Jump to content

Talk:Singapore/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Important - Please update Singapore's Human Development Index Value (HDI)

Please update Singapore's HDI value as the main article shows the old value of 0.916. The new value is 0.922 with a green up arrow next to the value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.216.192 (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Comments that someone censored

This is not a good article. It is obsessed with the contemporary image of Singapore which has only a history of less than 50 years. Please include more history on Singapore, especially on history of Singapore as a Crown Colony like Hong Kong and Macau, its history before British colony and more about the previous Empires before that. There are articles about Singapore being the Center of a Thai/Indonesian Empire that had trading with the Phoenicians, the Persians and the Greeks. Many Wikipedians are fascinated by Singapore's history as a historical trading port, please include more pictures and information on it as well as information on Japanese occupation of Singapore. Otherwise, this article is exceptionally sanitised and dull. More pictures needed of colonial opium dens, whorehouses morphing into current casinos, Clarke Quay, as well as more pictures of Japanese war atrocities, prison cells, and more pictures of inter-racial mixing in Singapore, the different ethic groups like Peranakan, the different Malay, Indonesian, Chinese languages, its creole English called Singlish, Singdarin etc. Please work more to expand on this article to make it more interesting.


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.117.143.29 (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

More nonsense

'The main island was a fishing village sparsely populated by indigenous Malays and Orang Lauts when it was colonized by the British Empire in 1819.

It seems implausible to me that a 40km long island was just one village in the 19th century. Even today, with 4+ million people, Singapore has some empty areas.

The old Singapore used to be covered by a lot of forests before Raffles came Yun Zhen 14:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Establishment in Cyberspace

PAP moves to counter criticism of party, Govt in cyberspace Li Xueying, 3 February 2007 Straits Times (c) 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Limited

THE People's Action Party (PAP) is mounting a quiet counter-insurgency against its online critics. It has members going into Internet forums and blogs to rebut anti-establishment views and putting up postings anonymously. Sources told The Straits Times the initiative is driven by two sub-committees of the PAP's 'new media' committee chaired by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen. One sub-committee, co-headed by Minister of State (Education) Lui Tuck Yew and Hong Kah GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad, strategises the campaign. The other is led by Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Baey Yam Keng and Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Josephine Teo. Called the 'new media capabilities group', it executes the strategies. Both were set up after last year's General Election. Aside from politicians, some 20 IT-savvy party activists are also involved. When contacted, Mr Baey declined to give details of the group's activities, but he outlined the broad principles of the initiative. It was necessary for the PAP to have a voice in cyberspace as there were few in the online community who were pro-establishment, he said. 203.117.143.29 00:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Updated at People's Action Party. Apparently, this "quiet counter-insurgency" is generating some noise. :D--Vsion 02:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If the PAP is doing this, they are doing a lousy job, particularly in the French [[1]] and German [[2]]versions of wikipedia. Please do not sue me for saying this.VK35 05:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, besides the standard items (Michael Fay, chewing gum, anti-gay and death penalty), anything special over there? --Vsion 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

When Singapore acquired independence, having few natural resources, it was sociopolitically volatile and economically undeveloped.

Lack of natural resources does not cause "sociopolitical volatility". Singapore did not "acquire" independence: it was expelled from the Federation of Malaysia. And it was not economically undeveloped: even then, Singapore was one of Asia's major trading ports. 203.117.143.29 02:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Telugu TV Channels

Telugu speaking community is second largest Indian community in Singapore. But there is no Telugu TV channels are available in Singapore to entertain them. StarHub has received numerous request to introduce Telugu TV channels. But StarHub has already introduced Tamil and Hindi TV channels. It will be happy if Telugu TV channels are introduced in Singapore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.67.140.42 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 16 November 2006.

Well, I guess you could write to MediaCorp or StarHub about that. Despite rumours to the contrary, we lowly Wikipedia editors don't actually have the power to introduce new television channels. -ryand 16:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the 2000 Singapore census, less than 14% of the Indian population speaks languages "other" than the official ones, and the Telugu percentage is likely much lower. Also this page indicates that only about 600 people in Singapore speak Telugu; hardly enough to warrant a whole TV channel. That number is very likely out of date, but it makes me skeptical that Telugu speakers comprise the "second largest" Indian community. -Amatulic 02:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That was very good informative responses. Thanks for responding. I strongly feel that current Telugu speaking people population will be a good number. After the IT boom, many Telugu people are coming to Singapore. Telugu TV channels are particulary required for female dependants. When the boy goes for work, his wife (if she is house-wife) or his mother needs Telugu stuff to watch in TV. If they do not have any stuff to watch and pass the time, it will lead to many health problems. This is already happening. Current census of Telugu people will be much much more than 2000 year census. It is our sincere request to Singapore Government and StarHub to introduce Telugu TV channels.

--192.193.221.202 04:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Thank you very much. I'm afraid that this isn't a place for petitions to the government, however. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 18:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not controlled by the Government of Singapore, and it is not a blog either (see WP:NOT).--Joshua Chiew 00:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You could try broadcasting by internet ... John Riemann Soong 05:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Singaporean Cuisine

I got the impression from a brief visit to Singapore that "Food is a national pastime," is kind of a nationalistic catchphrase in Singapore, but perhaps it ought to be quoted as such rather than stated as fact. It has always challenged my capacities of linguistic comprehension that the term "pastime" can be applied to an activity which an individual must engage in or die. Everyone in every country eats a lot of that country's own food. Several times a day. What differentiates the way Singaporeans eat their food from the way Americans eat hamburgers or the way Mexicans eat tacos or the way Northern Indians eat naan other than local pride? If nothing, then the phrase should only be included in the wikipedia article on Singapore as a localist catchphrase. --Techgeist 16:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

When the activity is referred to as a "pastime", it means it has become a daily activity which transgress mere "needs", but as a indulgance people partake in as and when they feel like it, and very often beyond normal mealtimes. And they get lots of company in this regard. It does seem true that the vast majority of social activities in Singapore revolve around food at every level of society.--Huaiwei 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well for all you know other countries rely on IV tubes instead. :P But yeah, I get what you mean. I guess it deals more with the role that hawker stalls play in the culture. For example, (one can tell Lee Hsien Loong rarely eats at hawker stalls because he doesn't seem to know that hawker stalls generally do not serve mee siam without cockles. (Which in turn shows the establishment's disconnect with local culture.) John Riemann Soong 17:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Erm...I think its "do not serve mee siam with cockles". :D--Huaiwei 00:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps "always serve mee siam without cockles". Double-negatve error, yeah. :D John Riemann Soong 06:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It's called 民以食為天, meaning food is god of the people, just powdered up to sound like an Anglo phrase. -- 我♥中國 07:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Bonny Hicks

I greatly expanded the article for Bonny Hicks recently, rescuing it from an AfD procedure. Please contribute more as you deem fitting. Also, if you think it might deserve Good Article Status, please visit its nomination page at Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates. CyberAnth 06:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is to discuss about the Singapore article and its subpages such as History of Singapore, I suggest you post such things at WT:SG! rather than here. Terence Ong 13:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah please put back the original section. This Wikipedia thing is So sanitized and boring.

Why delete so much content of economy section????

Who was the one who deleted so much content from the economy section??? There's so much useful info there and its all being deleted. Someone who can retrieve the history, please put it back! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darrentzw (talk • contribs) 10:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Who was the one who deleted so much content from the economy section??? There's so much useful info there and its all being deleted. Someone who can retrieve the history, please put it back!fatty 10:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do this, but there's a big gap between the heading of the "Military" section and the information. Is this because of the photos and does anyone know how to delete the gap? Jedi feline 10:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

UDI

The info box references a UDI in 1957. Could someone provide a pointer to the source for this information? Thanks! Bo 14:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I recently corrected this. - Fayenatic london (talk)

Train services to Malaysia?

There's no mention of the KTM service to KL anywhere in the article or anything that mentions that Singapore is connected to Peninsula Malaysia with a train service. Is this deliberate? Is this not relevant in the Transport section? --Novelty 05:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the Transport section of the article and I saw nothing about the Johor-Singapore Causeway and the Malaysia-Singapore Second Link, let alone the train service. Besides that, the section is a little messy; the main article link immediately below the section header should link to Transport in Singapore, not Singapore Changi Airport. I had added about the causeway and the bridge as well as the train service, and did a little cleanup.--Joshua Chiew 10:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of new Wikipedians

Wikipedia:Citing sources. 121.6.50.240 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How is this relevant? - SpLoT // 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That anonymous editor's initial contributions were reverted by another user on the grounds that they were unsourced. I can't blame him for posting a link here as it takes a while to find your way around. - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any new users editing this article besides the anon himself. - SpLoT // 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too swift with editing wikis yet, but some child has vandalised the article in several places, including headings and something about 'cristal princess' or something? Someone may want to fix these..

Not to mention the addition of "i like poop!!!!!!!" to the box in the top right info box among the flag picture captions. Sorry, I don't know the terminology, but it's there if you look. i checked out the page and couldn't find it to edit out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.82.140.33 (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Name of Singapore during Japanese Occupation.

The name in the article is given as "Shonan". It should be "Syonan-to". I understand it means Light of the south.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syonan-to ```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.255.185.254 (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Damn, I didn't notice this post before sticking up that message on Shōnan below. Anyway, as I've stated below, the translation of "Light of the South" is utterly wrong, and as for the romanization, see this. Going by the standard Singaporean explanation of the name, which just attempts to literally translate the characters in the name, the "tō" should be left out (it means "island", and the Singaporean explanation leaves the island bit out of the name), but the Japanese explanation indicates that the tō probably should be left in. See below (About Shōnan) for more details. 203.116.91.80 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
"Shōnan" and "Syonan" are the same. They are just two different ways to romanize the Japanese name. The former is in Hepburn romanization, the latter is the Nihon-shiki or Kunrei-shiki. The convention on the English Wikipedia is to use the Hepburn romanization.--Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 14:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sports

I believe that the Sports section has been written unacceptably. "Soccer is the most popular sport here..." and "There are also millions..." have seemed to be weasel worded. Optakeover 07:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

False claim about Singapore being number 1

I removed a reference that Singapore has the highest number of executions per capita. This is not supported by this Amnesty International report for 2006. [[3]] Kuwait is 1 and Iran is 2. There's no mention of who is number 3 VK35 16:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Jews as Ethnicity?

I am a little concerned that Jews are listed as an ethnicity in the section of the same name, instead of under the religion section. Jews come in all shapes, sizes and ethnicities. If the statement refers to Caucasians, they should say so. I'll set this page to watch. If someone doesn't kick and scream about it, I will move the Jewish note to religion at the end of the day. Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jews come in all religions too. I assume when the word is used in a section on ethnicity, it refers to ethnic Jews. --Dodo bird 16:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that tracks well. What, precisely, is an "ethnic Jew"? Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like what is described here? We could add Judaism in the religion section and link the word Jew in the ethnicity section to Who_is_a_Jew?#.22Ethnic_Jew.22 to make it clearer. --Dodo bird 13:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I think it might be better to simply add the religious presence int he religion section, and remove the ethnic mention. If I caught it, I am guessing others might as well. Best to avoid the accusation of anti-semitism, even if unintended. Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see this conversation when I reverted the recent edit that added the religious presence in the religion section. I reverted it per WP:WEIGHT guidance. Sources I could find (such as this one) indicates that the Jewish community in Singapore comprises only about 300 people; hardly enough to warrant a mention beyond the inclusive "...and others" in the sentence about religions.
My Jewish friends (including an atheist Jew) tell me that there's a Jewish culture and a Jewish religion, and you can be either one, or both, and still refer to yourself as "Jewish". -Amatulic 16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the citation you list doesn't cite its sources, either. Speaking tot he fact that the Jews that the source cited listed are in fact prominent, it becomes notable to mention the presence of Judaism yet again. And all, respect due, the primary source represented by what your Jewish friends tell you isn't really a notable reference to someone outside your circle of friends. Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's follow the list given in Census 2000, which does not include Judaism [4]. Most non-government descriptions have similar listing. If the emphasis is on demographics, then Judaism is usually not included. On the other hand, if the focus is on religious diversity, then Judaism might be included, usually by mentioning that there are a couple of synagogues in the country. --Vsion 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ahem. Thank you. That's exactly what I did when I wrote the original sentence in this aricle about the religious demographics. So I hope Arcayne can understand why I object to giving undue weight to a religion that isn't even counted in the census. Hm, I notice Ba'hai got into the sentence too, and it isn't counted either. Time for some cleaning up.
The problem with sentences that contain lists, is that such lists tend to accumulate chaff from people who want their pet topic included. Let's keep it to a minimum. Non-notable religions don't need to be listed (Judaism is notable by itself, just not in the context of Singapore). -Amatulic 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I can deal with the removal (though I think it is a rather unfair characterization of myself to consider it a pet topic of mine). I just take issue with citing information that doesn't cite its own sources. It makes it unreliable, to my reckoning. And, as Judaism (and Jews) gets a bit more than its share of prejudice, it os importnat to be rather diligent to fairly represent the religion/people appropriately. As someone has cited the census, that is dandy. As someone has removed the Ba'hai reference as even less notable, it seems that due diligence has been done. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I have brought this article to Good Article Review for review and possible delisting of its Good Article status. Coloane 05:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Biased Text

Removed biased text "Despite wealth and a high standard of living". Does it mean that wealthy countries with high standards of living cannot execute people? It is clearly biased text added in by some Human Rights person. --203.117.28.221 03:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In virtually every other wealthy, developed nation in the world, the death penalty has been eliminated. The exception is, of course, the United States. Singapore's extensive use of the death penalty is an outlier: the United States executes approximately the same absolute number of people per year as Singapore, but Singapore's population is only about 1/75th the US population. The point of the phrase "Despite wealth and a high standard of living" is, first of all, to flow with the paragraph that describes Singapore's affluence. This makes the point that Singapore's use of the death penalty is remarkable in the developed world. It's not passing a judgment, but it's showing something very unique about Singapore. You could in fact read it to say that perhaps Singapore's economic and social success is due in part to strict crime laws and use of the death penalty-- that's for the reader to judge. This sentence is not biased in its earlier form, which has been part of the article for quite awhile. --Maxsht9 05:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my question. Does it mean that execution is the act of uncivilised people with low standards of living? The United States, a world superpower does not ban the death penalty. Neither does Russia, an ex-superpower. Neither does China, a rising superpower. Does it also mean that since it has been in the article all the while, it is not biased? Sooner or later someone will pick it out. I personally do not see the relation between "high standards of living" and the "death penalty". If it is for the reader to judge, state the facts "Singapore has a high execution rate" and let the reader judge. The use of the term "despite" leads readers to subtley believe that execution and high standards of living do not go together and therefore Singapore is bad or weird. --121.6.83.161 13:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I also do not see the sentence "Despite wealth and a high standard of living, the United States is the 6th highest in carrying out executions" in the article about the United States, which is definitely wealthier and has higher standards of living than Singapore. If you claim those words are not biased, please add them into the pages of all similar countries as well as Singapore. --121.6.83.161 13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I would like to remind about WP:POINT. Please don't put it to test. I agree that we should simply state the fact that Singapore executes criminals and let the readers judge.--Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 14:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
In order for this article to claim there is an inverse correlation between standard of living and execution rate, such a claim must be sourced. It isn't. To imply such a correlation exists is a non-sequitur. Therefore I have removed this sentence from the article. The source from 2004 is woefully out of date anyway; the most recent Amnesty International source from 2007-07-08 says only that Singapore has "possibly" the highest per-capita execution rate, and says nothing about wealth or standard of living.[5]. The most recent total annual results (for 2006) state that "Kuwait had the highest number of executions per capita of population, followed by Iran."[6] Stating that Singapore executes criminals is sufficient.
Singapore is definitely not #1, nor is standard of living an issue in this context. -Amatulic 21:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As usual, short-sighted "Human Rights" groups look at the small picture of execution and fail to look at the much bigger picture of what happens without execution. But this probably isn't the correct place to discuss. Sorry for babbling. Sigh. Also, the Amnesty International link implies that the death penalty is for various but unspecified "drug offences". This is incorrect. The death penalty is only for trafficking of drugs. There is also no mention of the death penalty for other drug-unrelated offences. Amazing how "reliable" sources can twist words in their favour, eh? Thanks for the support in removal anyway. :D --121.6.64.153 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Advertising?

Does this count as advertising for Mercer Human Resource Consulting? (and should be removed)

"In terms of quality of life, the Cost of Living Survey conducted by Mercer Human Resource Consulting (2007) ranked Singapore 5th most expensive country in Asia and 14th most expensive country to live in the world.[4]"

I say this considering the article on Mercer on wikipedia has the following Discussion on it(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercer_Human_Resource_Consulting):

"The creator of this article would do well to closely read the following:

"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam."

This article could have been lifted directly out of a promotional pamphlet produced by this company. As far as I'm concerned, articles like this should be removed on sight."

I agree with you. I removed material from the Mercer page; most of it was written like an advertisement. Then when I was reviewing this sentence in the article, I noticed that it presumes a high cost of living has some direct relevance to quality of life. Intuitively, I'd say high cost of living countries tend to have higher quality of life because they are wealthier. However, this connection is indirect and speculative. Other attributes, like low infant mortality and health care access also correlate with quality of life; saying "In terms of quality of life, Singapore is ranked 4th in health care accessibility" would be equally inappropriate. Quality of life statistics are probably readily available.--Maxsht9 12:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Please remove commercial, advertising (including links to sites with ads). This is to ensure consistency and fairness to everyone. Wikipedia should not be an avenue for advertisement, or you will open a floodgate for even more spams.--Zragon

"a large-scale public housing programme"

Anyone in Singpoore, could you please explain a little bit more about the characteristics of this program?. Thank you.

look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDB MuRocks 03:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC) hope it helps

Delisting of Singapore from GA class

Following a clear consensus by reviewers this article has been delisted from the GA group. The result of that review can be found here.--VS talk 07:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

ArticleHistory template

It's always good to use Template:ArticleHistory to keep track of things like peer reviews, good article nominations, FACs, etc etc. I've added the older peer review, the GAN, and the GAR in the template. But I found that the article actually went through five FACs between 2005 and 2006 (failing each one, it seems, because I don't see this article in the former featured article list). the ArticleHistory template needs to have old article ids and specific dates to display correctly, and I don't really have the time to track them all down in this article's history. Template:ArticleHistory has instructions on what the needed information is. If anybody is interested, please add the five FACs into the template.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent article, but it's unnecessarily hard to read because it's crowded with blue words. Someone has, doubtless thinking they were being a good gnome, gone through and linked almost everything imaginable. I've spent almost two hours removing unrelated and repetitious links ("Malay" must have been linked eight times). When I get my breath back, I'll come back and rip out some more. There are lots of excellent and pertinent links, either because they are specifically related to Singapore or they are reasonably likely to be of special interest to someone reading about Singapore. But linking every single date and all types of commonly understood words, just because they have a related article in Wikipedia, is tiresome in the extreme. In any article, there should be a reasonable likelihood that clicking on it will lead you to something other than a mundane article on table tennis or the chilli disambiguation page. Preston McConkie (talk • contributions) 05:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

International rankings

Do there really need to be quite so many international rankings? It certainly isn't fair to call some of them "major". For now, I'll remove some of the more trivial ones:

Actually, I wonder whether the transportation ones belong here, they aren't actually about the state of Singapore, but about an airline, an airport and a container port. Bistromathic 19:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Reads like a corporate brochure with all that puffery. 220.255.114.234 01:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Pirates Of The Caribbean at world's end has used a "Singapore" set!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.183.81 (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Prepping for veropedia

The simplest fixes first — here's a dump of the parser, explaining technical fixes mandatory before it can be accepted. Content, we have to discuss. Dumping now: --Rifleman 82 13:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


User: Rifleman 82 Ignore warning: IsDebug: 0 wiki: wikipedia Domainending: org Language: en Article: Singapore Revision ID

Do another search Current passed pages Try again

Getting needed pages: Singapore is not in our Database Checking for fair use images. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fair Use

Checking all links in article..

Bad links

http://www.istana.gov.sg Errorcode was: 404 http://www2.mha.gov.sg Errorcode was: 404 http://www.mas.gov.sg Errorcode was: 404 http://www.singstat.gov.sg Errorcode was: 404 http://app.feedback.gov.sg Errorcode was: 404 http://www.channelnewsasia.com Errorcode was: 404 http://www.singstat.gov.sg Errorcode was: 404 http://www.singstat.gov.sg Errorcode was: 404


Checking for Cleanup categories..

Cleanup categories

Category:All articles with unsourced statements


Checking for Cleanup templates..

Cleanup Templates

156 Checking all links in article..

Disambiguation and redirect Links

Note, disambiguation links should be changed to the exact link, redirects can be left alone.

Indigenous is a disambig. Hawker is a disambig. National_Basketball_League is a disambig. Sri_Mariamman_Temple is a disambig. Toll is a disambig.

Checking regex blacklist...

Blacklisted regex

</ref>. found in the article. A ref appears before a period, comma, or semi-colon. Please move the reference to after the period, comma, or semi-colon.


Checking slang list...

Grammar and words

Please fix the instances if it is approprate to do so. This should be 90% of cases.

Checking frequency list...

Grammar and words

Checking sentences...

Sentences

Please look into fixing the following, though you can still upload past it (it is recommended that you try to fix any legitimate errors).

long sentence (60) : Singapore (Malay: Singapura; Chinese: 新加坡; pinyin: Xīnjiāpō; Tamil: சிங்கப்பூர், Ciŋkappūr), officially the Republic of Singapore (Malay: Republik Singapura; Chinese: 新加坡共和国; pinyin: Xīnjiāpō Gònghéguó; Tamil: சிங்கப்பூர் குடியரசு, Ciŋkappūr Kudiyarasu), is an island nation located at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula. long sentence (85) : The Japanese renamed Singapore Shōnantō (昭南島, Shōnantō?), from Japanese "Shōwa no jidai ni eta minami no shima" ("昭和の時代に得た南の島", "Shōwa no jidai ni eta minami no shima"?), or "southern island obtained in the age of Shōwa", and occupied it until the British repossessed the island on 12 September 1945, a month after the Japanese surrender. long sentence (66) : The educational system features a non-compulsory three-year kindergarten, followed by six-year primary education, students take the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), 4 years of secondary education, a further set of examinations are taken which determine their individual subject mastery and which kind of tertiary education they can pursue, such as junior colleges or Millennia Institute, which provide a 2-year or 3-year pre-university education route to the universities. long sentence (81) : However, just outside of Raffles Place, and throughout the rest of the downtown core, there is a large scattering of pre-WWII buildings - some going back nearly as far as Raffles, as with the Empress Place Building, built in 1827.[citation needed] Many classical buildings were destroyed during the post-war decades, up until the 1990s, when the government started strict programs to conserve the buildings and areas of historic value.


Checking Spelling..

Spelling

Please check and make sure the following are spelled right. Items on the left side of the arrow are potential misspellings and items on the right side are potential corrections

StatisticsExternal links found: 92 Wikilinks found: 1416 Sentences found: 355 Number of characters  : 49451 Number of words  : 6985 Percent of complex words  : 23.88 Average syllables per word : 1.8773 Number of sentences  : 345 Average words per sentence : 20.2464 Number of text lines  : 191 Number of blank lines  : 1 Number of paragraphs  : 123


READABILITY INDICES

Fog  : 17.6504 Flesch  : 27.4646 Flesch-Kincaid  : 14.4583


This article cannot be uploaded. Please fix the problems and try again.

Better view of Singapore

I have postioned to the top and altered the size of an image to give a better view of Singapore.Lustead (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Sports School

Is this important enough to be included as its own section? If so it could do with a bit or a rewrite

CaptinJohn (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should deserve its own section, although it does deserve mentioning and has its significance explained. Mhching (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Registry of Marriages?

Someone has proposed merging Registry of Marriages into this article. I disagree because there is not enough space in the main article as it is, and also because to include such information here would bloat the Demographics section unnecessarily. Thoughts? Pegasus «C¦T» 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No merge; unrealistic to move the content in here. --Vsion (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Alice.S 07:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

why?

why does it say 'f**k it' at the bottom of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.71.142.176 (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Singapore

Hi, there is a need for an article about the History of the Jews in Singapore. At the present time there are articles about the Chesed-El Synagogue and the Maghain Aboth Synagogue in Singapore that have some facts that may help such an article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Time Zone Problem

I noticed that this page says the timezone is called SST. When clicking on it, the page opening says SGT. Which is correct? If both, the opening page should mention both (whether one is official and the other not.)

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Wilke (talk • contribs) 09:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the abbreviation in Singapore Standard Time to SST, as it rightfully should. 리지강.wa.au talk 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I kind of agree that this article is in need of a good brushing up. I will like to post a query on why the Singapore Sports School is mentioned here. i do see a plausible link under Sports but instead of a good discussion on our strengths, history and perhaps ongoing issues of raising sportsmen and women, we get an entry on the Singapore Sports School as a topic with its own topic heading. I think this section needs some adjustment from someone who knows Singapore's sports scene well.Themechacat (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

source from 2006 is outdated

I already wrote down the reason in edit summary why I removed the source as it is from the year 2006. You should write down the reference from the year of 2007. Coloane (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Two points:
  1. Your edit removed the relevant inline citation placed by Huaiwei but left the claim: "It (Singapore) was rated as the world's best airport in 2006 by Skytrax". I could understand it if you thought that the Skytrax claim was outdated and removed both claim and source, but to remove just the source of the claim seemed a little inexplicable.
  2. if you have a more up-to-date assertion then we could all have understood it if you had replaced the (outdated?) claim (including a more recent citation) yourself rather than thrice cancelling the work of your fellow editors without providing a cogent reason in the edit summary. Thanks for raising the issue here in the correct place (albeit a little late since I see that you have already undone the work of your fellow editors again...) Alice✉ 09:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It is unfortunate, but a check on Coloane's editing history reveals a little of his background on matters pertaining to Singapore (less than a month in wikipedia, and this is his 20th edit: [11]). His stance towards this country is kinda obvious, in particular his comments in [12].--Huaiwei (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I also removed Papua New Guinea, Morocco, Denmark, etc from the GA list. Why didn't you mention them? You are still holding the grudge and mentioned what I talked about. I already apologised. For the reference, why don't you put year of 2007 for the ranking of international airports? you simply want to show Singapore rate No. 1 in 2006. It is quite misleading because it missed putting the data of year 2007. And now the year 2007 will be gone soonest. Coloane (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh my bad. So when did you nominate those articles? Didnt notice them amongst your earliest edits, which singled just one entry - Singapore. I must point out that it is rather unusual for new users to actually ask for an FAR this early in their editorial stint. I also noticed some of your earliest edits such as [13] [14], which seem to stand out like a sore thumb since most of your edits are related to Macau or Hong Kong, which is understandable given the locality where you are from. As for the ranking, big deal. Singapore was rated no.1 for the first time in 2006, and the text now reflects that accurately (admittedly, no one updated the list since the latest result, and I overlooked that as well.) Kindly do not further insult Singaporeans with comments like "you simply want to show Singapore rate No. 1 in 2006." Not many shares the same maturity level as yourself. Can I conversely ask if your insistence on "updating" that number is because "you simply want to show Hong Kong rate No. 1 in 2007."?--Huaiwei (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not object to write down up-to-date info of 2007 if Singapore C I were rated No.1 in 2007? again, I already apologized and I have no intention to insult Singaporean or other people. There are no rivals between Singapore and other places. I just don't understand why do you emphasis on it? Coloane (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That Changi won the award for the first (and only time) in 2006 is of course of greater relevance than its second place position, which it held five times since the first award in 2001. Now of course we could write all these in that paragraph, but is this too much detail for such a short paragraph?--Huaiwei (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Shall I suggest a compromise? Mention that Changi Airport was ranked as the world's best airport in 2006 and was second in all the other years. Consistently finishing second does indicate that Changi Airport is one of the best in the world, if not the best. However, do not mention any rivalry between Changi Airport and Hong Kong International Airport, as such a claim is original research, unless you can find references that explicitly mention a rivalry. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The current version already omits mention on HKIA, so that issue is already solved. As for what constitutes "best", perhaps a switch to referring to the airport being a consistent multi-award winner as sourced from [15] and already mentioned in the Singapore Changi Airport article (para 4) may be appriopriate. This helps to reduce perceived advertising of one single award.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that Coloane has also chosen to wikiwar over at Singapore Changi Airport, which is one of the most ridiculous ever. Text on Changi's efforts to keep itself updated to remain competitive with newer airports, which was derived from a source [16] is continuously being changed to [17] when the later says nothing on this. Coloane insists on this change for no better reason than "the web site clearly shows the newest ranking of airports, I didn't make any mistake. Singapore C I rated No. 2 in 2007". The sourced text was on airport upgrading, and not on award results, something I reminded repeatedly and which he chooses to ignore. I request for community assistance to talk some sense into this impulsive lad.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Coloane, stop baiting Huaiwei and edit-warring with him, Alice and myself, or I shall request admin intervention. Huaiwei, please do not let Coloane bait or provoke you. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Hildanknight. Check out [18] thou, which is kinda ironic!--Huaiwei (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
An anon has made another reversion to the Singapore Changi Airport article [19]. Perhaps an IP check is needed soon.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singapore/Archive_3&oldid=1137187614"