the best airport-airline despite its size, so its related. "Partly-free" was removed long ago by others, see Talk:Singapore/2015 archive#Flawed democracy and income_inequality. Also, no other country's lead highlights them afaik.
A quick extract of #rankings below shows Singapore para6 (9) vs London (11), NYC (>a dozen). Wrigleygum (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You seem to want to pick and choose only positive rankings, which is a rather bad motivation. I don't get the logic behind the lead spruiking the country's main airline, but not mentioning that it's not considered a true democracy. I'm not seeing any consensus in that discussion, much less in regards to the Freedom House rating, and have restored this material. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Nick-D, I do not go out of my way to look for negatives. Balance is encouraged by the guides, but not many of the leading cities/countries have them in the lead. Unless everyone thinks western democracies does not have any?.Wrigleygum (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Wrigleygum, consensus is against you here. You have been advised by multiple editors and most of us have way more experience than you do with editing here. I suggest you to listen to us and accordingly drop the stick and move on. Also please don't remove the TOC from this page again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I was trying _NOTOC_ to suppress TOC on on just the "specific issues" section and did not realise it affects the main TOC on top.Wrigleygum (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


@Lemongirl942, can you paste a link to the WP policy/guide that disallow this? I have a problem finding it. The template follows Hong Kong's. Wrigleygum (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

We do stuff by consensus here. Country article generally do not have a photomontage. There are many issues with it such as quality of images, issues of fair representation and display on small screen devices. So an explicit consensus is required before implementing it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
"explicit consensus is required before implementing it" - This sounds like some policy/guide, so is there a link to "explicit concensus?". Wrigleygum (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS. Also see WP:WIKILAWYERING. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see what a montage of a collection of tourist attractions in Singapore adds to the article, and it is unconventional to include it in the lead in country articles (where maps and the like are typically used to orient readers). Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
On WP guide on images, it only mentions concensus for selection of images, not that images or a montage cannot be inserted by anyone, especially if no one else is taking any initiative.Wrigleygum (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia article, and images should be included where they enhance reader understanding and do not clutter up the page. See also WP:IG. CMD (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
What about Hong Kong?-they are using the country infobox. and I've seen montages in the body of country articles, so we just move it further down? Wrigleygum (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you discuss that on the Hong Kong page. But over here a montage doesn't really add anything encyclopaedic. It is also problematic for small screen devices which is one of the reasons we tend to use montages judiciously. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
We realise our aim is not to make Singapore appear as good as we can or put everything we find in other articles into this one, but instead is to create a high-quality encyclopaedia article, as described in our Wikipedia:Assessment scale. CMD (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)