Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Singapore: Difference between revisions

Line 208: Line 208:

::I have pre-emptively <s>moved</s> copied the index to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Singapore/Index of Singapore-related articles]]. Note there will be many orphans generated due to removal of all the indexes as a lot of articles are not marked orphans due to a link from an index. I will notify the relevant Wikiproject. [[User:Justanothersgwikieditor|~ JASWE]] ([[User talk:Justanothersgwikieditor|talk]]) 01:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, I remember cleaning up on the Outline a few years ago. There may be some new articles created in the time intervening that can be placed there, i.e. new organisations or standards that Singapore is now a party of, new key lists, etc. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 04:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

== On the page “History of the MRT (Singapore)” ==

I initially found the page’s title inconsistent with the main article {{-r|Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)}} ([[Special:History/Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)|history]])

Upon closer inspection, I found that the page had been moved without consensus ({{-r|Talk:History of the MRT (Singapore)}} had zero discussions in 2014) from {{-r|History of the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)}} to {{-r|Draft:History of the MRT (Singapore)}}, and, without any changes in content, to the current {{-r|History of the MRT (Singapore)}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_MRT_(Singapore)&action=history&date-range-to=2013-12-31&tagfilter=&offset=&limit=20 condensed history link] displaying latest 20 revisions on and before 31 December 2013 (UTC; all the revisions had been revdelled)

When reviewing more of the page history, I found that a lot of blocked accounts had edited on this page thanks to a gadget that can be found at [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets]] (Appearance), and after digging liberally into them, I found that at least one of them, {{vandal|Yosefshlomo}}, had been dragged to a sockpuppet investigation against the moving account, {{vandal|Josephsolomon92}}, which (per block log) was blocked temporarily in 2022 for sockpuppetry and hasn’t edited since

Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Josephsolomon92&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=2013-12-31&limit=500 their edit history on and before 31 December 2013 (UTC)], they had never used a talk page constructively, with their only use of talk pages being this series of disruptive edits on [[Talk:Downtown Line]] (diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Downtown_Line&diff=prev&oldid=587111256 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Downtown_Line&diff=next&oldid=587111256 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Downtown_Line&diff=next&oldid=587111338 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Downtown_Line&diff=next&oldid=587111608 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Downtown_Line&diff=next&oldid=587111813 5], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Downtown_Line&diff=next&oldid=587111869 6], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Downtown_Line&diff=next&oldid=587112013 7], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Downtown_Line&diff=next&oldid=587112172 8], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Downtown_Line&diff=next&oldid=587112210 reverted by User:Sni56996])

I’d appreciate if an admin could delete “History of the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)” and move “History of the MRT (Singapore)” to it

Thanks, [[User:Whyiseverythingalreadyused|Whyiseverythingalreadyused]] ([[User talk:Whyiseverythingalreadyused|t]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Whyiseverythingalreadyused|c]] <b>·</b> he/him) 07:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Today’s featured article requests

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Good article nominees

Peer reviews

Articles for creation

After discussing with Paper9oll, there needs to be a consensus on whether Hokkien and other “dialect” romanisations can be added to MRT pages, I personally feel that MRT pages should be allowed to have hokkien poj romanisation as many of the chinese names are intended to be phonetic transcriptions into hokkien and the MRT makes use of hokkien in safety announcements in certain stations. Same case with cantonese too, since the MRT makes use of it too for safety announcements at certain stations, though there is slightly less of an argument for cantonese inclusion since there is no MRT stations for places in singapore with chinese cantonese names so far like Whampoa.Warpswitch (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the MRT uses the language in safety announcements is not a relevant consideration in whether the page should include a romanisation. Personally, I think that there should be inclusion of the romanisation when the word itself is a phonetic transcription of a Hokkien or Cantonese term, otherwise I don’t see any reason why a Chinese dialect or language should be included. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Late reply, but an important note) Just to clarify, Cantonese and Hokkien announcement have only been used in stations that receive a lot of visits from the elderly, per this government source. Other than that, Mandarin is used for the Chinese announcements. Icepinner 02:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as policy is concerned, the inclusion of any language or dialect beyond English, Chinese, Malay, and Tamil depends on whether it is verifiable in reliable sources, not on original research and/or personal interpretation. As far as official usage is concerned, only Chinese text is published by the LTA, and that is in simplified Chinese. As far as my personal opinion is concerned, while I can see a case for including dialect romanisations in articles about places with clear historical dialect origins (and where reliable sources note this), I am not aware that this historical basis in naming extends to MRT/LRT station names. Based on what I’ve seen in reliable sources, they’re generally named after their geographic location, a local figure, or a landmark, not dialect heritage, and such names are still proper nouns rather than dialect forms. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The LTA does not specify which Chinese language they publish the official station names in at all. They are merely written in Simplified Chinese characters, which may be used for any language. Given that many of the stations are named after people or places that are verifiably from Min Nan words/names (such as Choa Chu Kang and Tan Kah Kee), whose exact standard romanizations and Chinese characters are well known public information, I think it is completely justified to add the Min Nan romanizations to aid English Wikipedia readers in reading the original Chinese names. I would also argue that for stations such as Orchard, which is verifiably named after Orchard (the place name), the Chinese characters are also verifiably from Min Nan rather than Mandarin, and as such it stands to reason that the Min Nan romanization should be used. As such, this has nothing to do with “dialect heritage” but rather accurately representing the reading of the Chinese characters of these place/people names for readers. Danielbunchie (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The key issue in the context of English Wikipedia is whether the inclusion of Min Nan romanisations is supported by reliable sources and not simply because it’s true. So far, this has not been addressed. In short, no reliable sources have been provided, which means the policy requirement is not met and the argument carries no weight. While it is true that LTA publishes station names in simplified Chinese characters, there is no indication from LTA or other authoritative sources that these are intended to represent Min Nan readings. Names of people and places (e.g., Choa Chu Kang, Tan Kah Kee) may indeed have historical Min Nan origins, but what Wikipedia requires is not interpretation of possible readings, but published reliable sources explicitly stating that the MRT station names are designated in Min Nan. Without such sources, adding Min Nan romanisations would fall under WP:OR or WP:SYN. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don’t follow your logic. In that case, should every single formal Chinese romanization in almost every Wikipedia page be deleted? This is a slippery slope as the majority of pages regarding Chinese-related things do not explicitly cite the source for the romanization, particularly when giving it in Mandarin pinyin (which is often far more egregious and often irrelevant to the article).

Take LKY’s article for example. None of the romanizations on his page are cited according to the criteria you propose, yet they are left up because clearly they are helpful and verifiable in that they are the modern standard romanizations in each of the languages listed, despite half of them being irrelevant (realistically only Hakka should be there as it explains the English title of the page). Danielbunchie (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to highlight again, since much of this discussion seems to be moving away from core policy, that on Wikipedia, arguments need to be grounded in policy and reliable sourcing rather than rhetoric. Pointing to other articles that may or may not follow guidelines is a form of WP:OTHERCONTENT/WP:WHATABOUTX, and it does not establish consensus or precedent. What matters here is whether the inclusion of romanisations on MRT station articles aligns with Wikipedia’s verifiability policy and avoids original research.

An important distinction and/or nuance to make here is that the MRT station name itself has no published Min Nan romanisation and therefore should not have one added to the infobox. However, where the station is named after a place or person with a verifiable Min Nan origin, that context can and should be reflected in an etymology or history section. Loosely illustrated in general terms, this could look something like:

The station is named after [person or planning area name here], a name derived from the Hokkien pronunciation of the Chinese characters [Chinese characters and romanisations here].^{[place the citation here]}

This approach would provide readers with the historical and/or linguistic context at issue here, while still staying within policy. Of course, this would still be subject to consensus here, as there seems to be a misconception that starting a discussion automatically creates consensus, which is not the case per WP:CONSENSUS. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151#Requested move 3 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a continuation of a previous discussion but with some more stuff added on from discussions on User talk:Icepinner#MRT and LRT stations etmology and Talk:Yew Tee MRT station#Etymology section. I think there should be etymology pages due to various factors as such as the official chinese names being from a range of origins such as different chinese names originating from various sources such as hokkien and mandarin phonetic transcriptions used in the chinese names or usages of calques of english names. I am in favour of using the format User:paper9oll proposed in the earlier discussion for etymology sections. Mainly users User:Icepinner and User:robertsky feel there should not be etymology sections on MRT station pages and if more users wish to express their opinions we can reach a WP:CONSENSUS on whether etymology sections should exist or not. Warpswitch (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Warpswitch, in your recent reply, you use Canberra MRT station as an example, and stated that even though the english name is obviously named after the australian city which is derived from Ngunnawal Kanbarra, the etymology of the official chinese name 坎贝拉 being a phonetic transcription into mandarin used in singapore is not mentioned anywhere on wikipedia.

But it is more naunced than that. It takes after the road name nearby, Canberra Road, which is “named after HMAS Canberra, the flagship of the Royal Australian Navy, to commemorate the visit of the Royal Australian Navy to Singapore.” (Source) And also, the area was part of the naval base there before the base was removed and the land was redeveloped. If anything, Canberra, Singapore should be written with this information be placed in there.

For Chinese phonetic names, there is a broad article discussing how foreign names are being transcribed into Chinese: Transcription into Chinese characters. Do we need to elaborate further in the articles when such transcriptions are basically a lookup of predefined character-sound pair? Are there Chinese names that deviate from this transcription scheme?

For Tamil, the Tamil script allows for phonetic approximation as well. i.e. கான்பரா (Canberra) is sounded as “Kāṉparā” (as taken from Google Translate).

For Hokkien, as I have mentioned, it does not make sense to refer and use the PoJ romanisation when the PoJ romanisation does not match with the eventual common romanisation of the person/place name in Hokkien, Lim Tek-lī vs Lim Teck Lee. The leap from the former to the latter is not documented anywhere on wiki (I think, after looking here Hokkien#Latin_script or Category:Romanization of Hokkien). – robertsky (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the dialects are unfortunately not official languages nor in regular parlance, though I wont deny there’s a rather limited ongoing effort to revive the dialects. That said, I’m fundamentally opposed in having the explanations for the Tamil and Mandarin Transriptions, and such information is really very trivial. I’ve worked on plenty of MRT articles, and while there are a few cases, especially on the CCL pages with LTA and other authorities explaining the choice of names, these are the only cases when they are explained.–ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 12:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have sources linking etymologies to particular stations? I’m not sure about a blanket rule about etymologies, but many stations (not just in Singapore) are simply named for their neighbourhood or a nearby landmark, and explaining that takes a sentence rather than a section. CMD (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what I would have said is repeated by other users. However, I will say that I’ve noticed the majority of your contributions are adding etymologies to MRT stations. I’ve taken a look at some of them and most, if not nearly all of them, had failed verification issues. For example, you’re saying that Boon Lay MRT station is named after Boon Lay. However, my copy of Savage 2013 does not say that Telok Ayer station was named after Telok Ayer Street. Similarly, you cited Savage 2013 for Boon Lay MRT station‘s name originating from Boon Lay, yet this detail is not mentioned in the source. I fear that such contributions may give rise to WP:SYNTH (even then, it’s already near it to be honest). I also note that some of your contributions are uncited, like Haw Par Villa MRT station and Ubi MRT station. Also, Teck Ghee MRT station is cited to an unreliable source (we don’t even know who runs “remember Singapore”. For all we know, it could be a random person who does not have any academic experience with Singapore’s history).

On a broader note, I would say that the LTA doesn’t give half of the MRT stations’ etymologies, and even then, per CMD’s comment, it only takes a sentence instead of a section. Should MRT station articles have a section on the landmarks they serve even though it’s typically a one sentence statement? No. So why should we give similar treatment to the station’s etymology? Icepinner 14:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pinging active SG wiki editors @Actuall7, @Aleain, @Kingoflettuce, @Seloloving, @Justanothersgwikieditor, and @Brachy0008 (who has worked on MRT articles before), who may be interested in this discussion. @Epicgenius may also be interested in this discussion. Icepinner 14:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

personally, unless there are official sources on the etymology of the stations, i’d say no to adding etymology (per WP:OR and WP:RSP). brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to what brachy had said here. This should be added to the points listed by robertsky here in the earlier discussion.

The MRT stations are mostly named after the locations they are situated in or after notable persons. For those named after locations, it is simple enough to state as so, and linked to the article as the place article would have etymology section. For those named after persons, similarly linked to the person’s article if available should suffice.

It does not make sense to refer and use the PoJ romanisation when the PoJ romanisation does not match with the eventual common romanisation of the person/place name in Hokkien, Lim Tek-lī vs Lim Teck Lee. The leap from the former to the latter is not documented anywhere on wiki (I think, after looking here Hokkien#Latin_script or Category:Romanization of Hokkien).

It makes sense to have just the following if the connection to the area isn’t apparent. i.e. “Teck Lee MRT station is named after Lim Teck Lee who was businessman with connections to the area during colonial Singapore period”.

We do not need etymology sections for every stations and it can be presented in other ways. If the name of station is based on the area or a notable person, a simple reference to the area or person will do, if they have an article for further information. If not, a simple one or two sentences description will suffice which can be part of the lead. In the case of Tan Kah Kee MRT Station, there is some history in the naming of the station so instead of an etymology section, a specific section discussing the name of the station will be more appropriate. Of course, per Wikipedia’s policies, all need to be sourced, unsourced descriptions will be removed.

Per WP:CHINESECHARACTERS, if there is a link for a place or person to its own article, only the common name is to be used without other forms. If there is no linked articles, other scripts can be used but to be used sparingly, usually the most associated script. Also is Lim Teck Lee a Hokkien, Teochew or Hakka? Is Hokkien assumed here? If this is assumed, it is original research (will need a proof of Hokkien or Teochew or other dialect descent to decide which script to use). ~ JASWE (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The characters in the station name 德利 are Tek-lī in hokkien POJ, dêg4 li6 in teochew pengim and tet li/ dêd5 li4 / ded li˖ in various Hakka dialects, I wonder which one of these languages “Teck Lee” is derived from. Warpswitch (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So without knowing is it Hokkien or Teochew, you assumed Hokkien in your initial edits. That is pretty much WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Love that you do not reply to other aspects and just want to point out ~~that Hakka might not fit in~~ the transcriptions in the various dialects. ~ JASWE (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that while I can understand Warpswitch’s enthusiasm for explaining the transcriptions and etymologies, unfortunately this isn’t a place for it as Wikipedia requires reliable sources to support such claims and inferences.–ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coming in from an off-wiki discussion, I think that CMD has a good point; we don’t need to duplicate information that should be on the page for the neighborhood or landmark that the station is named after. These etymologies have a lot more coverage in places such as National Library Online (previously Infopedia) and various books. That being said, I don’t really think that adding Hokkien POJ itself is OR, in the same way that adding any other romanization as needed isn’t OR. MSG17 (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is grammatically incorrect to me; @Justanothersgwikieditor told me to ask this here instead of on the article’s talk page Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable change. JASWE mentions it might affect some other articles, if so can someone put all those articles into Category:Electoral boundary changes in Singapore or something? CMD (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A category is a good idea on paper

I’m just not sure how to go about doing it (the page’s title is extremely long and specific and I haven’t found any lookalike articles) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are similar articles/pages names “Electoral boundaries changes of the XXXX Singaporean general election” for the various election years so any page move will involves them all.

@Robertsky, any views on this? ~ JASWE (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on lemme check

Edit: I don’t think so Whyiseverythingalreadyused (he/him) (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Justanothersgwikieditor I think there’s only one article that has this name? The other election articles don’t seem have a separate one for their electoral boundaries. Jolly1253 (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I probably mixed up due to some off wiki discussions on similarly titled articles. It is always good to check for similar titled articles so any confirmed page move will move all the articles together at the same time. Thanks for verifications done!

Again, as mentioned over on the article talkpage, my grammar is not the best so I leave it to consensus by others. ~ JASWE (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already moved Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes electoral boundary is a better name for the article. Aidanic (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC) -> comment copied from article talkpage ~ JASWE (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal to merge Ten Mile Junction LRT station into Ten Mile Junction Depot. Members of this project may be interested in partaking this discussion. Icepinner 13:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted edits performed on Singaporean IP 220.255.60.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) many times thus far; it is currently stuck in a recently imposed 3-month block

However, I’ve also noticed a number of other IPs from Singapore doing the same kind of shit

Gotta thank Aleain-san for compiling a list of IP socks, which I responded to by compiling an extension in a reply based on my history of undos, both mechanical and manual

Near midnight yesterday, I noticed that three more IPs, 111.65.59.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 111.65.69.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 111.65.71.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) had come to undo my anti-vandalism and do some more damage on the way out

Should I invoke the ancient curse of WP:The duck test and make an LTA subpage documenting this saga? Any advice appreciated

Additionally pinging JASWE and Robertsky Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A possible solution may be to semi-protect all political articles from Singapore. However, this could be considered overly broad and might unintentionally limit legitimate contributions from other IPs, but I would leave such judgements to more established editors and admins. It doesn’t help that this individual is on a mobile network with a dynamic IP from Singtel, Singapore’s largest provider. This pattern of disruptive editing is unlikely to stop as it has already persisted for years. Aleain (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve noticed that the greatest vandalism seems to exist at articles on WP politicians and their incumbent constituencies (Aljunied GRC, Hougang SMC, Sengkang GRC)

Edit: Bro the three IP addresses that jumped out of the blue are as grassroots as the “grassroots organisations” you see in Singapore

Edit 2: Also, I’ve just noticed that Aljunied GRC now requires autoconfirmation Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection might work but administrators might be reluctant on the low number of edits. We can try engaging on their talkpages (and to a certain extent on edit summaries). Do file a sockpuppet report first and let the appropriate admins decide whether to mark them as LTA, likely going to view them as organisations trying to edit their pages, and might just block them for other reasons. Marking them as LTA (officially), if not wrong, a purely administrative level from confirmed sockpuppet abuse.

Also, sidenote, order of MPs for a GRC should be in alphabetical order based on surname (for reference, we can check ELD election results and also it is easier to explain to editors who had been changing the order, that the order is not arbitrary). As this has very little impact and low significance, I had yet to bother to check the correctness and change accordingly. ~ JASWE (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ok thanks, I’ll go file a report when I get home~~ ~~am filing~~ filed Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I’ve filed it already Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The title of List of Singapore opposition party MPs elected seems grammatically ~~incorrect~~ awkward to me (I hope it’s not just me); proposing move

Proposed title: List of elected Singaporean Members of Parliament from opposition parties Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pings: @CMD @Jolly1253 @Robertsky @Aidanic (not pinging JASWE for now as he has acknowledged his subpar grammar; will if other editors believe I should) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused I am taking offense at this. I said, I am not the best, does it means sub-par? Also, suggesting page move at an article page without raising a RM request will gather very little eyeballs which I suggested at the previous RM. If you do not like me to participate in the RM suggestion, you can omit me without disparaging remarks. This is borderline WP:UNCIVIL behaviour. ~ JASWE (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging article creator @Wpeneditor although they no longer seem active on Singaporean politics Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new title is quite long. List of non-PAP Singaporean MPs? We should just add a summary of the NCMPs to avoid the “elected” qualifier. (Even the NCMPs are sort of elected, as they are based on vote share.) CMD (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idk man NCMPs are appointed; their “election” is legalese

Hb “List of Singaporean MPs from opposition parties”, with NCMPs relegated to a subsection? Same vibe

Edit: in my defence, Electoral boundary changes of the 2025 Singaporean general election is also long

I suggest “List of Singaporean Members of Parliament from opposition parties”; has less deduction to do

Edit 2: gonna sleep

Edit 3: am now awake Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of just one or two paragraphs about NCMPs in a separate section at the end, whatever the title. CMD (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah.. There may come a time that PAP will be the opposition. How about just simply, “List of Singaporean opposition Members of Parliament”? – robertsky (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current list is significant because “Consequently, the presence of opposition members has remained limited.” If the PAP ever becomes the opposition it becomes a bit of a non-topic. List of opposition UK MPs would include some Prime Ministers. CMD (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Robertsky

If the PAP falls off, just put them in the list lah

And change the stuff about their dominance to past-tense for good measure Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding PAP and continuing the article would make the list simply a duplicate of whichever Lists of members of parliament in Singapore is relevant. CMD (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t get your point with the duplication of the meta-list of MPs Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

imo, if PAP loses its dominance, it might not be a sudden one, and this list would have contained a lot of opposition members for one parliament before the change in the dominant party.

This is also an unique list. I tried searching for a similar list for other national legislature, but there isn’t. At the most, they are lists of opposition leader of the house or something similar. The list may eventually be merged in future. Oh well. – robertsky (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a ‘normal’ parliamentary democracy, the majority of MPs will be an opposition MP at some point. The exception would be an MP elected on the election where the government comes into power, and then either retiring before a change of government or losing their seat whenever political fortunes reverse. A list covering all MPs ever elected to opposition does not make any sense in such a scenario, as it would mostly be a list of all MPs. This is a unique list because it’s a reasonably unique situation, the closest analogue I can think of is Japan before the 1990s, but of course that was before Wikipedia and now with the history of coalitions and even of the one-time opposition rule such a list would have much less utility (also it would be far too big given the sheer size of Japan’s house but that is a different point). CMD (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this has turned from a notification of a grammar move to a debate on a purpose move Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An unclear purpose is one way to get a convoluted title. If we know the purpose of the page, the grammar follows. CMD (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with known facts, it is understood that this article is simply a list of opposition members of parliament in present day context, which is still limited in some sense. I think we can put a cap, i.e. (19xx- 20xx) when that time comes, but it is WP:CRYSTAL territory. – robertsky (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I’d say just “List of opposition Singaporean Members of Parliament” or smth with NCMPs relegated to the back Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiProject Singapore editors, There’s a pending move discussion at Talk:Irene Ng (politician) proposing to retitle it Irene Ng Phek Hoong (author). It’s been open several days without response. Could someone please have a look or comment? Much appreciated! ~~~~ IreneNgAuthor (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @IreneNgAuthor, I have taken the liberty to fix the RM template at the talkpage. It is unlikely the page move will succeed as Irene Ng is known more commonly as a politician than an author. Also, your proposed new BLP page will be a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. ~ JASWE (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through some articles such as Ban Zu and Long Ya Men which both use mandarin names despite their historical contexts having nothing to do with mandarin. I believe these pages should be renamed to their malay names of Pancur and Batu Belayar respectively as they are far more historically accurate than using the mandarin names. Warpswitch (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion with another user, Ban Zu is relatively justified considering the lack of knowledge of where 班卒 comes from. However, this is still an issue with Long Ya Men with a historically recorded malay name of Batu Belayar which is more historically accurate than the mandarin name. Warpswitch (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The name the article will use is not the name used in ancient times, but whatever name is currently used today when referring to it. If academics use Ban Zi or Long Ya Men, our articles will follow, whether or not this is historically accurate. CMD (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Irene Ng (politician)#Requested move 3 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 14:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Bugis, Singapore, I have come across this line:

Many of them migrated to the present area from Tanjungpinang in January 1820 fleeing a battle between 400 Buginese and Dutch artillery soldiers in retaliation for the death of a chieftain murdered in a violent scuffle that ensued due to the Dutch captain apprehending several Bugis men opening shots celebrating a wedding of said chieftain’s cousin.

Questions:

Is there a name for the battle described here?
How can I better write this?
Is it significant enough to be mentioned in such detail?

Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsacrificer I do not think there is a name for the incident. The incident is significant enough as this is the origin of the Buginese in Singapore and then subsequently the naming of the area. The incident is also included in Celebratory gunfire#Southeast Asia. The incident described in Celebratory gunfire#Southeast Asia reads concise enough and probably can be copied over (with attribution noted in edit summary) and then copy-edited to suit the article better. ~ JASWE (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really feel this needs to be so detailed in that article to be honest. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please add reliable sources to this. Bearian (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please see this discussion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_14#Template:Use_Singapore_English (the discussion began on 14 November) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The decision in the discussion was to delete, so I am replacing the templates with British English. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe given that there are a lot of such usage, there is a bot at TfD which can do the replacement when invoked. – robertsky (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TFD/H. – robertsky (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. the index may be deleted or redirected depending on discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Algeria-related articles. Either way, I will have the list be recreated under this project after the discussion is completed. – robertsky (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the result is to merge to Outline of Singapore some of it could go there. CMD (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have pre-emptively ~~moved~~ copied the index to Wikipedia:WikiProject Singapore/Index of Singapore-related articles. Note there will be many orphans generated due to removal of all the indexes as a lot of articles are not marked orphans due to a link from an index. I will notify the relevant Wikiproject. ~ JASWE (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember cleaning up on the Outline a few years ago. There may be some new articles created in the time intervening that can be placed there, i.e. new organisations or standards that Singapore is now a party of, new key lists, etc. – robertsky (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I initially found the page’s title inconsistent with the main article Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) (history)

Upon closer inspection, I found that the page had been moved without consensus (Talk:History of the MRT (Singapore) had zero discussions in 2014) from History of the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)History of the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) to Draft:History of the MRT (Singapore)Draft:History of the MRT (Singapore), and, without any changes in content, to the current History of the MRT (Singapore) (condensed history link displaying latest 20 revisions on and before 31 December 2013 (UTC; all the revisions had been revdelled)

When reviewing more of the page history, I found that a lot of blocked accounts had edited on this page thanks to a gadget that can be found at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (Appearance), and after digging liberally into them, I found that at least one of them, Yosefshlomo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), had been dragged to a sockpuppet investigation against the moving account, Josephsolomon92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which (per block log) was blocked temporarily in 2022 for sockpuppetry and hasn’t edited since

Per their edit history on and before 31 December 2013 (UTC), they had never used a talk page constructively, with their only use of talk pages being this series of disruptive edits on Talk:Downtown Line (diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, reverted by User:Sni56996)

I’d appreciate if an admin could delete “History of the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)” and move “History of the MRT (Singapore)” to it

Thanks, Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 07:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment