Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] New look for the SGpedians' notice board?

This is not high priority, but perhaps some thought could be given to improving the look of the SGpedians' notice board? I notice that some other WikiProjects have adopted a rather fetching, professional-looking layout – see, for instance, Wikipedia:WikiProject Iceland (which itself was "blatantly 'borrowed' from the Molecular and Cellular Biology WP page").

Also, perhaps we should look at archiving some of the new articles and honourable mentions. Cheers, Jacklee 12:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice, but they are primarily WikiProjects, while ours is kinda becoming a mixture of sorts. :D I agree we can do something about the formatting thou, unless we are really gonna migrate completely to a wikiproject?--Huaiwei 13:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we're not ready to become a full-scale WikiProject yet, in the sense of editors collaborating on articles, but there's no harm in jazzing up the layout of the notice board. Cheers, Jacklee 13:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

yups...think I can help out...but not at the moment. Will look into this in the next few days, but ideas and help are most welcome!--Huaiwei 14:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
We desperately need a logo for the community/project :D. We can't just use the flag all the time. --Vsion 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got no idea how to create a logo, but WikiProject Iceland has just adopted a rather nice one. Is there any SGpedian out there who can help create one? If not, I wonder if we can ask the chap who did the WikiProject Iceland logo to lend a hand? Cheers, Jacklee 20:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As a start, I trimmed some sections to make some room. Let's make a list of desirable improvement:
  • 1. Design new layout
  • 2. Design logo
  • 3. Expand "resource" section
  • 4. Organise "Featured" section
Any other suggestions? To move this discussion to a higher level, I think we should convert this "noticeboard" to a wikiproject. We hadn't been successful in our past collaboration initiatives, perhaps an extreme makeover will help. Wikiprojects seem to generate a greater sense of teamwork and collaboration among members. Comment? --Vsion 06:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have filed peer reviews for 3 articles on Singaporean films.

I have filed peer reviews for 3 articles on Singaporean films - I Not Stupid, I Not Stupid Too and Singapore Dreaming.

Please help fight systemic bias by commenting at the peer reviews! I am aiming to get I Not Stupid and Singapore Dreaming to GA status, while for I Not Stupid Too, I would like to find out whether such a goal would be feasible.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

John Martin Scripps has been listed for peer review. Feel free to comment and give suggestions to improve the article on the review page. Resurgent insurgent 14:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to add the {{peerreview}} tag to the talk page. That aside, I think the article has GA potential, and you should consider a GA nomination after you have addressed all the concerns raised at the peer review. The article could do with a dedicated group of 3-5 editors working on it and pushing for GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I used the WikiProject Biography template's peer-review option to link to the PR. A bot pulls all WikiProject-internal PR's onto wikipedia:peer review at regular intervals so they get equal exposure. Resurgent insurgent 16:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And now it's a featured article candidate. You can leave comments here. Resurgent insurgent 10:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simplified MRT rail maps

I've created a simplified rail map of the North South MRT Line using resources from Wikipedia:Railway_line_template. Seeing that each of the pages for each MRT line lacked a simple rail map with the names of each station on them, I went to create one. The map features stations, tunnels, interchanges, and crossovers with only main roads. I hope that those interested could take a look at it, possibly use it, and perhaps create versions for the other lines as well.

If there are any comments about it, go ahead and use my talk page. 리지강.wa.au 15:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey the map is damn cute! So it is meant to go into the North South MRT Line article?--Huaiwei 15:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeh, that was my original intention, unless you have other plans for it? I posted here first just to see if you guys won't mind it. It's rather messy where the interchanges are concerned though. Can't seem to find a way to make interchange stations one entire blob rather than individual circles. I have also created one for the NE Line, which was much easier, considering that it's all underground. 리지강.wa.au 16:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It should be a good substitute for the "stations" sections we have now, although I agree the representation for interchange stations seem to look rather odd, as thou they are not directly connected? Hope this may be overcome somehow?--Huaiwei 13:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that it can be solved by the "Branches and junctions" on the template page.--Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 14:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...I just noticed there is a software called Spoorstrip.exe. Did any of you obtain it already? I may get it and try my own hand in drawing routes too!--Huaiwei 16:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is a program that can be downloaded to make things easier, but there were some problems cited about the ease of using it. Especially for long lines. 리지강.wa.au 07:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I see. It is strange that the station icons lack one for interchange stations with branch lines, or did we not experiment with that yet? The codes are quite mind-boggling to deal with as it is!--Huaiwei 03:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA drive

Before my mid-year exams, I drafted a propopsal for a "GA drive" - a plan aiming to double the number of Singaporean GAs from 5 to 10. With Glenn Knight achieving GA status on 22 May, and John Martin Scripps now on FAC, I think it is time to present my proposal.

We should maintain a list of articles which have "GA potential" (generally B-class articles which would meet the GA criteria if several non-major concerns are addressed). The articles should then be "adopted" by a group of three to five SGpedians, who will collaborate to address the concerns, submit the article for peer review and eventually file a successful GA nomination.

Since some will object based on WP:OWN concerns, I must emphasise that anyone should be welcome to improve articles undergoing a "GA drive", and those adopting the article should not attempt to own it. Although most articles are gradually improved through the "wiki process", high-quality articles (such as GAs and FAs) are usually the work of a dedicated group of core editors. Unlike a backlog of articles to improve, or a collaboration of the week, a "GA drive" encourages Wikipedians to focus on improving one or two articles, now.

Below is a draft "GA drive" list. Feel free to nominate or adopt articles. The list should eventually be moved to a section on WP:SG! or (less preferred) a subpage. If the "GA drive" is successful, I will post it on the Village Pump and suggest other WikiProjects adopt this method of collaboration.

GA drive list:

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad proposal. As I've some experience with GAs and FAs, anyone working on the above who needs a 2nd op etc. can drop me a msg on my talkpage. Chensiyuan 09:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Most of the articles in Category:Top-importance Singapore articles are GA and FAC potentials because of the significance of the topics, interests in them, and the availability of sources. Do consider them as well. --Vsion 17:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Vsion, GA potential depends on several factors, primarily the quality of the article and the topic. The "GA drive" list should contain articles which have strong GA potential due to their quality - if an article listed also has strong GA potential due to its topic, consider that a bonus. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
To follow your point, there is also a list of Category:B-Class Singapore articles based on quality. The table indicates that there are 13 Top-importance B-Class articles. In addition, there are two Top-importance A-Class articles waiting for a push to FAC. Consider these as the ones with "bonus" ;). Of course, some of them needs significant work, but that's what the drive is for. --Vsion 15:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you nominate the 13 Top-importance B-class articles for the "GA drive", so that others will adopt them and collaborate to improve them to GA status. (We will eventually move the "GA drive" list to the noticeboard or a subpage.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
My congrats on our second FAC. ;) Anyway I wish I have the time to "adopt" the Singapore 2006 article, since I was very much involved in it. Hope others may assist in it while I try to find time later...if I can! :D--Huaiwei 03:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
S2006 needs a lot of improvement in content. Logistics stuff should be added and hotels, retail as well as daily events. CNA has a huge repository of articles to cite sources from. =) It may get to GA but I doubt it will pass FAC. Terence 12:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Huaiwei, I hope you find the time to adopt (and work on) the article. Terence, having identified broad coverage as the main issue, would you like to adopt Singapore 2006? Although I won't adopt the article (I've already adopted I Not Stupid), I'll try to make minor improvements whenever I can. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm I will probably come to it later...not this week definitely until I meet my major deadlines at work! :D--Huaiwei 16:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geographical category overload

Many Sg-related articles have way too many geographical categories. Consider Merlion, which is currently in all of the following:

Categories: National symbols of Singapore | Singaporean navigational boxes | Downtown Core | Marina Bay | Southern Islands | Sentosa | Visitor attractions in Singapore | Fictional lions

Marina Bay is in the Downtown Core, so the Downtown Core category is redundant. Likewise, Sentosa is in the Southern Islands, so the Southern Islands category is redundant.

And yes, I've read WP:SUBCAT, but AFAIK none of the exceptions in there apply. Both the Southern Islands and the Downcore Core have complete sets of subcategories, and nobody looking for the Sentosa or Marina Bay Merlions is ever going to go look for them under "Southern Islands" or "Downtown Core". Jpatokal 09:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That depends on context and familiarity with Singaporean geography. I dont find it ridiculous to look for the Merlion in the Downtown Core, nor the Sentosa one in the Southern Islands.--Huaiwei 03:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me which rule in WP:SUBCAT applies. Jpatokal 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Just about all reasons in "Reasons for duplication" apply here. Classification of the Merlion under the Downtown Core is based on planning area boundaries. Classification under Marina Bay is suited for the layman who may find that term more familiar, and also because the URA has designated that name in reference not just to the physical bay, but the entire developmental zone which includes the new Downtown[1]. Are you familiar with local geography and urban planning to begin with?--Huaiwei 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the specific rules under "When to duplicate".
My view is that, as the planning areas are huge and broken down into complete subcategories, things that have more specific location (eg. Marina Bay) should not be placed on the higher level (eg. Downtown Core). But please, explain to me why placing Imbiah Monorail Station in Category:Southern Islands makes sense, and why it should not be in Category:Central Region in Singapore, Category:Singapore and Category:Asia. Jpatokal 08:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
For your kind information, planning areas are not neccesarily huge, and are not neccesarily "broken down into complete subcategories", whatever that means. Marina Bay actually includes three planning areas and parts of a fourth, so since when did the Downtown Core become a subdivision of Marina Bay? As I have already explained, categories like Marina Bay and Sentosa are not planning areas, nor are they neccesarily formal subdivisions of planing areas. It makes perfect sence to include an entity in the categories of two different geographic claffication systems. As for why Imbiah Monorail Station is in one category but not another, perhaps you would like to offer an explaination yourself? I dont think I need to waste time explaining the obvious.--Huaiwei 17:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand your position correctly. You are saying that every single structure within (eg.) the Downtown Core planning area should be listed in the Downtown Core category. Is that correct? Jpatokal 03:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
If you may just look at Category:Downtown Core, what do you think? This is not an issue of my opinion. Its the issue of the community, for clearly I did not fill up that category myself, nor for every other item in Category:Planning areas in Singapore.--Huaiwei 12:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking you for your opinion, and I'd like a "yes" or "no" answer, please. Jpatokal 05:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
And I believe I am not obliged to share my opinion if I do not feel there is a need to. A fellow Sgpedian has given a response below. Do you still find my opinion neccesary?--Huaiwei 14:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking whether I have understood you correctly, and you're refusing to tell me. Not much point in continuing this then, now is there? The next time I attempt to have a conversation with you, please tell me to go masturbate with a cheesegrater instead — it's more productive and rather more pleasant. Jpatokal 15:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
LOL be my guest! But perhaps you might wish to be a little more proactive at that, instead of waiting around for others to instruct you. Maybe then, you wont have a habit of making pertetic attempts to corner people with dumb questions. Come to think of it, have you ever wondered why not many bother to talk to you here in the first place?--Huaiwei 15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I was one of the initiators for the planning area categorisation process to group all geographical locations (including structures) in Singapore towards an exhaustive whole. And "Yes" to Jpatokal's question as long as the entity lies within URA's planning area boundary. Thanks. —Sengkang 06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ho Yeow Sun and City Harvest Church

The Ho Yeow Sun and City Harvest Church are being zealously guarded by fans (or possibly one person with many sockpuppets, compare [2], [3], [4]) who are deleting any additions that are not sufficiently complimentary to their favorite artist/church. Assistance in sorting this out would be appreciated. Jpatokal 07:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

While contributions in adherence to WP:NPOV will always be needed in this website, I am pretty sure requests for such contributions can do just fine without provocative, discriminatory, and condescending undertones. Perhaps, than, people will be far more accomodative, and other uninvolved parties more forthcoming in offering help.--Huaiwei 16:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite a section having a reference to an article on Channel NewsAsia a person keeps removing it. - 222.164.84.146 09:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit war at the article is in full swing again. I've had it up to here with it, but Sgpedians with time to spare (and there are lots!) might want to pop in. Jpatokal 19:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pioneers of Singapore needed

I notice that over at Citizendium, there is no article on Singapore yet. Anyone game enough to join me to set things up? With a little effort we could easily make Singapore an approved article (approximately equal to our "featured article") there.

(However, a search for "Singapore" reveals there are three Singapore-related articles already - Singapore English, Vanessa Mae, and Bonny Hicks.)

There are disadvantages to using Citizendium: You will need to tell the constables (their equivalent of administrators) your real name when you apply for an account so you can edit. (My application is still waiting for approval; no idea how long it will take.) Second, according to this section of their image use policy, they disallow uploads of images from Wikipedia or Commons unless they can verify the real identity of the image's creator. But I think in the end the benefits will outweigh the disadvantages - regardless of whether Citizendium becomes a large-scale competitor to Wikipedia. No encyclopedia worth its salt would lack coverage on Singapore and because we are used to editing in a wiki environment, I think we are well-suited to go in there and write some good stuff. Resurgent insurgent 14:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore is undergoing a Good Article Review.

Coloane has filed a Good Article Review for Singapore. Please participate in the discussion and address concerns raised by Coloane so that Singapore will not lose its GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xiaxue needs attention

On 8 June 2007, Can't sleep, clown will eat me speedy deleted Xiaxue. Six days later, Vague Rant undeleted the article per my request on IRC. The article was subsequently nominated for deletion - please participate in the deletion discussion.

Could an SGpedian with Newslink access please e-mail me newspaper articles pertaining to Xiaxue, so that I can write a neutral article based on information in said newspaper articles? I have e-mailed her regarding the deletion of the article, and she has responded requesting I help her re-write the article.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You haven't set an email address so Special:Emailuser/Hildanknight doesn't work. Resurgent insurgent 16:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
When I joined Wikipedia, I did set an e-mail address in my preferences, but did not enable e-mails from other users due to concerns over spam. Are such concerns unfounded? Anyway, my e-mail address is hildanknight(AT)gmail(DOT)com. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
A person must be logged in and their account must have an email address defined before they can use Special:Emailuser. You will not reveal your email address until and unless you reply to their email. Resurgent insurgent 08:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I will definitely go for strong keep with more sources. Keep us posted, please. Sorry I can't help you out with this one, Hildanknight. - SpLoT // 16:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
If you can't help by searching Newslink for newspaper articles on Xiaxue, you can help by participating in the AFD, voting Strong Keep with your reasoning (or simply per Hildanknight). An SGpedian who has Newslink will have to provide the sources. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singaporean medals

I am about to expand the coverage of Singaporean orders and decorations, however could I please get confirmation on what should be the primary language to describe each medal/award? At the moment, there exist both English-primary pages (The Star of Temasek) and Bahasa-primary pages (Pingat Gagah Perkasa). Is there any chance of getting consensus on what should be the primary page? Many thanks... PalawanOz 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Are the English names official as well as the Malay names? - SpLoT // 14:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The Prime Minister's page here has the Malay name listed first, then the English name in brackets. Is that some kind of convention in Singapore? PalawanOz 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
If I'm not wrong, Malay is our national language, and English, Chinese, Tamil as well as Malay are our official languages. That's why the accolades are in Malay - tradition and historical links to Malaysia. Since the Prime Minister's Office website lists it in Malay, it seems to me that the Malay names are official, while the English names are merely translations. So I'd say change all the article names to Malay. Thanks, SpLoT // 15:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
SpLoT is right. Article 153A of the Constitution states that Malay is the national language of Singapore, while Malay, Mandarin (not "Chinese"), Tamil and English are official languages. By the way, it may interest you to know that some orders and decorations are authorized by specific pieces of legislation. For instance, the Singapore Armed Forces National Service Medal is authorized by the Singapore Armed Forces National Service Medal Rules 1997 (S 335/1997), and the Pingat Jasa Perwira (Tentera) (Singapore Armed Forces Medal for Distinguished Act) by the Pingat Jasa Perwira (Tentera) (Singapore Armed Forces Medal for Distinguished Act) Rules 1997 (S 336/1997). Both pieces of subsidiary legislation were made under the authority of the Constitution. It would be good if some reference could be made in the article to this fact. I would imagine that there is legislation out there governing the conferment of all orders and decorations, but haven't found it yet. Cheers, Jacklee 16:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Almost all state medals and decorations are official known by their Malay names. The English name equivalant is there for the benefit of non-Malay speakers only.--Huaiwei 17:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xiaxue needs attention II

Thanks to Rifleman 82 and me, Xiaxue's AFD closed with "keep" as the result. During the AFD, I promised to rewrite the article. Since LexisNexis only searches The Straits Times and The Sunday Times, I contacted Xiaxue herself, who promised to e-mail me all the TODAY/The New Paper/Lianhe Zaobao/magazine articles listed in her Media Centre. Once she does so, I will have plenty of material to work with.

How should I structure the article? I think that besides the lead section, the article should have 4 sections:

  • A section about her blog.
  • A section about the awards her blog has won, her sponsorship deals, Girls Out Loud, etc.
  • A section about the controversies she has been involved in.
  • A section about her personal life - her family, her nose job, etc.

What do you think of my proposed structure?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with structure. Be careful not to go afoul of WP:BLP when describing personal life, though. I will forward you some pix of herself she emailed me; she "gives permission to all the conditions" under which Wikipedia is copyrighted. You can choose one or more to go with the article. Resurgent insurgent 14:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Resurgent insurgent - I have received the photos of Xiaxue which you e-mailed me several days ago. In my opinion, wiki1.jpg is the "chio"-est and most suitable for the article. What do you think?
I'll obviously have to be careful not to violate BLP in the Personal life section. Per the guidelines on self-published material, is it OK to use her blog as a source for non-controversial information about her family?
I'm still waiting for Xiaxue to e-mail me the newspaper articles. Hopefully she hasn't forgotten! During my wait, I will Google for reliable online references, both in English and in Chinese. Once she e-mails me the newspaper articles, I will organise all the references I have, extract relevant information and prepare for my rewrite.
Given that I should have at least 20-30 references, do you think Xiaxue would have DYK potential - even GA potential - after my rewrite is complete (assuming I take under 3 days to do it, of course)?
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, we'll just have to see it when it's done to know. Good luck! - SpLoT // 15:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It's been over a week and she still hasn't gotten back to me. Knowing that celebrities can be forgetful, I think it's time to poke her by e-mail. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical Storm Vamei

On 15 June 2007, Terence added Tropical Storm Vamei (a GA) to the "Featured articles and honourable mentions" section. Is that article really within our jurisdiction? If so, to what extent did SGpedians contribute to this GA? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles under our scope (I much prefer not to use the term "jurisdiction" in a free encyclopedia) include all topics regarding Singapore. Hence it does not matter who contributed to the article - Vamei is a storm which impacted Singapore, and is thus within our scope. - SpLoT // 13:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
As what SpLoT said, anything that is under our scope will be listed there. It doesn't matter who wrote the article actually whether its a SGpedian or not. Terence 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt responses. Since this article is within our scope, we now have 7 GAs. Hopefully, in a couple of weeks, I Not Stupid will be GA no. 8.
Due to my upcoming O Levels, I will take a two-month wikibreak starting 9 September. Could we aim to increase the GA count to 10 by then? Singapore Dreaming is nearly there, while Singapore 2006 could reach GA status with some work. Should you spot an article with GA potential, please nominate it for the GA drive.
I don't think articles which are only tangentially related to Singapore should not be within our scope. Although this probably is not the case for Tropical Storm Vamei, which is within our scope regardless of who contributed to it, I would still like to know the major contributors. I'm compiling a table of Singaporean FAs and GAs and their major contributors; perhaps the "Featured articles and honourable mentions" list could be structured in this manner.
After all, as I said when suggesting the GA drive, " Although most articles are gradually improved through the "wiki process", high-quality articles (such as GAs and FAs) are usually the work of a dedicated group of core editors." By giving them credit, we will encourage them to keep up the good work. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Meetup 4

Is the meetup November or May? Conflicting information, text on page states May, template states November. --ZhongHan (Email) 11:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the proposed meeting in May did not take place, so we postponed it to November, but forgot to update the template. Please hold the meetup after my O Levels - if I Not Stupid passes GA and I have become a valued member of the SGpedian community by then, I'd turn up. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have editedthe page to reflect this. --ZhongHan (Email) 04:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:BOLD, I have suggested 17 November as the date of the meetup. It is the first Saturday after the last paper for GCE O-level exams. --ZhongHan (Email) 10:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore tourist attractions

I'm not good at the coding and all that, but perhaps some form of infobox for places like our zoo, botanical gardens, bird park, sentosa etc. would give the articles a better look. Chensiyuan 04:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment at I Not Stupid's fourth peer review.

A thorough expansion and copy-edit (with Haemo's help) of I Not Stupid has hopefully addressed the concerns about prose and coverage that led to the failure of the article's previous two GA nominations. As suggested by Haemo, I filed a fourth peer review as part of my final push towards GA status. I invite all SGpedians to comment at the peer review. Should the third GA nomination (which will take place on 15 July) succeed, I Not Stupid will be our 8th GA (unless Singapore loses its GA status before the nomination is passed). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verification needed for article Oh family

I recently noticed an article Oh family, which claims the subject of the article is a long-running, famous Singaporean cartoon series about a family of anthropomorphic dim sums. The article goes into some detail regarding the characters and several episodes, however I am unable to verify the existence or any details at all of this series. I have tagged it as a possible hoax, but I would appreciate it if some Singaporean editors could confirm the existence of the cartoon. If it does exist, please remove the hoax tag and add any references that you know of. Regards, --Canley 11:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh?? I never heard of this before, suspected hoax. Terence 12:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard of it either. The article does not go into specifics, such as when the cartoon series was aired or who the actors were, suggesting it's a hoax. A cartoon series featuring "living timsums" sounds ridiculous. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Highly suspicious. Chensiyuan 13:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot

I've got a new bot: User:Chem-awb. I created it for mass tagging/untagging of Chemistry articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, but if someone needs it here, I'll be happy to help as far as I can. --Rifleman 82 16:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qiaonan Primary School

Unfortunately, I've had to mark the above article as a copyvio. Could someone who has time do up the article? Here's the Qiaonan Primary School website for reference. --ZhongHan (Email) 05:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Sengkang 06:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WARNING: Singapore about to lose GA status

On 15 June 2007, Coloane filed a GA/R for Singapore. I posted a notification here the day after, but no attempts to address the concerns. Here's another reminder that if no effort is made to improve the article, it will lose its GA status. Could several SGpedians participate in the GA/R discussion and try to deal with the issues Coloane has raised? Should the article be delisted, I will nominate it for the GA drive. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Singapore article is in need of a massive rewrite in several sections and topics. In fact, I didnt notice quite a number of defects in the article until a friend pointed them out to me when I introduced this site to him. Far too many microscoping views are being highlighted in the article in an attempt to say everything summary-style, which while sourcable, can be dangerously misleading and myopic. If it has to loost its GA status to encourage an article improvement drive, I will support that, and this time, I hope to be more actively involved in improving on it.--Huaiwei 17:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Today, while I Not Stupid's GA nomination passed, Singapore was delisted. Those wishing to improve the article may wish to refer to the version which passed GA (although referencing standards have risen since then). If the article had a couple of SGpedians committed to improving it, I wouldn't be surprised if it regains GA status within a month. Huaiwei, have you "met [your] major deadlines at work"? If so, could you adopt Singapore (or Singapore 2006)? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Felix Soh

I have deleted the yet to be created article, Felix Soh as it would most likely fail the notability test. Any comments on this would be greatly welcomed. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the yet to be created article, Jill Quek as it would most likely fail the notability test. A google search shows up no reliable sources for this subject. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the yet to be created article, Lim Peifen as it would most likely fail notability guidelines. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who has access to Newslink?

Could an SGpedian who has access to Newslink search its archive for "Megan Zheng", e-mailing me the full text (and citation information) of all newspaper articles which appear in the results (and do the same for "Homerun")? Once I have plenty of newspaper articles to use as references, I will expand Megan Zheng (currently a stub), with the aim of making it my third DYK (Xiaxue is currently 4 kB, and hence does not qualify for DYK).

Throughout August, I will also significantly expand and rewrite Homerun (film), after which I will see whether it's worth a shot at GA. I use a 15/30 guideline to assess an article's GA potential - if an article is over 15 kB long and has over 30 references, it should be able to meet GA criterion 2 and 3.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If you care that much, do it yourself -- one-shot access to Newslink costs S$15 for the first 30 min, S$8 afterward. Jpatokal 12:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Money No Enough - I may not mind spending $15, but my parents do. That being said, I'd like to know how to get and use Newslink. If my parents strike 4D or I ace my O Levels, I may be able to convince my parents that I need. Alternatively, I could save $23, compile a list of Singapore-related articles I intend to write over the next 12 months and take a trip to Tampines Regional Library to use Newslink (telling my parents that I have A Maths remedial in school). However, I hope to start writing Megan Zheng by next week - so could someone quickly help me do a search? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Correction: Tampines Regional Library does not offer Newslink access. According to the Newslink website, I have to subscribe, paying $900 yearly, or call them for an appointment to access Newslink. If I did not have to study, I would not mind trying it.
Fortunately, on IRC, I met a Wikipedian who had access to LexisNexis and was willing to help me. I think the newspaper articles he e-mailed me provide enough material for me to write a DYK-worthy article. Although LexisNexis searches newspapers from all over the world, The Straits Times is the only Singaporean newspaper it searches. Newslink searches all major Singaporean newspapers, including The New Paper and TODAY. Hence, searching Newslink would probably reveal even more useful references, and any attempts to search Newslink for (and e-mail to me) newspaper articles about Megan Zheng would be most appreciated.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
anyone who's in NUS et al will have access to Factiva. but somehow i doubt Factiva goes beyond ST. Chensiyuan 14:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an article in the Straits Times today mentioning their collaboration with NLB to offer a fully-digitised version of their entire publication by the second half of next year. Its not free, but I would think paying 3 cents per minute is still within the means of most researchers. So perhaps we will have to wait a while yet!--Huaiwei 06:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

3 cents a minute is definitely within my means. I certainly hope this proposal is implemented. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The ST report sounds pretty conclusive, so I do believe the service is definitely on the way. Just hope they keep to their pricing! :D--Huaiwei 17:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD alert

Hi folks, many of our local hotel articles have been marked for AfD. Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Singapore. Thanks! —Sengkang 01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that he has also nominated List of hotels in Singapore for deletion.--Huaiwei 12:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Just realised that the real "instigator" behind the entire AFD exercise is actually User:Russavia (just check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Landmark Hotel), a user who has shown an element of hostility towards the Little Red Dot, most notably in Singapore Airlines and its related articles. How very unprofessional of him.--Huaiwei 13:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the nominator hasn't demonstrated much logic behind his nominations. Chensiyuan 13:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
One cause of systemic bias is Wikipedians nominating articles on non-American topics for deletion, when they don't know anything about the topic, or whether it's notable. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Left a note at User_talk:Russavia#Hotels. Almost choked when I saw some of the nominations made, in particular Shangri-La Hotel Singapore!--Huaiwei 14:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Demonstrated hostility against Singaporean topics? I think not Huaiwei, but rather a dislike of cruft, non-notable topics, and PR type related material. Unfortunately, as they stand, those hotel articles are unsourced and do not assert any degree of notability (in at least one instance, the article has been tagged as such since October 2006, and still there has been no assertion of notability made). As you will have noticed, I have not nominated the Raffles, the old Westin Stamford, the Goodwood Park, and others, as they are clearly notable due to heritage/historical reasons, or other reasons, such as the Westin Stamford once being the tallest hotel in the world. Please don't assert that I have a grudge against anything to do with Singapore - it always has been (still is) one of my fave places in the world, and I know that Singaporeans are proud and protective of the Singapore name, but clearly some of the articles covered by this project do not belong in an encyclopaedia. And as you have noticed I have nominated many other hotels (not just in Singapore), and if you look at some of those deleted, they have previously been deleted on the same grounds, and recreated, again without providing any degree of assertion of notability. --Russavia 15:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
People wont notice the articles you dont nominate. They look at those you do, and from the range which you actually did, care to comment on the obvious irritation you are causing to users here due to the complete waste of time in having to justify obvious cases of notability? If the article is unsourced, made a request in the talkpage, or insert a citation tag. The AFD procedure is not for abuse by immature sore losers who are out to proof a point. And you can dry your crocodile tears and cut your act. Your own statements are an obvious hint on your true intentions in Singapore-related articles. Singaporeans being proud and protective of the Singapore name indeed!--Huaiwei 16:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Immature sore losers? As usual, Huaiwei resorts to insults instead of discussion. End of discussion. --Russavia 17:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Its a discussion on you, not with you, so I doubt it has ever "started" as far as you are concerned. For the record, Russavia has proceeded to nominate List of hotels in Singapore and List of insurance companies in Singapore for deletion just to throw his ego around. Also check out how he refers to Singaporean contributors in general over here.--Huaiwei 06:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
"Its a discussion on you" - so you're making a comment on the contributor, not the content? Resurgent insurgent 05:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The posts above only says that much. You are free to make your own conclusions.--Huaiwei 06:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)