Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Singapore/2008 archive

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've found that many of the MRT station articles are littered with sections on minor accidents. Now, events like bomb scares (Yishun) or train collision (Clementi), those are definitely fine. But to include everything from suicides to slipping on the escalator... not to be insensitive to suicides, but those are minor issues, no matter how you look at it. OK, these may be featured on the news, but it's really hardly worth a mention here. A review of the all the (above ground) station pages should be required to filter these needless information, and to keep what we really need.

If you want a list of accidents, maybe collect them on a single page, for example, List of accidents on the Singapore MRT, although I can't guarantee it won't get VfD. Like I said, most of it should not even be on Wikipedia. 리지강.wa.au (의논하다|기여) 16:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm replying to bring attention to an issue I feel is plaguing the pages of the MRT stations. Please refer to my previous reply for details. Thanks. 리지강.wa.au _talk 19:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to articulate this, so please bear with my vagueness. I think these minor incidents are indeed worthy enough - not to warrant their own article, but to be mentioned in their respective MRT station articles. While in other places, perhaps, suicides and slips are more commonplace, in Singapore, they are nearly always reported - not only by tabloids, but by the dominant English language broadsheet as well, on multiple occasions. These minor incidents build a (for lack of a better word) history for each station that makes them unique, beyond their names and locations and design. Just my view. - SpLoT // 08:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Only accidents which received significant press coverage should be mentioned on Wikipedia. "Significant press coverage" means that multiple Singaporean newspapers have published multiple articles/news reports on the accident over a reasonably long period (at least a week). Notable accidents may be mentioned in articles about the MRT stations in which the accident occured, as well as in

Security on the Mass Rapid Transit

.

Unless there are many notable accidents and several references which cover accidents on the MRT in general, I see no need for a Accidents on the MRT article (it should not be a list). Deletionists seem to think that "Singaporean" means "non-notable". Creating Accidents on the MRT would simply prove them right and give them another article to nominate for deletion.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not bring the deletionist label in to this... I think there shouldn't be a fixed threshold - discretion is necessary, but of course we shouldn't add any incident which was not reported by the mainstream media (i.e. with significant circulations). - SpLoT // 11:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As you said, "in Singapore, they are nearly always reported". And really in Singapore, since the population is much smaller, and the MRT has a pretty good reputation in service, I'm not surprised that even a slip would be reported. I'm trying to look at the bigger picture and see what is important and what is trivial. For example, slips or any other minor accidents can really be collected in

Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit and then summarized as a statistic. And then don't get me started on list of "First trains and last trains" on some of the MRT pages. 리지강.wa.au _talk

16:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that accidents can be considered to be encyclopedic. Otherwise, each independent article would be too short. Bishan for instance, has a talk about the accidents as because of its history as a cemetery. This is what makes accidents unique. It may be little in each individual part, but when combined, shows the urgency of having platform screen doors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.9 (talk • contribs) 05:44 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, unencyclopedic details should not be added to or kept in articles just to make them longer. Neither should articles be used to support a campaign for platform screen doors or any other cause. "[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox|Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising." However, I would say that whether facts are unencyclopedic depends on the context. If an article about an MRT station discusses safety concerns that people have because of the lack of doors, then information about accidents, suicides or other incidents at the station may not be unencyclopedic. Similarly, 137.132.3.9 says that information on accidents that occur at Bishan station are noteworthy because of its history as the site of a former cemetery. Is there anything in the article that links this fact to the accidents? Is there any evidence that superstitious people feel that there is a connection? (Note that there is a related discussion below at #MRT articles containing excessive and unencyclopedic detail.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think "

Although referencing is an important measure of GA potential, it is by no means the only one. Structure is also very important. Problems with structure usually suggest that the article is not "broad in its coverage" and may have POV issues as well. Moreover, dealing with structural problems often calls for a complete rewrite of the article. Reading FAs and GAs on ethnic groups should give you an idea how

Indians in Singapore should be structured. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk

) 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't think there was anything particularly wrong with the structure of the article. Anyway, afraid I'm not volunteering to adopt this article – am too busy at the moment. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 02:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I just thought you should know what I look for in a "potential GA". Besides referencing and structure, I also consider prose quality. However, knowing that most Singaporeans are not native speakers of English, my standards for prose are quite low. Since stylistic and image problems are normally easier to deal with, I usually overlook them when evaluating an article's GA potential. (Of course, such problems must be mentioned when nominating an article for the GA drive!)

Although the structure of

Indians in Singapore

is far from perfect, improving the structure should not be too difficult and is unlikely to require a complete rewrite. A greater concern is that the article is not written in summary style. Here is how I think the article should be structured:

• A short Etymology section, discussing the definition of "Indian" (already present).
• A long History section, detailing the migration of Indians to Singapore (can be created by merging several existing sections).
• A short Demographics section, containing various statistics about Indians in Singapore, such as languages, religion, education and income (some information is already included).
• A long Culture section, detailing Singaporean Indian culture, such as cuisine, music and literature (some information is already included).
• A short Institutions section, discussing various Singaporean Indian institutions, such as self-help groups (more information is needed).

When I am free, I might help reorganise and improve the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to repost these comments on "

I have cross-posted my comments to

Talk:Indians in Singapore per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk

) 14:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just a note to any SGpedians who want to check this out. The article says this project should be finished "by 2007" and it's 2008 now. Is the project finished? Anyone want to go over there and get a picture/more details for the article? Peace. Nesnad (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am currently translating some of the Singaporean-related articles here over to the Chinese Wikipedia. Due to syntax and other issues, translations will e a lengthy process. I was wondering if anyone can help me with this? I am currently translating

I haven't been editing on Wikipedia for awhile, but for those who haven't heard yet, Jimmy Nah has just passed away. Might be a good time to expand his article and clean it up, add a picture, tag it with the current event template, etc. I'd help out but I'm enlisting into NS in about two days, so I thought I'd just leave this heads-up here. -ryand 13:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This raises an interesting point. As news articles on the websites of Singapore newspapers such as

Today are usually only accessible on-line for no longer than one week, and few people have access to Factiva, it is often difficult to find out biographical information about Singaporeans (birth and death dates and places, names of spouses and children, education, career highlights, etc) or facts about events relating to Singapore. In fact, obituary notices, which may state the birth and death dates of persons and the names of their family members, do not appear on-line at all. I wonder if it is feasible for interested editors who have access to the print versions of Singapore newspapers or who regularly read news websites to note down such key information, complete with references. One way might be to create an article like "2007 in Singapore" at the beginning of each year and have different editors interested in different topics constantly add information to it on topics of their choice. A few people could keep an eye out for deaths of significant persons, others could look out for sports news, and so on. In addition, facts and citations which deserve to be recorded somewhere for later retrieval but which are not presently in an encyclopedic form can be parked on a temporary page such as "2007 in Singapore/info". Anyone think this is a good idea? More importantly, is it something that can be sustained long-term? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk

– 05:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So why do goodwill contributors of SGpedian Resources randomly rate articles without giving a short summary to explain THEIR ratings. Then if they rate without giving a summary on why they rate the article so, then how can the authors of the page know what's wrong with the page??? Anti.Exams (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a problem confined to the {{

WPBiography}} without reasons being given. Personally, I don't think this is a major problem, as the rating just provides a rough idea of the quality of the article. (In fact, it may be a good idea for the {{SG}} template to be amended by deleting the sentence that you set out above.) If you would like specific comments on an article you have created or expanded, I'd suggest that you nominate it for peer review or put a note on this talk page requesting that another SGpedian comment on it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk

– 05:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This category name is highly confusing, since

"Category:Chess players from China"? Why is this matter being discussed in this forum anyway – does it relate to Singapore in some way? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can category pages have disambiguation links at the top? If so, a disambiguation link to Category:Xiangqi players should suffice. I do not see how this query pertains to Singapore, except that two Singaporean chess players - Wu Shaobin and Ignatius Leong - are incorrectly listed in the category and should be removed from it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, don't think "xiangqi" (the Mandarin term for Chinese chess) is well known enough to most English speakers. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could be wrong about that. Just noticed that "

Chinese Chess" redirects to "Xiangqi". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk

– 00:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that Chinese Chess is the common English name for the game. Anyways, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_5#Category:Chinese_chess_players for discussion. 70.55.87.75 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've recently created a navbox {{

If the article is written, the Pedra Branca lighthouse should be mentioned. Awaiting the decision on Pedra Branca!

talk

) 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Horsburgh Lighthouse already exists. May I also point out that the outcome of the case may actually have no bearing on the lighthouse ownership, as Singapore do operate several lighthouses on Malaysian soil.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw this today, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Majulah_Singapura . What a terrible thing to do, choosing such a username and then accused of being a sockpuppet of a bad user.

With admin Mailer Diablo retiring and Khaosworks who notes that he is not an active contributor, this leaves only Natalinsmpf (now La goutte de pluie) as the only S'porean admin. If I am promoted, I will be happy to assist any S'porean WPedian in need. Even if I'm not, I'm still willing to help.

Perhaps you should ask the blocking admin (Raul654) to explain his block. Since taking her O Levels in late 2006, La goutte de pluie has been relatively inactive; however, Rifleman 82 had a successful RFA in November 2007 and should be added to the list of Singaporean admins. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to call on all members here to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines Flight 380, where a horde of users seem intent to downplay an obvious significant moment in the history of flight, and to disregard Singapore Airlines as a major contributor to its significance. This is not a call for nationalist reactions, but a call for basic unbiased common sense to prevail. Thank you!--Huaiwei (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Our best friend is at it again, now shifting his attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Airlines awards and accolades, where Singapore Airlines awards and accolades is also nominated. This is the second Afd nomination by the same fella with regards to the SQ article.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to inform that

I am not seeing much of this at my end, either on the SG articles I worked on to pass GA or at the Belarusian articles that are at the FA/GA standard. However, I will keep my eyes out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive users have always been an issue to be tackled with here, which for some reason happens to be on Singapore-related articles. It may be due to Singapore's unique situation on the global arena as a rather controversial entity, thus inviting the attention of some individuals who cast a suspicious eye on anything positive concerning this country. Singaporeans who attempt to counter these activities directly can be deemed to be brainwashed "government lackeys", thus attracting even more intense reactions, often degenerating into ridiculous mud-slinging which can drag on for years. This is the issue that Singaporeans will always have to face (even in real life), but I feel the best long-term response may be to simply strive hard to write in a well-balanced manner beyond what we may be conditioned to write on as per the spirit of NPOV. It may not be easy (my own difficulties on Singapore Airlines related articles is one great example. Just see the preceding section for a life demonstration), but once that is achieved, there is simply little disruptive editors can do.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to apply

Ockham's Razor

to the following alternative explanations:

1. There is a vast, shadowy, multinational conspiracy of editors which exists solely to suppress and pervert True(tm) information about Singapore in general and your edits in particular.
2. Every now and then, you're wrong.

I await your well-balanced, non-mud-slinging reply in the spirit of NPOV. Jpatokal (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And the answer is as demonstrated herein: [1]. Nationalism at its finest, no less?--Huaiwei (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please

GA criteria. Not everyone who proposes the delisting of Singapore-related GAs, whether through a GA reassessment request or one of the GA sweeps, is motivated by "ultra-nationalistic agenda & POV". For example, last week, Canadian Paul, an experienced GA reviewer, sweeped through the "Actors, models, performers and celebrities" category of GAs and placed Fann Wong on hold, citing several minor concerns. I believe that he hopes the article will be improved so it can keep its GA status. Since Fann Wong is "nearly there", why not address the issues? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk

) 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe Aldwinteo is raising this issue against anyone reviewing a Singapore-related FA or GA as you are suggesting. While all of us would like to assume good faith, bad faith editors do abound once in a while, and if left unchecked, can leave a trail of damage which may go unnoticed. It is simply uncommon for a user as new as Coloane to call for a GA review that early in his editing career (this was his 20th edit, in fact), and I doubt it is coincidental that condescending and insulting remarks are made by the same individual against an entire nationality. It was only through my tussles with him in one article did I discover his colourful editing history, which has not only sparked disputes with Singaporeans, but also with many other users. Perhaps Aldwinteo's tone may be a tad extreme, but I do not see it as an issue to warn others of potentially disruptive editors.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Except for hardcore vandals & trolls, I've always assume good faith as I rarely post comments or intervene all these while as I'm a Exopedianist in Wikipedia. I'm fully aware & familiar with the procedures, the going-ons & discussions of the respective WikiProject groups, i.e. GAC/FAC/GAR/FAR/GA/FA sweep groups due to my involvement in the GA project which I undertook on my own initiative for SGpedia since Sep 2007, which the SGpedian community have credited me for earlier. I share my concern here earlier when I noticed increasing cases or repeated users that abuse or 'game the system' for selfish reasons, revenge or whatever cause (Nationalistic/POV/Anti-'certain group/country' etc), that disrupts the Wiki community or degrade the quality of the articles at the expense of good faith & hard work of past & existing contributors. Besides the abovementioned case, there're a few similar cases which I did not mentioned that were dealt with earlier or currently been reported at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents now. u can check out the cases or its archives there and at the GA/FA sweeps for details. I hope fellow SGpedians do read & understand my msg in the proper context. On this note, I end my conversation here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, there is a blog to share your views about Wikipedia with SGpedians', notifications of community meets, and also to post kopitiam topics (not related to Wiki, anything you like). Here, you can post anything you like. If you wish to write on the blog, please let me know. The blog is semi-private, so if you want to read/write, do email me. All are welcome to post and read. Terence (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Tonight, vandal

ColourRedux, apparently a sock puppet of ColourWolf, posted a reply here, but his post was reverted by Chensiyuan. In the post, he claimed that he has given up, but recommends we delete articles on Channel 8 dramas. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

J.L.W.S., we cannot bow to these wikiterrorists! It is absolutely deprived morally, as well as being unashamedly corrupt!

Arbiteroftruth (talk

) 07:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Whether I am ColourWolf or not doesn't matter. What matters is that the vast majority of the Mediacorp dramas are so obscure that it gives people the chance to introduce fake information without gathering much attention. In fact, there are still Singapore articles that still have remnants of ColourWolf's edits. Inaccuracies are still a high in Singapore articles.Nosey Fellow (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbiteroftruth, I think you misunderstood my post. I merely summarised and paraphrased his reply, but did not state whether I agree or disagree with him. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Upon perusing some MRT station articles, I found that someone has taken it upon themselves to list every single train delay or accident in MRT articles, even where the "incident" in question is simply a 20 minute delay. Here is the worst example I have seen, in

"On the evening of 25 December 2007, Some technical difficulties were experienced along the North East Line caused delays for train services. A member of the public who was affected by the delay said she waited for at least 20 minutes for the train at the station."

I feel that this information is unencyclopedic and also fails

I agree. Only major incidents should be noted. Mark, I think you're justified in going ahead and removing the unencyclopedic information. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Only incidents like that of one many many years ago when 2 trains collided are noteworthy. IMO, even suicide cases are not encyclopedic enough to be mentioned. - oahiyeel ^talk 03:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, should change to lists like List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom - Fernvale (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I have a bone to pick with deletionists who think "Singaporean" means "non-notable", I certainly do not want Singapore-cruft to remain on Wikipedia. Are MRT stations, local drama serials, etc. really notable? If so, we need to develop guidelines on how such articles should be structured and what information should (and should not) be included. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say MRT stations sure are notable, just based upon the fact that just about every other train station in the world has an article already. As for the local dramas, assuming they are shown on Channel 5 or 8 or similar, then they would reach a large audience and therefore should satisfy the notability requirement. - Mark 15:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a train enthusiast, but I agree that there are aspects of MRT and LRT stations which make them notable, including their history, architecture and the part they play in the MRT network as a whole. I notice there are articles about present and former London Underground stations, for instance. As for local drama serials, I don't see why these shouldn't be notable. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there's no reason why articles about niche subjects shouldn't be included for people wanting to find out more about them. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, note that there is a related discussion above at #MRT Accidents wiki-worthy?. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If they are notable, we should develop guidelines for such articles, covering how they should be structured, what information should (and should not) be included and where to get reliable sources for them (remember, reliable sources establish notability). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope this discussion doesn't die out like the previous one. Here's a set of guidelines that I have come up with:

• Introduction: name, station number, location
• History: opening date of each line, major incidents (mock terrorist exercise, train collisions, terrorist threats, bomb hoaxes)
• Future: connections, extensions
• Prominent extras: e.g. Bishan (superstition), Art in Transit, other relevant info that makes the station stand out (and by that I don't mean the type of info listed below)
• A short list of nearby prominent structures (shopping centres, major buildings, major attractions). Not supermarkets, pri/sec schools or jcs, food outlets, libraries
• Bus connections (this section needs to be standardized throughout all the articles)
• Locator map
• s-rail template (before and after stations)

• Finally, an infobox needs to be drawn up to summarise all the information: name, alphanumeric codes, a picture of the station, URA planning area, operator, opening dates, associated bus interchange, no. of platforms, no. of exits. Any other related info is welcome.

These are sections that I think we generally agree should not be in the articles:

• Slips, falls, trips, pushes and suicides
• Trains stopping, stuttering or failing
• STOMP articles - which is pretty much tabloid news
• First train, last train
• Shops and facilities within the station

Some people feel that more of the above info is better, but they are useless. It's just unnecessary padding to make the article seem large. Feel free to discuss the above. 리지강.wa.au _talk 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

On

Please note that unlike the disruptive Coloane, Canadian Paul is an experienced GA reviewer and I will assume good faith, that he is motivated by a desire to improve the article, rather than "ultra-nationalistic agenda & POV". Since the issues are relatively minor and easy to address, I nominated Fann Wong for the GA drive and adopted it. Could others adopt the article and collaborate with me to address the issues, so that Fann Wong can become a GA again?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who are ignorant on GA sweeps & GAR, the abovementioned reviewer is one of the 17 official GA sweepers as per

COI earlier. -- Aldwinteo (talk

) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should stop focusing on Coloane. Instead, we should try to improve Fann Wong by addressing Canadian Paul's concerns. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Today I deleted nine articles, all about Singaporean hospitals or libraries, which were all copyright violations. All the revisions of these articles were tainted by the copyright violations. I would appreciate people more familiar with the subjects considering if they are notable and, if so, writing stubs for them.

The list of articles which I deleted are as follows:

• Ang Mo Kio - Thye Hua Kwan Hospital
• St Luke's Hospital, Singapore
• Adam Road Hospital
• Jurong West Community Library
• Bedok Community Library
• Toa Payoh Community Library
• Queenstown Community Library
• Bukit Merah Community Library
• Marine Parade Community Library

I found them when I noticed a user had removed a bot-added copyvio notice from a page he or she created, and investigated further. The reason I did not re-create the articles myself at this stage is because I am unfamiliar with whether individual public libraries are considered sufficiently notable to have an article for each. - Mark 10:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Chinese New Year is here again! Have a pair of Mandarin oranges, everybody! However, since I am not married, I cannot give you guys hongbaos. May the Year of the Rat see SGpedians write more GAs!

Speaking of GAs, would anyone like to collaborate with me on Fann Wong or Odex's actions against file-sharing? Both articles have considerable GA potential. All they need is a little polishing, which I am willing to do, as long as others will pitch in and help.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Gongxifacai!

• Having
  main page FA on 9 August. "Relevant to our national pride" should be broadly defined; examples of things that are "relevant to our national pride" include, but are not limited to, national symbols, sportsmen or other people who have done our country proud, unique aspects of our history or culture and unique achievements of the Little Red Dot. Note that 9 August is the date the FA appears on the main page, not the date it passes FAC. The article should pass FAC at least two weeks in advance or Raul654 is unlikely to entertain our request to feature it on the main page on 9 August
  .
• Two Singapore-related articles attaining GA status on 9 August. As a member of
  WikiProject Good Articles
  , I can arrange with members of the project to have both articles nominated and reviewed on 9 August. In fact, I would be happy to write one or both GAs, as well as assist any SGpedian writing a GA for our National Day celebrations.
• Each of the four
  DYK refreshments
  on 9 August containing an entry from a Singapore-related article. All articles should be chosen in advance, with considerable research being done before the articles are written on 5 August. I might write at least one of the DYK articles.
• Creating a section on this talk page on 9 August, for everyone to wish the Lion City a happy 43rd birthday and have some friendly banter.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, J.L.W.S. No, February is not too early to start thinking about a project like this. It does sound interesting. Have you checked if it is Wikipedia policy in the first place to permit having so many elements relating to the same country appear on the home page on the same day? I don't want to be a wet blanket, but I'm just wondering if it is at all possible. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there is any policy against having a Singapore-related FA and Singapore-related DYK on the main page at the same time (GAs do not appear on the main page, unfortunately). The DYK rules state: "No DYK installment should have more than two entries relating to one country, topic, or issue, and no more than one is even better." In my opinion, having one entry from a Singapore-related article in each refreshment is fine. However, if there is sufficient support for this proposal, I will seek approval from "Upstairs", by posting on relevant policy/process talk pages. If Upstairs says cannot, then cannot lor.

For this to be a success, we need SGpedians to write the FA, GAs and DYK articles. Any volunteers? SGpedian legend Aldwinteo, with 7 Singapore-related GAs to his name, appears to have retired, but Jacklee, the primary contributor to 5 Singapore-related GAs, is still active. There are others, such as Chensiyuan, who are prolific GA (and even FA) writers, but unfortunately do not contribute to Singapore-related articles; they should be invited to be part of this. As I mentioned above, I will write one of the DYK articles and one or both GAs.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Due to personal commitments & travels, I'm currently semi-retired since Nov 2007 but still assisting the community as a '

POV pushers whenever possible. I may embark on the GA project once again after I've fully settled back in S'pore a few months later. Fyi, u folks can approach a SGpedian newbie, Marcuslim (contributions) another history/heritage writer like me, to contribute more DYKs as part of this on-going DYK/GA drive. u can check out one of his latest writings - Chua Ek Kay created on Feb 14 (Do touch-up & nominate it for DYK if nec). I'm currently guiding him along the way but do appreciate u folks to advise or assist him whenever necessary so that we cld have a bigger pool of DYK/GA writers instead of the same old tired faces now. -- Aldwinteo (talk

) 03:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hildaknight asked me to commonet on this. I'll *tentatively* say I have no objections to have a Singapore-related FA while no more than one DYK at a time are also Singapore related. Raul654 (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another proposal for the National Day 2008 celebrations: jazzing up the SGpedians' notice board. I've been tinkering with a new home page on and off for a while. Have a look at what I've done so far at Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board/underconstruction. Suggestions for improving it are welcome below, as well as help with fixing the large gap in the right panel – I can't figure out how to get rid of it! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an error in the Wikipedia list as it does not include Singapore's Embassy in Bangkok. More generally, I'd like to ask why Singapore has such very limited representation overseas. It is a wealthy country and can afford it. For example, according to the Wikipedia list, there is no representation at all in South or Central America, while the representation in Asia omits both Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Maybe the list is in error. Perhaps the relevant Ministry can fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.8.76.152 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am an honors undergraduate from National University of Singapore doing a thesis on motivations to contribute to Wikipedia. Please help me out by taking part in this online survey, https://esurvey.nus.edu.sg/onlinesurvey/wikipedia_survey.htm.

The approximate time to complete this survey is 10 minutes. Please be assured that your responses will be kept strictly confidential and only be restricted within the use of my academia. Your help will be deeply appreciated. Thanks a million!

Yours sincerely, MeiHui

Participant Information Sheet

A study on knowledge-sharing motivations in Wikipedia.

Principal investigator: Dr. Cho Hichang Organization: National University of Singapore, Arts and Social Sciences Department, Communications and New Media Department. Email add: [email protected]

Co-investigator: Chen MeiHui Organization: National University of Singapore, Arts and Social Sciences Department, Communications and New Media Department. Email add: [email protected]

Purpose of research

The aim of the study is to study the motivations behind contributing to Wikipedia.

You are invited to participate in a research. This information sheet provides you with information about the research. The Principal Investigator (the research doctor or person in charge of this research) or his/her representative will answer all of your questions about this research. Read the information below and email the Co-investigator, Chen MeiHui, at [email protected] any questions about anything you don’t understand before deciding whether or not to take part.

Eligible participants and duration of research

Only members registered under Wikipedia between the ages of 21 to 70 are allowed to take part in the online survey. The survey link will be send randomly to them once in the period between February and March. The members will be contacted via their Wikipedia email accounts.

Approximate number of participants.

The number of participants is targeted at approximately 200.

What will be done in this research

The data you indicate in the survey forms will be used solely in the research. The data will be analyzed as statistics and quotes.

Protection of Privacy & Integrity of Data

Identifiable information will never be used as the survey is conducted anonymously. The data the respondent provided in the surveys will be used strictly for our academic purposes. As such, there will be strong protection of privacy and integrity of the data.

Risks to participants An online survey will be disseminated to the participants. There are no risks associated with the participation in this research.

What are the possible benefits to me and the others? There are no monetary or direct benefits to the participants of the online survey. However, the responses collected will contribute to academic research. The results of the online survey will help us to understand what factors motivate members of Wikipedia as well as the factors that inhibit others from contributing. These will have implications on what can be done to increase contribution from the Wikipedians as contributions from members will be pivotal to the success of a user-generated content type of virtual community (i.e. Wikipedia).

Refusal to participate in this research Your decision to participate in this research is voluntary and completely up to you. You can refuse to participate in this research. Contact Details for further enquiries

Please contact the Co-investigator, Chen MeiHui at email [email protected] for all research-related queries.

For an independent opinion regarding the research and the rights of research participants, you may contact a staff member of the National University of Singapore Institutional Review Board (Attn: Mr Chan Tuck Wai, at telephone 65161234 or email at [email protected]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woaikandianshi (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed

Here's another proposal for the National Day 2008 celebrations: jazzing up the SGpedians' notice board. I've been tinkering with a new home page on and off for a while. Have a look at what I've done so far at Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board/underconstruction. Suggestions for improving it are welcome below, as well as help with fixing the large gap in the right panel – I can't figure out how to get rid of it! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, isn't anyone interested in this at all? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. However, what are the goals of the new design? Facilitating collaboration? Attracting new SGpedians? Answering that question will help you make various decisions regarding structure and aesthetics. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the current notice board looks tired and needs freshening up. Having a revamped home page that looks more professional may certainly attract more editors to sign up as SGpedians. I'm not sure, though, that merely changing the way the home page looks will facilitate collaboration, so I wouldn't put that down as one of the goals. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As part of the

SGpedians, please give a round of applause to Hurricanehink. He did a great job addressing all of Nehrams2020's issues. As a result, Tropical Storm Vamei will retain its GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This article currently reads like an advertisement! Could someone with sufficient knowledge help to edit it appropriately. Also, it has been suggested for merger into the

A fair-use justification has already been added to Image:NS logo.jpg by another editor. Have a look at the image description page to see how to do so for future reference. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear all, it has come to my attention that the usage of images from Straits Times electronic copy, became quite a concern with some users, and they've shared their kind concerns with me. While I take the lead from a reply by ST journalist Sandra leong on copyright infringement, and kindly being posted on Tomorrow.sg's website at http://tomorrow.sg/archives/2006/07/30/straits_times_infringes_on_copyr.html, I would still like to refer to the kind opinions of fellow Sgpedians who have been here longer than I did, and shed some light on this issue. As a fellow person passionate about Singapore issues, I do not wish to continue to ruffle feathers of other users (apologetically done so to the kind users who have shared their initial concerns with me) With that, I hope to hear the views of other Sgpedians here. Thank you! :) -- Marcuslim (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Marcus. As you're aware I've been in conversation with you on the topic. For the benefit of other SGpedians, let me expand on what I've said on the matter.

• The discussion on Tomorrow.sg related to concerns that people had over The Straits Times making use of photographs from websites without the consent of or even attributing the authors. Journalist Sandra Leong's response was that no issue of privacy was involved as there is no privacy law in Singapore.
• What Ms Leong said was true, and therefore no persons featured in the photographs (or their personal representatives, if they are deceased) have a legal claim for breach of privacy.
• However, Ms Leong conveniently sidestepped the issue of copyright, which is distinct from privacy law. (This point was raised by several people who participated in the Tomorrow.sg discussion.) There most certainly are copyright laws in Singapore which prohibit the reproduction of copyrighted images without consent: see the Copyright Act (Cap. 63, 2006 Rev. Ed.).
• Even if The Straits Times (or any other publisher) has used images in breach of copyright, this does not give any of us a right to copy those images from The Straits Times and reuse them on Wikipedia. That is still a breach of copyright and contrary to Wikipedia policy, even if the copyright owner is unknown.
• The only ways that a copyrighted image can legitimately be used on Wikipedia are (1) if permission is sought from the copyright owner for the image to be licensed to Wikipedia under a free licence, or (2) an appropriate fair-use justification is provided for each use of the image in an article. If an image is used in three articles, then three separate fair-use justifications have to be provided: see, for instance, "Image:Coxford Singlish Dictionary.jpg". What constitutes an "appropriate" fair-use justification is difficult to say – it depends very much on the particular administrator assessing it. In general, the justification has to establish the importance of the image to the article and to explain why the copyrighted image cannot be replaced by a free alternative (perhaps because it is of a deceased person, captures an unrepeatable historical moment that is important to the article, or because it is unique – logos and book covers, for instance).
• Altering a copyrighted image by reducing it in size or resolution or by cropping it does not give one a copyright in the altered image. The altered image is regarded as a derivative work of the original image and is still subject to the original copyright. Therefore, altered images should not be uploaded to Wikipedia under GFDL or Creative Commons licences. As mentioned previously, such images can only be used if permission is sought or if fair-use justifications are provided.

I think I've correctly understood the law and Wikipedia's policies on the matter, but am happy to hear any other views on the matter. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's more or less correct, but one important nitpick: Wikipedia is run under US jurisdiction and can thus claim fair use under US law, but the Straits Jacket is in Singapore and thus subject to Sing copyright law. However, the Copyright Act sec. 35-37 do provide for "fair dealing". It's quite similar, but note this (emphasis mine):

Fair dealing for purpose of reporting current events

37. A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of current events —

(a) in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and a sufficient acknowledgment of the work is made

So yes, the ST can use others' work for reporting on current events, but only if they credit the author.

In your shoes, I'd take the ST to the Small Claims Tribunal: it's an open-and-shut case as far as the law is concerned, and their legal might is of no use there. Jpatokal (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that The Straits Times can rely on the defence of fair dealing for reporting current events, provided they properly acknowledge the works that they reproduce. (By the way, claims for breach of copyright can't be brought before a small claims tribunal. The jurisdiction of such tribunals is limited to claims relating to disputes arising from contracts for the sale of goods or the provision of services, claims in tort in respect of damage caused to property, and claims relating to disputes arising from contracts for the lease of residential premises not exceeding two years: Small Claims Tribunals Act (Cap. 308, 1998 Rev. Ed.), section 5(1).) The essence of my previous message, though, is that whether or not The Straits Times abides by the law, the use of images on Wikipedia needs to comply with Wikipedia policy. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an explicit reference for copyright being excluded? I don't see why "any claim in tort in respect of damage caused to any property" would not apply to intellectual property as well and the damage caused to the property owner by unauthorized reproduction. Jpatokal (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. You may well be right. Neither "tort" nor "property" is defined in the Act, and a checklist stated on the Small Claims Tribunals website does not indicate that intellectual property claims are definitely excluded from the jurisdiction of the tribunals. I'm not aware of any case that has decided the matter one way or another. By the way, the website also indicates that the current monetary limit for small claims is $10,000 ($20,000 by agreement), and not $30,000 as Marcus indicated. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To my understanding about copyrights from a layperson's point of view, the whole purpose of this copyright law is to protect the creator's rights from any other commercial sales / profiteering by other people who have, benefitted non-commercially as a result of this production by the creator. And if there need be to extract / cite information from its original source, we do need to provide credits and copyright information with of its creators.

To bring in Small Claims, and other jurisdiction, would mean there is profiteering involved in this case, doesn't it? And yes, I agree with Jack that such matters doesn't reach Small Claims Tribunals as they're more involved with ligitations involving commercial sales conflicts, and with items not more than SGD $30,000. In the case of our "Wiki-peding", wouldn't it suffice to jz simply accredit the source and owner of the photos, i.e. to the Singapore Press Holdings, for any ST FILE PHOTOS reproduced on Straits Times?Thanks for taking time to shed light on laws, Jacklee -- Marcuslim (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Marcus. You're right about the general purpose of copyright law. However, when using copyrighted images on Wikipedia where permission of the copyright owner has not been obtained, it is not enough just to provide the source and copyright owner. "

copyright tag on the image description page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk

– 03:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack, thanks for the new insight. I now appreciate your reasonings with clearer picture, knowing now it's not so much that the practice of copyright is in question, but it is more about application of our conducts when applying this copyright, and applying it that complies with Wiki's laws.

I have also spoken to a friend about this, and my friend sheds light that it may be difficult to obtain permissions from SPH, as she understands there is no authority that looks into rights and permissions on a user level, i.e. you can email a letter to them but nobody will reply. I did that too, and indeed this is the case. So how shall we get around this issue? -- Marcuslim (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I would suggest:

1. See if you can find a free image that can be used in the article. Check the Wikimedia Commons and Flickr.com (images that are tagged with the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) and Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) licences can be imported to the Commons using a tool called Flinfo). Or can an old image that is out of copyright be used?
2. Failing that, consider who you can contact to try and obtain permission for an image to be licensed to Wikipedia. Often, the owner of a website on which an image appears is the person to contact. If the photograph that you wish to use is of an individual, does he or she have an agent, manager or publicist? What about the company or organization that the person owns or works for? See "Wikipedia:Example requests for permission" and "commons:Email templates" for sample e-mails that you can use. I've had some success with this before.
3. Otherwise, consider whether the article really needs to have the particular non-free image that you wish to include. If so, as I mentioned above, upload the image and provide a detailed fair-use rationale complying with "
   copyright tag on the image description page. What you must do is explain why the image is important to the article and why the copyrighted image cannot be replaced by a free alternative (perhaps because it is of a deceased person, captures an unrepeatable historical moment that is important to the article, or because it is unique – logos and book covers, for instance). For an example, see "Image:Coxford Singlish Dictionary.jpg
   ". However, be aware that non-free images uploaded with fair-use justifications may be deleted by administrators if they do not feel that fair use of the images has been made out.

I hope that helps. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your safest option is not to use any images, lest you get into trouble with the anti-fair use brigade. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made some progress on finding out more about copyrights from SPH, and basically their answer is no money no licence. You have to pay - and pay quite a large amount - for the right to publish any of their images online for mass viewing.

SPH's recently launched search engine [[3]] will clearly indicate the prices and their usage rights, when you use their image search engines. Don't worry - searching is free. Otherwise, you may contact the following person who's in charge of access to archived SPH articles or to request copyright permission.

Sebastian Chow

Senior Manager

Database & Newslink

New Media - Internet Business Unit

Marketing

Singapore Press Holdings Limited

Tel : 65 3192060

E-mail: [4]

I hope this discussion has been useful, and continue to be for all Sgpedians with questions on copyrights in SPH. Many thanks to Jack and all users who've contributed to the discussion. Cheers --Marcuslim (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Last month, I posted a

I have identified four articles which are of high quality and are about something "relevant to our national pride". All we need is an SGpedian who is willing to improve one of these articles to FA status:

• Singapore - This article has improved considerably since it lost GA status in July last year. It is now very well-referenced, although rather messy. Topic-wise, this article is my first choice.
• Flag of Singapore - A national symbol is definitely "relevant to our national pride". Moreover, the primary contributor, Jacklee, is still active and has previously written an FA (about British author Richard Hakluyt). All that prevents this article from attaining GA status is a rather weak lead section and several other sections not being written in summary style. Once the article becomes a GA, FA status should not be too far away.
• Singapore Changi Airport
  - The success of Changi Airport and the awards it has won make it "relevant to our national pride". Unfortunately, since attaining GA status, the article has been the subject of several content disputes of varying severity; in addition, several sections are marked as short and requiring expansion.
• History of Singapore - Currently a GA and rated A-class. Apart from a copy-edit, not much is needed to get it to FA status.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I heard from various sources that the Singaporean Government bans

Yes, it's still illegal, but the punishment for the offence is that you get force-fed vegetables and made to serve another three years of

national service so that you get fit and healthy again. ;-) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk

– 01:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My local coffeeshop says no, they still serve me the dish when I order it. Man, the things these hoaxers do to see how gullible we can be sometimes... *BURP* -- Dave1185 (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please find information on the HarborFront Passenger Terminal, the Tanah Merah Ferry Terminal, and the Changi terminals. There's a new seaport under construction right? I read something about cruise ship operators not liking to unload their passengers next to freight trailers but Singapore not having a wide enough berth for them in a tourist terminal. Really, I don't know much about these places. Could somebody write something for them. If I did it, there would be little more than a stub. A stubette really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaronDierkes (talk • contribs) 09:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to state that I hailed from Teban Gardens. Secondly, I'm looking for user(s) who would be able to help me with more details or other interesting facts that can be added into pages of Teban Gardens or Pandan Gardens. Thank you. -- Dave1185 (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What can I say but thanks a million to Huaiwei & Chensiyuan for the help rendered to the two articles above. Still, that doesn't mean that it cannot be improved upon, so if anyone of you grew up here or has friend from here, please help me contribute more to this small little town to write down its page in history, I hate to see it go the way of Taman Jurong. Thanks again guys! -- Dave1185 (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the userbox {{User Singapore}}. It is now possible to specify that you are a "friend of Singapore" by typing "{{User Singapore|status=f}}", or that you "live in Singapore" by typing "{{User Singapore|status=r}}". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone improve on the page? I did my best, but alas, I am not Singaporean, and my knowledge of Singapore history is limited.

Hi abiteroftruth, I applaud your interest in this group of hardworking women. To share some facts, Samsui women typically comes from the place call Shan shui which means three rivers. While most people think of Samsui women as those who don on red headgears in respect to a tradition which started by Su Dongpo's mistress in the early dynasties, the truth is Samsui women also don blue headgears - and they come from the Teochew province in Guangzhou. Also, not all Samsui women work as labourers in construction sites. Some become majies (house maids) servants to European famillies living in Malaya. Hope this helps in your direction to writing the article -- Marcuslim (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Homerun (film)'s GA nomination was placed on hold by AnmaFinotera, who appears to be an inexperienced reviewer. I disagree with some of his comments. Thus the review would benefit from input from others who are familiar with film articles, the GA criteria or both. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has achieved GA status. Special thanks goes to my copy-editor, Haemo! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I've began my own quest to talk to artists, and attend live discussions about art and artists. I was wondering if Wikipedia accepts citations from recorded interviews? If so, how does one present it as a reference? Thanks for your advice -- Marcuslim (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your interviews of artists are not acceptable as references unless they are published in a reliable source, such as a mainstream newspaper or magazine. Perhaps you could ask the artists to point you to useful resources? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

With the creation of Ng Eng Teng's page, I'd like to start the ball on the thought of standardizing color codes for different pages created under Category:Singaporean artists - one color for each genre. Through the page on web colors, I picked out the Gainsboro color (#DC DC DC) for Singaporean sculptors, as it seems to aptly describe the color of stone and steel which they use commonly in their work. I'd like to hear other suggestions from other contributors what other appropriate colors would be good for genres listed here. Thanks! -- 03:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Singaporean painters -
2. Singaporean ink painters (this one's at the back of my head now) -
3. Singaporean calligraphers -
4. Singaporean photographers -

On

Thank u for your kind compliments. As for total GA count, I wish to clarify that the abovementioned article is my 10th GA (incl. a Thai geograhy article), not 9th as mentioned earlier. I got a few selected SG history/heritage articles to improve & nominate on hand before I call it a day next. Fyi, our total Singapore GAs is 21, not 20 to date. (Count this) -- Aldwinteo (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I only counted your Singapore-related GAs, although I am pleased to know that you wrote a GA about a Thai village, as such contributions also help

fight systemic bias. Ho Yuen Hoe is our 20th GA; our 21st is Homerun (film). Hopefully you will contribute two DYKs (and maybe even a GA) to the National Day celebrations programme before leaving. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk

) 11:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Have I not being doing that all along? When will

Sangha in Pali or Sanskrit from young. With Metta -- Aldwinteo (talk

) 03:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The article on

There is a discussion on whether to rename "

Hi hamu, there is already a category for Singapore comics artists under Category:Singaporean comics artists, so you can actually use it to develop local talents in that genre. At this point i've taken the liberty to combine people from this genre under that category, while requesting for removal of the other category called Category:Singaporean cartoonists. In my opinion the small industry in Singapore justifies the use of Comics artists category, that there isn't need to segment cartoonists and comics artists. Hope this existing category is helpful for you to build on. -- Marcuslim (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Very much so. Your input on category organization has been valuable. It's going to be slow-going, but I certainly hope we can expand on current and future Singaporean comics articles. If you know folks interested in that area, invite them over to

Wikiproject Comics

World Comics work group. :)

Hi Hamu, you may like to approach people from the Imaginary Friends Studios or the Association of Comics Artists Singapore, to help you contribute to your

Hello all, I'm working on reworking the article on Chuang Yi and because I live outside of Singapore, my hands are a little tied on some issues. I was hoping some locals might be able to help. I understand that CY distributes a number of American comic books, and I am trying to figure out if they are basically just selling the American versions, or if CY is actually involved in developing the contents of the comic books, say to comply with local censorship laws or to use lingo and cultural references more accessible to Singaporean readers. Also, are the comic books formatted like American comics (kind of like a skinny magazine on newspaper-like paper) or are they in book form like the Asian comics CY publishes? I just want to make sure I'm using correct terminology in the article. Thanks so much for your time! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 05:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Chuang Yi publishes in book format, not the DC comic format. And as far as I know they distribute chinese translated comics as their main biz. Hope this helps -- Marcuslim (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Although I hardly edit nowadays due to lack of time, I watch many of the pages he attacks and will be on the lookout for vandalism. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Chinese, Taiwanese, Singaporean, Malaysian actor and singer → Template:Infobox Chinese actor and singer

There has been a requested move at

A little dialog box will pop up displaying the coordinates in decimals, which can be copied and pasted for use elsewhere. This code can be bookmarked and then used in the future by selecting the bookmark. But take note not to move around the map before entering the javascript, as it affects the calculation.
Lastly, for those who want to take a step further and convert this to degrees and minutes, you can do so by copying the decimal figures found, and pasting them at this website called Calculatorcat.com.
cheers -- Marcuslim (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is getting inordinately long. I propose getting a MiszaBot to automatically archive conversations that have not been added to for 60 days. Does anyone object to this? If not, I will go ahead and set it up. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to setting up automated archival by MiszaBot. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've set it up. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In three words,

Thanks! We needed it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sompah MRT Station - oahiyeel ^talk 16:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Loa mun sheng has struck again, this time creating Somapah MRT Station, which, yet again, doesn't exist and there is no verifiable documents which we can draw from to prove that there is such a station. Could the one (I believe it was oahiyeel) who put up the AfD the last time please do it again for this one? Thanks. 리지강.wa.au _talk 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• It is done, I have tagged the article for speedy deletion as per CSD: G4. Anyways, I have told the user to state his source clearly or the article will be deleted for good. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted shortly after I posted a comment on the talk page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Some IP edits have made changes to the accident section in several MRT articles. I have no idea if they are genuine edits or simply vandalism. Please see diffs here, here and here. There might be more on other articles that I hadn't noticed.

Also, this brings me to the next point: are these accidents really noticeable enough to warrant an entry on these pages? Accidents happen everyday in every part of the world, and it would seem to be "overkill" to list all of them. Maybe just the more noticeable ones; like the 1st ever MRT accident or something really huge and rare like the car that went onto the track etc... - oahiyeel ^talk 06:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The changes look like vandalism, as in some cases references have been deleted. Go ahead revert them. One of the difficulties is that the original information in the articles wasn't properly referenced to begin with, which means that it is difficult to verify if the edits were aimed at fixing inaccuracies. However, since the edits are unreferenced, I think it is better to err on the side of caution and revert them. I also agree with you that most of these accidents are not notable enough to be mentioned. Accidents probably only warrant a mention if they involve someone famous, lead to some well-publicized court case, or if they prompt some sort of safety review by the authorities. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion on the

• C = Option C, the winner of the initial poll and run-off. (US articles have US format dates, international format otherwise)
• R = Retain existing wording. (National format for English-speaking countries, no guidance otherwise).

If you wish to participate or review the progress of discussion, you may follow

Dear folks, in view of the highly anticipated first F1 night race & the various day-time Asia Cup Races by Porsche Carrera, BMW, Aston Martin this weekend from Sep 26-28 (hosted yearly until 2012). Kindly monitor the abovementioned & its associated articles - the

The Street Circuit and the GP article should not be merged. They are essentially 2 different things. You may wish to check out articles relating to F1 to see the norm. :) At the same time, I've suggested renaming the Street Circuit article, please see

Talk:Singapore Street Circuit#Official name. - oahiyeel ^talk

07:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

From my interaction with some F1 officials, sponsors & motoring writers such as Ian De Cotta (senior correspondent with Today newspaper) of The S'pore Grand Prix - 50 Years In The Making (2008) earlier, I was wondering why the article was named as such by the editors over there in the first place, or why it was not even renamed to its official name after official press releases or as mentioned in various sources later? Anyway, whether an article is to be renamed or merged, I'll leave it to the responsible editors, or the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One to discuss & decide its merits in future. Lastly, for those who wanna get a taste of 'racing' on the Marina circuit, or unable to attend the races this weekend, u can try your hand here for kicks. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The National Library is looking for writers for the Singapore Infopedia (http://infopedia.nl.sg/). This application is open to Master's degree students. • Articles will focus on selected topics on Singapore's history, culture, people, and events. • Articles will be between 800-1000 words long, excluding the list of resources. • Writers will submit a minimum of 1 completed article per month. • Writers will be paid at a rate of $100 per article.

Interested applicants may email their resume, together with a recent sample of their writing to: Ms Roberta Balagopal Senior Librarian Lee Kong Chian Reference Library Email: [email protected] Application closing date is 15 Sep 08.

• Not sure if this is allowed. Sorry if isn't! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.217.50 (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It's okay, but not many would qualify for it (I certainly don't =P) -
    Mailer Diablo
    18:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Neither do I; I am in my first year of junior college. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • As an honours graduate, I would not have qualified either even if I saw this notice last month!--Huaiwei (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've been categorizing Singapore-related images over at the Wikimedia Commons. I can't identify the location of this image. Is it Boat Quay, Clarke Quay, or somewhere else? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Robertson? Guessing. Chensiyuan (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's pre-renovation Clarke Quay (the pic is dated 2002). You can see the Swissotel Merchant Court building in the background. Jpatokal (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:52, 11 October 2008 (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.

I have just finished writing

If you're interested in joining the Wikipedia meet-up, please join our discussion. You can register for the Open Source Summit here. If you would like some assistance with local accomodations, you may email User:Bentong Isles.

The Philippine Wikipedia Community

I am a relatively new contributor to wikipedia and interested to contribute. I note that there are some Singapore articles with excesive vandalism that require protection or monitoring by active wiki editors to ensure integrity, ie Singapore's "GIC" and "Temasek"

Can someone point me to a concise step-by-step means of monitoring and reverting changes? In particular, a way to monitor (vandal's) phrases/paragraphs which constantly reappear - because these vandals simply "undo" the last Revert. How can we set up a Bot that can monitor and undo these changes automatically.

Is it difficult to allow only registered IDs to edit pages which are hardly edited, like the above? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.10 (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! To keep an eye on articles that interest you, add them to your watchlist by clicking on the "Watch" tab at the top of each article: see "

three-revert rule

. If you encounter problems or have other questions, post another message here.

There are already bots that monitor and automatically revert obvious vandalism, such as page blanking and the insertion of vulgarities. However, bots aren't smart enough to detect all types of vandalism, only humans can.

Wikipedia's general policy is to keep articles editable by all, including unregistered editors. Only if an article receives sustained vandalism will it be semi- or fully-protected. If you feel that a particular article is receiving high levels of vandalism, please list it at "Wikipedia:Requests for page protection". In addition, if you notice that a certain editor is currently in the midst of a vandalism spree, report him or her at "Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism".

Finally, do consider creating an account, and don't forget to sign and date your posts by adding four tildes ("~~~~") at the end. Happy editing! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I was really surprised to find no mention of the Tak Boleh Tahan campaign and current trial on WP, nor any updates in about two years about LKY's defamation suit against CSJ,

Regarding editors who edit Buses in Singapore, someone apparently posted this : http://sgforums.com/forums/1279/topics/339363 -

Bus Interchange and MRT Station pages

I think we have some issues about the bus services tables in the bus interchanges and MRT station pages which needs to be ironed out:

1) WAB services 2) Euro 3, 4 and 5 3) Premium Services. 4) References

To people who edit those pages

1) Is there a need to put WAB sign for all services which have B9TLs, K230UBs, OC500LE even though some of them have not been certified? Doing so would cause confusion. You do need to know that people using Wikipedia may not be bus fans, who knows they may even be wheelchair bound people and they may think that some services are WAB services even though they have not been certified. Furthermore, some services with the wheelchair sign beside them only got one or two cameos or hasn't used WABs for a long time.

2) Euro 3, 4 and 5: Again, is there a need to put these info? Do you think people care about what buses SBST and SMRT use on their services. Also, if you put Euro 3, 4 and 5, why not also put Euro 1 and 2 and pre-Euro in (I'm sarcastic here in case you don't know). Put it bluntly, its trying to tell people that we are new into higher emission standards. Throw face only.

3) Again, is there a need to put in premium services which don't start service from the interchange or terminal when the article is about services in the interchange or terminal. Yes, we do know that SBST's website does put the interchange/terminal where the buses are despatched from, but this again leads to confusion. Also, some premium service (especially SMRT ones) aren't even despatched from the interchanges, even though they serve the town. There is simply no need for such info to be included in the interchanges' pages.

4) For the references portion of interchange pages, is there a need to put in ALL press releases for services starting from an interchange even though there is no mention about the press releases in the article. Some of the press releases have little importance to the article at all, for example, road diversions.

A discussion is taking place about the "Yip Pin Xiu" article. Do join in. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we need an article about this guy. The photo is public domain, since it is a work of the US Government. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've updated "

I've finished a cleanup of the proposed guideline. Does anyone have any comments on it? If not, after about a week I will apply the {{Policy}} template to it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would request for more time to go through these guidelines. Care should be taken in this regard, for the article was started with ill-intentions over a brewing formatting dispute in another article.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Huaiwei and I have both worked on the proposed guideline. Does anyone have any further comments on it? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there have not been any further comments since 24 November 2008, I have made the draft a guideline. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, fellow SGpedians! Looks like we are approaching 40

I think I found a suitable replacement at WIPO. They, supposedly, have a collection of state symbols users can download. This seems to be the most correct arms I could find. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the web page stating that users can freely download and use the images? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are thinking of that Russian site, their drawing is very inaccurate and if the arms doesn't belong to the former Soviet Union, we can't use it under a free license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Soviet Union? No, I mean what web page from the WIPO site states that the state symbols, including the Singapore coat of arms, can be freely used? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good :) - oahiyeel ^talk 17:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Singapore.jpg. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my question: where on the WIPO website does it say that the state symbols can be freely used? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded the image under fair use, because the copyright is held by the SG Government. WIPO is just an organization that keeps copies of this symbols. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WIPO says that their information can be reproduced by anyone, as long as we give credit to WIPO for the image and as long as we follow any copyright terms attached to the image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't realize it had been uploaded to English Wikipedia and not to the Wikimedia Commons (where the old coat of arms image had been uploaded). That should be all right from the copyright perspective (or at least an arguable case for fair use can be made out if the image is not overused, for instance, by being placed in navboxes), although the point about compliance with the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act (Cap. 296) hasn't been addressed yet, so that is a potential source of difficulty. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at the laws later, but our use will be fine. We are using it for educational purposes and we are not describing ourselves as agents of the SG Government. I remember having to look at the same rules for the various coat of arms from the former USSR. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As regards the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act, see my comments at "Coat of Arms of Singapore" above. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am looking at the 2004 law right now, and from my reading of it, it says the arms cannot be used in a way that denotes possible confusion with the government. Clearly, we display the coat of arms in a way that no one can confuse us for being a government ministry. Also, we are going to limit the location of the arms to just two articles. We should be fine, but if really, really want, I could contact Ms. Njo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the effect of the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Rules (Cap 296, R1, 2004 Rev Ed) that were made pursuant the Act. For ease of reference, I reproduce the relevant sections:

3. — (1) Subject to paragraph (3), no person shall, without the prior written permission of the Minister or any authorised officer —

(a) print, publish, manufacture, sell, offer for sale or exhibit for sale;

(b) cause to be printed, published, manufactured, sold, offered for sale or exhibited for sale;

(c) send, distribute or deliver to, or serve on, any other person; or

(d) cause to be sent, distributed or delivered to, or served on, any other person,

any writing, material or object in or on which appears the Arms or any token, insignia, emblem or other thing that so nearly resembles the Arms as to be capable of being mistaken for the Arms.

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), no person shall, without the prior written permission of the Minister or any authorised officer, use or apply the Arms on any writing, material or object.

(3) This rule shall not prohibit —

(a) the display of the Arms by any Government department on or within the premises of any building owned by the Government or occupied by one or more Government departments; or

(b) the use or application of the Arms on any writing, material or object produced or commissioned by any Government department, or any public officer, for the purposes of the Government.

14. — (1) Any person who knowingly contravenes rule 3 (1) or (2) in relation to the Arms shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.

Rule 3(1) therefore prohibits, among other things, any person from publishing or causing to be published any "writing" in or on which the coat of arms appears, unless the written permission of the Minister for Communications, Information and the Arts has been sought beforehand. The term writing probably includes web pages, as the Interpretation Act (Cap. 1, 2002 Rev. Ed.) states that it includes "other modes of representing or reproducing words or figures in visible form". This means that any editor in Singapore who makes use of the coat of arms in Wikipedia articles is at risk of being prosecuted. (The authorities have no jurisdiction over editors who are outside Singapore.) Of course, it's hard to say whether the authorities would really take action against individual editors. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Or us as a hole, because they know for a fact we are not trying to misrepresent ourselves as agents of the government. That is usually what 9/10's of these laws. Even so, most of the time, Wikipedia only cares about copyright, not about the surrounding regulations when it comes to symbols. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sent an email to Ms. Njo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know when she changed her Chinese name to the one she uses today? Her name showed up as 范雯芳 in "Chronicle of Life" (缘尽今生).

Shut up, Arbiteroftruth, you are incompetent, and you have banned 3 innocent Wikipedia editors so far. As far as I know, those alert systems are non-notable for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.222 (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC) （Comment made by sockpuppet)

That comment is out of line. Please be civil in your dealings with all editors. To answer Arbiteroftruth's question: yes there is an alert system. It's called the open mobilisation system – see http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/topics/nsmen/opsready/Mobilisation.html. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The Enlistment Act of Singapore lists many methods that MINDEF could use to call soldiers up. Part VII, Chapter 30, Section C mentions the use of the television specifically. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This guy (under multiple IPs), who is almost certainly the same guy who went around inventing Indonesian airports, airlines and routes a while back, has been going around "Lejel Home Shopping" to tons of Singaporean MRT stations and shopping malls. This is an Indonesian TV shopping network [23] and (AFAIK) has no presence at all in Sg, certainly not in MRT stations. Please help clean up! Jpatokal (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)