User talk:Huaiwei/Archive D

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Republic of Singapore Navy naval bases[edit]


Think "Republic of Singapore Navy bases" would be sufficient, seems extraneous to have the word "naval".-Travisyoung 11:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

But its grammatically more correct to say naval base leh.--Huaiwei 11:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Why would it be "grammatically more correct"? This has nothing to do with grammar, because they are after all, military bases. The fact that it is a naval base is inherent in the name preceding it - Republic of Singapore Navy base. Some examples include:
I want to go on record to state that my doubts about having a category of RSN bases (since it has only two) and the tendency to "over categorize". Perhaps Category:Singapore Armed Forces camps and bases would have more "potential".
-Travisyoung 13:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC) I get what you mean. The reason why we often have "RSN XXX", "RSAF XXX", is simply because we also have establishments under the British era, such as "RAF XXX", and the huge Sembawang Naval base under the British. Assuming we collapse them all into one category, Category:Singapore naval bases is still more grammatically correct compared to Category:Singapore navy bases. Afterall, its Changi Naval Base, and not Changi Navy Base. As for the category still being unpopulated, I am actually wondering why is there a reluctance to create a page for Tuas Naval Base and Brani Naval Base, both of which have been on the to-do list for some time now without any progress. I am an inclusionist rather then a deletionist. If a categary looks empty, then fill it up loh. :D--Huaiwei 13:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if I appear dense, but I am still unable to comprehend your point. I did not mention Category:Singapore navy bases. Neither did I mention that Changi or Tuas Naval Bases are called RSN Changi or RSN Tuas. (No one in the RSN calls them that. Historically, that would be incorrect too. I think what you were referring to a stone frigate, in which case it would have been RSS Changi or RSS Tuas. However like I mentioned above, this is a moot point; no one in the RSN uses it.)
I did however mention that Category:Republic of Singapore Navy bases would be sufficient instead of Category:Republic of Singapore Navy naval bases. Would the RSN have other types of bases besides a naval base? ;) In any case, Sembawang Camp is not a base, more like a shore establishment, since no ships are permanently "based" there. I would be agreeable to having Category:Republic of Singapore Navy naval bases renamed to Category:Republic of Singapore Navy bases. Hope you get the gist of what I meant initially.
As for the reluctance to create a pages for Tuas Naval Base and Brani Naval Base, why not be bold and add content? ;) -Travisyoung 15:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Hahaa....darn. Alright alright....yeah so I didnt get what you meant just now, and I hope I do now. I am more or less agreeable to that I suppose. ;) No I dont mean to say RSN Changi etc. I am refering to the categary name, ie RSN Naval bases, RSAF Air Bases, RAF bases, etc. Regarding reluctance, its simply cause I dont think I am in the position to write it considering I was never in it, I stil have to research on the topic to write it. :D Why not you give us a hand? hehehe--Huaiwei 15:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay it is settled then. Perhaps you wanna list this as per instructions in Wikipedia:Category renaming?

Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board[edit]

I have noticed the notice board. Noted the Serangoon copyvio from there, actually. I have to admit I don't read it often... today's the second time I'm glancing at it. Thanks for pointint it out anyway. Alex.tan 15:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Well...try leaving your name there loh. At least it will end up being on your watchlist, and you will notice discussions has finally started to take place in its talk page. We have a huge to-do list to tackle as well. ;) --Huaiwei 15:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


Hi fellow Singaporean! Great knowing that there are people of my country on Wikipedia! Thanks for giving me the link to the places of Singapore. Maybe I could create an article which is a list on the Singaporeans in Wikipedia! --ImpalerBugz 06:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Huh? No need lah. Just register your name here loh:

Wikipedia:SGpedians'_notice_board#Active_Singaporean_Wikipedians--Huaiwei 12:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Re : I see that you are back![edit]

Hey, that was fast, I thought it would be an at least few hours more before I get noticed. :P

I've got some develoments for Singapore-related articles, and rather upset over them. I'll post the details on the noticeboard later and see if they can be solved.

- Mailer Diablo 17:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

  • For current events, let me think about it. :D I'll get back to you later. (Remind me if I forget) ;) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Teresa Teng[edit]

Hey Huaiwei... I've been away for a week so I didn't get back to your last comment on Talk:Teresa Teng. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I posted another reply there. --Umofomia 23:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Wee Kim Wee[edit]

User:Mel Etitis has been reverting my edits by removing the /temp message. If you want to know why I put it up, please see Talk:Wee Kim Wee. I need your coporeation to curb his subvandalising actions urgently.

I am currently working on the article itself to give more information about his life time.

Tan 16:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan is referring to his command that no other editor should edit the temp page. Since the temp page should also be a collaboration, we have taken it down. Hope I was able to clear things up. JMBell° 11:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I did watch what was happening, and to be brutally honest, I find it difficult to "take sides" in this issue. I certainly do not agree with some of Mr Tan's methodologies in trying to improve on a page, such as the creation of that temporary page. But I can see that he does have real intentions to make it better and to develop on it. Mel and company's opposition towards Mr Tan's editing style is fairly justified, but I do not know if this is the best way to solve the issue. Why is it that no one bothers to incoorporate his "temp" page with the existing one, but seemingly choose to "take the easy way out" by simply reverting all his edits?
Therefore, I want no part in the whole debate against his behavior. I dont think my views are going to please everyone. ;) --Huaiwei 14:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Huaiwei, I understand your point. It is always difficult to take sides, but in this situation, it is not about siding with anyone. It's a matter of what's right and what's wrong. We don't want you to side with us - we only want a neutral, outside opinion. You may find some of Mr Tan's deeds wrong, and you may think that we are a bit overreacting, but it's okay. You don't have to take sides. You just have to give an impartial opinion.
Now, just to clear up this up: we want to incorporate the temp page into the existing one, but Mr Tan vehemently rejects this idea. He wants to do the whole thing by himself and let nobody touch his work. And the edits that we revert are in different articles like Zanskar, where he put a copyedit template even if the article didn't need it. I know that he wasn't going to do anything good to Zanskar because I've seen (and reverted) some of his edits there, and they didn't make sense. But, of course, I let the other sensible ones stay. I know that Mr Tan really wants to fix up the articles, and I have no problem with that. I just hope he stops doing it in a selfish and illogical way, and accepts outside advice - not just from his fellow Singaporeans, but also from people like us.
Please remember: When I got into this whole mess, I only wanted to help out and fix up the whole mess, and now, how many days later, I still do. I still have the patience and the determination I need to fix this whole matter, and I will, I promise you, I will. And ganging up on and attacking the victim is no way to fix things. All my moves are planned out and aim for the best, most considerate, civil, and peaceful way to attain a good resolution to this dispute. I am doing this for everyone's benefit. Not mine. Not Mel's. Not Mr. Tan's. I'm doing this for everybody involved in this dispute. And that includes our readers.
I do hope you understand my plans. May I request an opinion from you, to be put on the RfC's Outside Views section? It will be all right even if you don't. I respect that. And I will not respect you any more or any less if you give your opinion, and if it sides with us or with Tan. But there are those who stand up for their beliefs, and will not waver in their decision no matter what happens, no matter what is said. And I respect those people, for their strength is true and their thoughts are real. I respect them more than anybody on the face of this Earth. And, for me, respect is a big thing. Bigger than popularity, or knowledge, or shame, even. It's a big thing.
That is all. I will say no more. JMBell° 15:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your detailed reply. It certainly puts to rest some of my bigger concerns, including the issue over the "taking of sides". I do not mind saying a thing or two over the issue, but I will have to actually review quite alot of history before I can say anything, sine I did not follow this issue at all until it recently crossed paths with my editing. I will be travelling soon, so if I were to make a formal response, it will have to be after I get back end next week. Hope you wont mind this delay!--Huaiwei 14:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Malaysia/Singapore project[edit]

Well, I feel the articles in this category are rather stagnant. It would be better if they could be livened up, but even so, I still feel there is a tremendous bias when it comes to discussing the socioeconomic situation in Malaysia, at least stemming from the language used (example articles are Malaysian New Economic Policy, Bumiputra). Perhaps such a project could focus on this a little. Nevertheless, I have been reluctant to engage in editing Malaysia/Singapore related articles, because the Malaysian ones are prone to POV warring while I'm not too familiar with Singapore's nitty gritty details. Johnleemk | Talk 13:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...but I was talking about the news project! :D I was wondering if its possible for us to set up a news portal which includes Malaysian and Singaporean news on a daily basis. What do you think of its feasibility, and would you like to chip in? ;) --Huaiwei 12:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Would it be on Wikinews or Wikipedia? I haven't really been keeping track of Wiki activities lately. Johnleemk | Talk 06:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC) a sub-page of the Current events section. ;) --Huaiwei 07:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Ah...sure, I'm game. But I think it may be better to try an umbrella Southeast Asia project first. Then if there's too much news we can splinter it into country-specific ones. Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
THanks for the reminder. Have you tried the Malaysian notice board? If the other side is happy with it then I'm all for it. (personally in support) :) - Mailer Diablo 00:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The {{cfr}} and {{cfd}} tags[edit]

As per the vote for renaming for "category:Airlines of Australasia and Pacific", "..Caribbean and Central America" and "..Middle East Airlines", please be reminded to add the {{cfd}} or {{cfr}} tags to the categories for nominations. Many thanks. — Instantnood 18:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed revision on Mainland China[edit]

Hi, as one of the major critics of the term, maybe you'll be interested in my proposal to rewrite it? Have a look at here: Talk:Mainland_China#Proposed_revision. -- Alassius (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeap, saw it. Thanks for the notice thou! :D--Huaiwei 15:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Seeing that you are back, would you like to carry on the discussion here? I am sure we will come to a version that none of us will find unacceptable. Besides, I would very much like to learn new ideas =) -- Alassius (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Education in Singapore[edit]

Hi... saw you talking about the singapore education system.. i think we can improve on it. --Eraser78 00:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Diary Farm[edit]

I noticed you have changed the redirect into a disambiguation page. Would you mind helping to fix the links at the pages pointing to it as well? Many thanks. — Instantnood 18:32, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Amnesty source[edit]

Hey, saw you asking for the amnesty source in the Singapore articles edit history:

It's somewhere in the article too, and the edit summary also includes it.

Thanks for the source! I must say as in typical Amnesty quality stuff, some of their findings do have errors, and if we wish to put them in, we have to try to balance them with fact from the ground here. Regarding illegal gatherings, for example, the law clearly states that they are only deemed as such should criminal intent is present (Chapter 224, section 141). A study of Singapore law history would show that this law's original intention was largely to tackle gang fights during the days when Secret Societies ruled the streets...and not simply interpreted as a tool to prevent peaceful gatherings.
Not all gatherings of over 4 people need a police permit, for obvious reasons. A police permit is required in all activities specified in the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (Chapter 257), which can include events as varied as a simple exhibition of art pieces, to a public political rally.
Meanwhile, it can be noted that the constitution itself specifically guarantees every Singaporean citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, to assemble peaceably and without arms, and to form associations, unless, of coz, it is deemed as presenting a threat to national security and such. (Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, section 14)
Contradictory? Perhaps that is the intention of the laws for reinterpretation and manipulation! :D --Huaiwei 08:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Geographical Issues[edit]

Just a question I need help with...Kent Ridge vs Pasir Panjang Ridge[edit]

These articles haven't been created yet, but I'm about to create them, but how related are these two ridges? Are they different areas of the same geographical feature, or even the same ridge? I know they are in quite close proximity, as Pasir Panjang Ridge runs through Labrador Park, and NUH is just a few kilometres away, and in fact not far from the Dover area as well. I'm just wondering if I should create separate articles or have one redirect to the other. -- Natalinasmpf 15:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm...did bit of research, and it turns out Pasir Panjang Ridge was renamed Kent Ridge in 1952 [1] (see page 7), so they are actually names of the same geographic feature! --Huaiwei 15:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Ah, thanks very much. Now I have a source to cite too! Its kind of funny, because I live around the area, but my history textbooks don't even bother to identify Pasir Panjang Ridge with Kent Ridge, I've always seen them referred separately. So I'll create Kent Ridge and redirect Pasir Panjang Ridge to it, then? I suppose its not in anyway how Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul all have their own articles even though they are historically the same feature. -- Natalinasmpf 16:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I do need to do abit of reserch to discover this too. :D But I am not seems like the streach closer to Telok Blangah is hardly ever called Kent Ridge? We can actually have an aritcle for both if we can find enough information to justify it, because each does have its own set of rich history.--Huaiwei 17:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Haha, I live around there too, when I'm not at overseas. In fact, I used to jog to the Kent Ridge Park up to where the AMX-13 is displayed; and, embarrassed to say, I was totally oblivious to the place's history. ;-) Vsion 05:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Hehe.....although my (former) school is supposed to be on the ridge, I have been to the park just once in my life! --Huaiwei 09:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Singapore's Central Business District and outlook for future articles on places[edit]

I was busy filling in the MRT station articles, and one thing led to another. Firstly, do you think we need a Singapore Central Business District(s) article? I mean, it seems that "Raffles Place" doesn't seem to suffice, as its confined to one area, when the CBD goes throughout Orchard, Shenton, etc. or would it be redundant? Also, perhaps some recognition of this CBD on the places template? I mean, I think we could elaborate further principles of say, ERP, if we could address these areas at a collective when it applies collectively, rather than having to awkwardly list many places at the same time. Anyway, any thoughts? Also, there's also the big picture of cleaning up Singapore - I think the main outlook now is that the description is rather vague and it would help if we could break it down into what Singapore geographically consists of, how it is organised, key concepts like, regional centres versus CBD, and various other city planning issues...would that be in geography? Then correlate this to the main Singapore article in some way...also draw a distinction from things like GRC's...anyway, that's my thought, because currently, to say, an overseas reader looking at this could well get rather confused about what is which. Just a few thoughts, because from editing one article I realise we are deficient in many issues that have not been addressed yet. Then on the subject of ridges, from where exactly to they span, because when I create the article, I want to make the description concrete, rather than vague. Also, I'm possibly thinking of using an image map.

Wah...thats alot of stuff in two paragraphs! Hm...about CBDs, Singapore does have a "CBD" district at one point of its history, but that has become passe now. The term now used tend to be the "Central Area", which includes Orchard Road, Kampong Glam, etc. But we can do one to show the historic boundaries of the CBD of the 1970s....there is a book on this in the library with a boundary map...cant rem what title thou. :D
ERP can have its own article in my opinion. And it is not implimented here alone....London has adopted our system, for example.
As for Singapore, I would think all that could be in a new page called Urban planning in Singapore, which will chart the history of urban planning since the 1820 plan to today, and how it shapes the growth of this city. It can then mention various initiatives bourne out of these plans, including the regional centres.
GRCs defintely need tonnes of work. I have not really tot over how to best address it thou! :D
As for the ridges, how about those maps available online? I saw a few recently, and will dig them up again if you cant find them. Try typing "Kent Ridge" or "Pasir Panjang Ridge", and you should be able to see them. Hope this helps! :D--Huaiwei 08:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can you see my post in Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Standardisation? I have an entire plan on how to interlink urban planning and divisions of Singapore taxonomically, but I'm awaiting response from others. What especially bugs me is that there's no mention of this in the Singapore article itself, no divisions, no mention on how important urban planning is, or the fact that the URA's plan was crucial in say, redistributing the population in conjunction with the HDB? -- Natalinasmpf 17:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Singapore cuisine[edit]

There's also the issue of Singapore seems rather related to Malaysian cuisine, then again, with slight differences, although its kind of funny to have it correspond to another nationality? Also, was the category Category:Singapore cuisine deleted, or is it non-existent? I seem to have forgot. The thing is, I'm about to create the articles Kueh Lapis and Chee Cheong Fun, but I have no idea where to categorise them. -- Natalinasmpf 02:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was indeed a Category:Singaporean cuisine category until it was nominated for deletion by my "good friend" User:Instantnood: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_April_5#Category:Singaporean_cuisine. None of you went there to vote, so it dissapears. (One page I wrote recently is now potentially being deleted too..haha). Check Wikipedia:SGpedians'_notice_board#Singapore-related_candidates_for_deletion for latest candidates effected. I have intentions to write an article on Singapore cuisine soon and resurrect the category, but I need more articles related specifically to the Singapore versions of various dishes to populate it. I suppose we need a second wikiproject soon? :D --Huaiwei 08:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me for interrupting... I nominated the category for deletion, but I did not propose to merge it to any other category. I nominated it because it shared near all of its content with the Malaysian cuisine category, and some with the Indonesian category. It did demonstrate a rather high level of similarities, comparing to cuisines of Scandinavian countries. Cuisines do not necessary cut along political boundaries. To show its actual existence as a separate food tradition and the neccessity of a separate category we have to demonstrate a comparable level of differences exist. — Instantnood 15:34, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Did anyone mention that you asked for a "merger"? No, so I dont see why you need to interrupt to "correct" something which didnt exist, and then repeat the same arguments you made in nominating it for deletion. I am quite sure me quoting the nomination page allows anyone to see it for themselves.--Huaiwei 16:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but at least "Scandinavian cuisine" is a collective term, and not politically lopsided to one side. For example, a lot of the cuisine due to cultural diffusion of the four races is a pre-Independence effect, not one that was due to the formation of Malaysia or Malaya. Also, then, what, should we redirect Singapore cuisine to Malayan cuisine? Is that your suggestion? -- Natalinasmpf 18:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, and those are points Instantnood appear to appreciate little. Try telling Singaporeans they are eating Malaysian cuisine, or vice versal. He even suggested "Malaysian and Singaporean cuisine" at one point in time, when hey...Malaysian cuisine is also related to Thai cuisine, and so is Indonesian cuisine, and so is Filipino...and so are those in Indo-China...and Chinese...and Indian...and.....? Perhaps we should get all national cuisine categories deleted since they are all related in various degrees? Interestingly in comparison, he considers it entirely justified to have cross-boundary articles in Category:Hong Kong eating culture, although it is apparant it is being threated as thou it is a cuisine category.--Huaiwei 16:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Appreciate your previous work; they're well-written indeed. I'm from Hong Kong, and I went to your country, likewise Malaysia, last summer vacation, enjoying many delicacies in these two countries. I found that, in spite of similar ingredients, Malaysian cuisine and Singaporean cuisine are just different as chalk and cheese -- there was an immense tinge of Chinese style in the Malaysian cooking, and that was what I really felt when gnawing noodles sold in the streets. That's fab!
Your comment recalls me to curry. Curry is very popular across the Asian continent; people in Thailand, Japan, India, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, etc. would have it on their dinner plates. But they're different, aren't they? For example, Japanese curry is "outrageously" sweet. Nowsdays, Brits are eating this spicy food too! Certainly it is not appropriate to say curry is solely owned by one single countrry -- it's commonly owned by every one who loves it, and turns it into various toothsome dishes in its own way. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wow...your comments and comparison with curry are spot on! :D Btw, do you happen to be ethnic Chinese, as I am a little surprised by your comment that Malaysian cooking had much influence by Chinese culinary styles. How would Singaporean cuisine compare? Would love to hear from you! ;)--Huaiwei 16:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oops, did I say that!? That's obviously a blunder. "Malaysian cooking" above-mentioned should be "Singaporean cooking" (Well, I'm 100% ethnic Chinese =P). There's one more thing I like to accentuate is another famous cuisine -- satay. I did taste different satay in Thailand, Malaysian, Vietnam and Singapore. If my memory seerves me, the skewered meat in Singapore is the sweetest in flavour, owing to some pineapple grind added into the sauce, whereas that in Malaysia, with more spices served, is much more piquant somehow. To me, the Vietnamese satay tastes the most awful: the flavour itself is not a problem, but the meat is just as tough and dry as a mummy and it nearly breaks my teeth!
I can fully understand why you're that angry when the category of Singaporean cuisine was deleted at length. It's just the same case in Hong Kong. Some people, particularly foreigners not living here, can't realise the significance of Hong Kong cuisine, which in fact gives birth to loads of other well-known spin-outs: chow mein (mind you, that's exactly the Cantonese pronunciation of the food!), wonton, and hoisen sauce. But I think Singaporean cuisine is in fact in an even worse scenario compared to the one of Hong Kong. I've just read a Q&A of an American food on-line forum, and most people find it extremely difficult to differentiate both Malaysian cuisine and Singaporean cuisine; after all, we can eat Rougu Cha and Hainan chicken rice even in Malaysia! What a de facto food for thought! =)-- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah....finally things makes sense now. :D Well, it is true indeed that many cant seem to decifer the differences, but locals and people familiar with Asian cuisine in general tend to be able to pick them up much more easily. In fact, if differences in cuisines do exist even within Malaysia (as it does in a much larger country like China), there is not surprise why there should be a difference in neighbouring Singapore as well, particularly considering the social differences which has started to evolve over the decades. As my friend pointed out, a similarly named dish, even with the same ingredients, can be differentiated between Malaysia and Singapore, sometimes by a factor as simple as the quality and quantity of ingredients involved.--Huaiwei 14:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Please take a look in my survey drive in [2]. Thanks.

Tan 22:07, 1 June 20005 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png

In recognition of your tireless dedication to creating the SGpedians' noticeboard, Singapore portal, contributions to Singapore-related articles and service to the Singapore Wikipedians community, I hereby award you with the The Barnstar of Diligence. Be proud of it! :) - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I wrote in a little more detail now on the talk page. Georgia guy 14:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks. For some reason, your message in the talk page didnt appear on my I apologise for that!--Huaiwei 14:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The watchlist only displays the most recent edit for each article. :-) — Timwi 15:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Singapore, Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)[edit]

Hi Huaiwei,

1. Despite many earlier failed attempts, I'm not giving up on making Singapore a Featured Article! =D I've did some bit of touching up and changes of images on it, let me know how is it now, and if it's up to the standard to actually send it for FAC again (or do some touchup if nessecery).

2. If Singapore passes FAC, Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) would be the next one on the list. The article layout should be based on the FA MTR that I've done some time back. I'll let you know later in due time.

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :)

Read this page. H'm, it's kewl! Just a bit messy, to be honest. Time is needed to re-construct the layout. I hope it could be the next-big-screen, with luck! =)
PS I don't mind re-drawing the metro system map as you wish...though I knew you guys are cool at CG, I suppose. ;P
--Jerry Crimson Mann 15:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Photos will pose quite a problem though, as many have unknown sources. I actually plan to go down and span photos with the camera myself. =D - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I need to find my camera somewhere, I forgot where I placed it. :/ Anyway, I think the problem also with the MRT article is that some of the sections need to be moved off to their own articles...(amazing, isn't it? 9 months ago, History of Singapore was a mere stub, now we even need to fork off the MRT article). Same principle applies, general to specific, I guess. -- Natalinasmpf 16:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)