close
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Singapore

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article alerts

[edit]

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

(3 more...)

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Reliability of various media outlets in SG

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hello. As I begin to compile more sources for listing on WP:SG/RS, I decided to reopen another discussion to determine the consensus of various media outlets operating in Singapore.

So far:

  • Generally reliable: CNA and ST, but also with additional considerations concerning coverage of SG politics and government policies
  • No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: Mothership (there doesn't seem to be any consensus per the last discussion on RSN), Independent SG (RSN doesn't seem to have a clear consensus)
  • Generally unreliable: The Online Citizen, as per a March 2026 discussion.
  • Not yet discussed: Jom (A weekly magazine about Singapore), Cape Singapore.

I appreciate any thoughts regarding the use of these sources.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Looks about right to me, I don't have much to add. Toadspike [Talk] 14:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Mothership is marginally reliable, it’s low quality content and recently they have gotten some flak for copying from Shin Min Daily News without any effort to research
A source you didn’t mention is the Chinese-language Shin Min Daily News. It is more focused on the entertainment side, very gossipy (not suitable for BLPs) but their news reports are more thoroughly researched than Mothership. I would think it would be marginally reliable too Infodump0 (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Infodump0: I think these (Mothership and Shin Min) would still fall under the second tier in general, because they still have editorial oversight and does not publish disinformation (or at least require POFMA notices). I know Mothership has also gotten into trouble a few times in their media embargoes, but like it or not, they still have an editorial team. So generally, MS, Shin Min and pre-merger The New Paper would likely be in a tier lower than ST, but not outright unreliable. But particularly for MS reports, it will be preferable to consult the sources they cite. For example, Shin Min.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Is there any consensus on AsiaOne? According to their about us page, they won the WAN-IFRA award for "Best Fact Checking Project" in 2025. Perhaps they are generally reliable? Hypnoticreflection (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Should #Article Assessment on the wikiproject’s home page be moved to the left

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all,

I’m not sure if this is just me but I feel that the article assessment table overflowing out of its box bothers me, so I propose that the section be moved to the left. If there were legitimate reasons for putting on the right, I have two alternatives

  1. Make that section collapsed by default
  2. Increase the width of the right column and decrease the left column’s.

I don’t have the technical knowledge to do so, and I also believe there was a good reason for the choice, so I wish to get consensus first. Hoping this can get resolved ASAP. Thanks. :) Hason-LEK-SIN ● Let’s chat! ● My contribs 14:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Hason-LEK-SIN, breaking the issue down:
  • Swapping left and right columns will be a viable choice but the stats and stuff are probably better presented on the right.
  • Collapsing the section means most editors will scroll through it and miss it. Dashboard needs the information to be upfront so collapsing will lead to missing it. Also, it is a presentation to other editors who are looking at the project.
  • Increasing the width of the right column is kicking the can down the road as some editors might be splitting the screen and might hit the same issue as what you described. I tested with varying width of the browser and at a certain point, the table will not overflow with the scroll bar appearing below it.
The better solution will be swapping the left and right column but the presentation might not be the best in my opinion. I am alright for swapping the left and the right as long there is a consensus as I am mostly looking at the individual pages instead of the main Wikiproject page. ~ JASWE (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The issue with the article assessment table is that the right column size is constrained by VECTOR2022. Shrinking the width of the left column and expanding the right may fix the immediate issue. CMD (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Non-Singaporean generating NewspaperSG clippings

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Good day all,

I've been trying to expand Ah Boys to Men, and I found articles from The Straits Times. Problem is the web versions are likely dead, and I can only cite the limited-access ProQuest copies. Is there a way I can generate NewspaperSG clippings of such articles, even if I am not in Singapore or a Singaporean citizen? RFNirmala (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Unfortunately also NewspaperSG articles published within the last 30 years are only accessible in NLB multimedia stations, even if you were able to look up the titles. Nevertheless, my tip is usually looking for the phrase "Ah Boys to Men" on NewpsaperSG and then discover entries in chronological order, then you try looking at ProQuest. There's also Newslink but only has limited access and by NLB users only.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@ZKang123 Thanks for the tip. I did find possible newspaper sources from The New Paper, The Straits Times, Berita Harian, Today. etc. Thing is, my university access and TWL can only access a few of those listed in newslink and NewspaperSG. I'll ask WP:RX for clippings. RFNirmala (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

New essay, possibly project-relevant

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

WP:ENGBIAS - new opinion essay claiming there's systemic bias on WP against some varieties of English (eg Singapore English) - leading to lack of supporting content (templates, redirects, so on) for these. Includes advice on countering said bias. Possibly project-relevant given recent TfDs of templates for Singapore English. Thoughts/criticisms fs welcome :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Asdfjrjjj For what's its worth, the Standard Singapore English at its formal form when written, which is what we use here, is of limited difference from British English and many would be comfortable with the deletion as such. – robertsky (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
[edit]
Latest comment: 21 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion

This relates to the user Rovingnerd, whom I am not pinging

This user, since the start of June, has been exclusively editing articles on Singaporean artists:

  1. Lim Tze Peng (plagued with promotion and tagged since February of last year)
  2. Ang Ah Tee
  3. Ong Kim Seng (I tagged it today for promotion following a limited rewrite)
  4. Sun Yee
  5. Chua Ek Kay (I tagged it today for cleanup)

I do not see any further point in debating them as they have been nothing but WP:NOTHERE ever since I alerted them today that they had made an unsourced and promotional edit on Lim Tze Peng. Is anyone here interested in verifying the articles' statements against the books cited and removing further promotional language? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Factual information such as exhibitions can be presented though I leaned towards showing solo exhibitions only. Perhaps a related Wikiproject may shed some light on what is the MOS, if any, for artists. As Rovingnerd has a COI with an art gallery that likely sells their art pieces, it would be seen promoting their artists and business and Rovingnerd needs to follow the COI guidelines as a paid editor.
You can try explaining to him that basic factual information like exhibitions can be added directly by him. Other prose requires a source or two and to be submitted via the edit request process. If he fails to do so, you can follow up with a report at WP:COIN and let the community decides on any actions required. ~ JASWE (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Justanothersgwikieditor: thanks
The account has since been MIA, so... meh; we can let the archiving bot do its thing Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would also suggest COIN, there may be editors there more familiar with how current artist pages should cover galleries and sales. CMD (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Chipmunkdavis, sidenote: Congrats! Another editor to run to when robertsky is sleeping! ~ JASWE (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, but let's keep Robert awake just in case. CMD (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
hiberates – robertsky (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
well, then another chapter closed... till it opens up again... ~ JASWE (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Splitting of Constituency article which was abolished and recreated

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

There were various previous discussions on having different articles for constituencies which was abolished and then recreated. The decision then was to keep them as a single article for those that was abolished and then recreated 1 election term later. For constituencies that were abolished for more than 1 term, it is sensible to split them into multiple articles but it was not done so then.

Revisiting the discussion as I was looking at Bukit Gombak Single Member Constituency which has been abolished from 2001 to 2025, I would like to propose the following:

  1. To split off Constituency articles which the Constituency was abolished for at least two election terms and then recreated. Splitting out constituency articles which was abolished for only 1 election term may create multiple articles for 1 constituency and causing slight confusion. Note that there are very few such constituencies, iirc, less than 5 such constituencies.
  2. To name the older Constituency article as XXX Constituency (198X - 199X). For example, Bukit Gombak Single Member Constituency (1998 - 2001) for its first existence.

Pinging @Robertsky, who has page mover rights, to comment on proposed article name if there are any better way to name it or are there any technical issues on the proposed name. ~ JASWE (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

As there is no response, I would proceed with the splitting of the articles as necessary per WP:BRD. Thanks. ~ JASWE (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Need comments on an unresolved topic at Prince Edward Road MRT station

[edit]
Latest comment: 17 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The page can be found at: Talk:Prince Edward Road MRT station#c-Hason-LEK-SIN-20260704133500-On the “future line provision” of PER. TLDR is what the title says. Need someone to help me find the sources. Posted half a month ago with no replies, so I'm requesting for assistance ("fake RfC") here.

If there's anything that I didn't do properly, or if there is a suitable template for such comments, please let me know. Thanks. Hason-LEK-SIN ● Let’s chat! ● My contribs 09:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Guards (Singapore Army)

[edit]
Latest comment: 13 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Special:Contributions/Exsap has a long history of WP:OWNing the article, and has recently returned to continue the ownership. See this and this for prior history. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 10:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would have directly went to Robertsky's talk page again, but he says he's on vacation and I don't want to give him another orange bar of doom, so... yeah Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 10:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Johor Bahru–Singapore Rapid Transit System#Requested move 24 July 2026

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Johor Bahru–Singapore Rapid Transit System#Requested move 24 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 23:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Singapore&oldid=1368251559"