Talk:Singapore/Archive 2013-2017

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nazi Swastikas[edit]

This relates to my addition, quickly removed by Jpatokal

I've seen two nazi swastika shirts in my visits to Singapore, and he's seen one. These are not Buddhist symbols, they are National Socialist flags. There are numerous photos by others if you google around the topic - like this one on government media.

It certainly comes up in conversation a lot and has the potential to be deeply offensive to a visitor and cause problems and misunderstandings. I think it needs to be in the article for ready reference. Kaffiend (talk)

Hi! Good to see you here!
This is one of those tricky ones that you are absolutely right to discuss here on this article's discussion page. Jpatokal may be very busy right now, but I know he takes a special interest in Singapore - as I do. -- Alice 09:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
As said, I lived in Singapore for 7+ years and ran into one (1) person wearing a Nazi swastika shirt, and they were a migrant mainland Chinese worker who presumably didn't have a clue what it meant (extermination of Untermensch like him, for starters). While I'm not violently opposed to the current wording, I just don't think bad fashion choices are the sort of issue that we have to warn every visitor to Singapore about. Jpatokal (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
This is one of those fine judgement calls and I think these kind of fashion errors/history free zones can be seen right around the Globe (except perhaps in Germany itself where there are legal consequences for displaying a Nazi swastika). Because of this ubiquity (and I certainly haven't noticed that Singapore is any worse in this regard), on balance I think the excision was right - unless, of course we're going to do a "Warning - you might see the odd swastika on T-shirts" template and add it to every country's article (except Germany's). Keep editing, Kaffiend, and don't be at all discouraged by the odd revert or three! -- Alice 19:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
In ten+ years travelling around Asia, Singapore is the only place I've seen or heard about them (aside from a headline-grabbing window display in HK). Aside from that issue, what initially prompted my addition was the false claim being made that the swastikas in Singapore are Buddhist symbols. I doubt such a claim is made for every country with a Buddhist population. For Singapore, as we've discussed, it's clearly not the case. If the subject is too minor to expand (as Alice seems to be arguing) that misleading statement should go too. Kaffiend (talk)
Fair point. -- Alice 09:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Districts map and star demotion[edit]

This article is very well written and has a lot of useful information. But it lacks a map showing the locations of all the districts and what their borders are. How did it become a Star article without one? Having just visited Singapore, I found the districts system very confusing. Using the maps in the district articles (note that some of the sub-articles don't even have maps!) there appears to be large gaps where entire streets and neighbourhoods are not covered at all. The hotel I was to stay at, the Victoria Hotel, was not included in any district's borders. For that reason, I think the article should be demoted to a 'Potential star', until there has been an improvement of the districts system and maps. I've also made a nomination here. JamesA >talk 14:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear! You're not wrong, but if a boundary map were provided, would that be sufficient (if not the necessary remedy) to demotion, please? -- Alice 07:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Had a look and it is pretty messy and confusing even for a local. Singapore/Marina Bay is only at useable level, and the Riverside map is a bit outdated because part of it got hived off into Marina Bay. I've made some suggested changes in my sandbox here, which includes an updated map. It might not be enough because of the underlying structural issues. Torty3 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

New map boundaries[edit]

Hi, I've done up new maps and would like for some discussion whether the new boundaries are valid. Bugis now extends towards Golden Mile Complex, Marina Bay is mostly everything east of Shenton Way. Shenton Way is in fact a little orphaned, and I stuck it in Riverside because it doesn't feel right to put it in Chinatown. The Orchard Road district is pretty big.

There's a hard definition of East Coast using the CTE as the boundary. I also extended Sentosa to include Mount Faber, and also Labrador Park, although I'm not too firm on that. Torty3 (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, on further thought, I would prefer to put Singapore/Balestier into Singapore/North, which would then get Mandai and Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, and make West Coast distinct by itself, then there'll be no need to shift Mount Faber and Labrador Park. There may be too little stuff in the West Coast though. It just makes sense from a local and geographical POV especially since the MRT line is already arranged accordingly. Just a preference, the status quo is still fine. Thoughts from any visitors? Torty3 (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
As the main author of the original split, the maps you've drawn look pretty good to me, so thanks for putting in the effort!
That said, I would not be comfortable merging "Balestier" into "North" though, as to Singaporeans "North" means the heartlands of Woodlands etc, and the article is specifically about the bits of the center north of Orchard Rd. Renaming it to something clearer like "Newton and Novena" might be clearer?
I also don't think there's enough stuff in North & West to warrant a split at this time. Having Mt Faber with Sentosa and Harbourfront makes sense from a traveller's POV because they're all well connected, but Labrador Park may be a bit of a stretch though. Jpatokal (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd argue quite the opposite in fact. Singaporeans would naturally group Newton, Novena and Toa Payoh into the North, as the reference point is always taken from the CBD. It's only because travellers would find them slightly more interesting than the rest of residential Singapore that the district is split off. Just technicalities anyway, since we agree that the area should be highlighted.
I'll remove Labrador Park, and I guess the only thing left would be the district name. Do you mean renaming Singapore/Balestier to Singapore/Newton, or just a normal name change? Should definitely make it snappier, it was getting tiring to type the name in the last paragraph alone. Torty3 (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
As a point of info, I tried to check what central is and found Administrative_divisions_of_Singapore, that does not look right either to me, but there is another useful link Regions_of_Singapore which is more to what I would say is correct, following some more link I finally find Urban_planning_areas_in_Singapore which make it clear that we have a central region which contains a central area. SilkyShark (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yep, that's very true. The double meaning of Central is extremely troublesome. The problems of not having imaginative names. Some bits of the main Singapore article use the term central Singapore or refer to a central location and I tried to keep it consistent. I really don't want to use the CBD as a name though. Perhaps Singapore city centre would be a better term? The Urban_planning_areas_in_Singapore also are divided more naturally but not so much for visitors. Maybe stick Bukit Timah with Newton/Novena and name it Central Singapore, but there we are again with Central. - Torty3 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Central Singapore
Singapore Districts

Posted up the new maps. Addendum: After working through the Singapore articles, I see Singapore/Marina Bay and Singapore/Sentosa are really outdated, fresh from all the new redevelopment plans. This will only get worse next year with the Kallang Riverside hub. Anyway to pre-empt this? I think Kallang would make a good district - adding in Geylang and Marine Parade perhaps. Could shelve this for another year. - Torty3 (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Great work! Globe-trotter (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

D/E card and exiting and re-entering Singapore[edit]

I'd like to ask a question about the D/E card (similar to the American I-94?) that I can't find an answer to elsewhere on the web. The traveler needs to write the next destination after Singapore on that card. Let's say I'm about to stay a week in Singapore and then continue to Sydney, I write that on the card and everything's fine so far. During my stay in Singapore I get the idea to make a quick day trip to Johor Bahru. Are they going to complain something like "you're going to Malaysia now, you have provided misleading information" at the Woodlands border station when I'm exiting Singapore? The question might sound a bit silly, but the Singaporean authorities seem to be very exact and strict about everything so I just want to be sure. Ypsilon (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're worried about this, just point it out to the Immigration Officer when you exit. -- Alice 22:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Ypsilon (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


1. Why are Malaysian newspapers banned? 2. I thought you can get some chewing gums in a chemist's if you have a prescription but I'm not sure.

1Arena1hu (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

1) Because it's the law. 2) Yes, but only medical ones; infobox amended accordingly. Jpatokal (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I supposed it was legitimate but what was the purpose of introducing that law? 1Arena1hu (talk)

Time and date formats again[edit]

The Singapore articles were originally in AM/PM format before August 2012, before User:Alice started changing all of it to 24 hour standard. This was the same for Singapore/East Coast and Singapore/Little India, before User:118.93nzp started changing them to 24 hours, and then suggested that the same should be done for Singapore/Sentosa, Singapore/Riverside, Singapore/North and West since Singapore, Singapore/East Coast and Singapore/Little India are conveniently all in 24 hour standard. Singapore does use both formats freely, with 24 hours being mainly used in transport like the MRT and airport, but AM/PM format is used for most stores and tourist attractions, and in my opinion should remain that way. -- torty3 (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually they were a mixture (like many of our articles) - but that's neither here nor there.
It's hardly surprising that Singapore articles are just catching up with the world-wide standard time format: our policy was only updated in 2011, 8 years after we started, and clarified in 2012.
The important thing is that we pick one standard and stick to it (at least for each city and, I would suggest, districts of the same city) - and in that regard your recent reverts are not helpful since they re-introduce a mixture of formats. --118.93nzp (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

12h or 24h time format background[edit]

It's probably not so relevant to the discussion about time formats for this page, but while I was researching this topic I came across this little polemic:

Copyright violation from [1] redacted -- LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

--118.93nzp (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd also prefer to stick to one format, however much like sticking to one English language variant I doubt a broad consensus around this would emerge. In any case I'd suggest taking this to the Travellers' pub, since Singapore represents only a tiny amount of articles with this issue. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any global standard emerging either, sadly. But I do think it a bit strange for different districts of the same city to have differing formats. --118.93nzp (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree Singapore should have one standard. Actually, I don't really get why this is such a big deal, since most travelers will need to be able to read a 24 hour clock to actually book their flight to get there in the first place. If a select few businesses still want to use a 12h format, then I still don't get why we have to list the time in the same way? Can 7PM mean something other than 19:00 depending on context? Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A quick look at usage by Singapore businesses will show that some (Avis, McDonalds) use 24H format, others use 12H format. So it varies. I would wager that there might be some correlation between a business's reliance on tourist traffic and use of the 12H format. I.e., they use it because they think that their visitors prefer it. (Which may have been true in immediate post-war years when Asia was full of US nationals. Today, largest number of visitors is from China, also true for Thailand). Seligne (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that's true of a lot of locations.
If you had to make a judgement of Solomon, Seligne and pick one format, 12h or 24h, would you leave things as they are with 24h format in the main Singapore article or change back to 12h (AM/PM) format then? --118.93nzp (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I would use 24H exclusively. I'm a big fan of intelligent standards world-wide, from the metric system to ISO date standards to phone chargers. The last holdout for 12H time is the US, and to be competitive economically they are going to have to get with the program, like it or not. Seligne (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I know both and use both, but I just found it disappointing that all ten districts of Singapore except for the main article of Singapore were essentially in AM/PM format yet changes were not made on a wholesale basis, first changing Singapore/East Coast and Singapore/Little India, then deciding that those were the articles that were to be followed and opening up discussions on other districts' individual talk pages when they should have been discussed on the main Singapore article. Both your edits added to the inconsistencies and not the other way round. The rough guideline for using AM/PM is whether local usage predominates, and when asking a Singaporean to meet at a certain time, odds are that they will answer 6PM instead of 18:00 hours.
But meh, I don't really care to argue any more than this, but please go ahead and change all ten articles then. -- torty3 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You are quite right about how it should have been/might have been handled. Mea culpa. As regards usage, our discussions here are about written communication. Of course in daily life people will say "noon" typically and not "twelve hundred hours" as we did in the army. Many times I can recall being screwed up because someone wrote "12PM" meaning "noon" instead of "12AM" or the correct "12M". Easy here to eliminate that confusion. Seligne (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for conceding the point, Torty3.
If it will lessen the disappointment, may I point out that, originally all of our articles should have used the 11:45AM-10:20PM time format to get Star Status. Then, it was conceded that while much of the world still speaks about "6 o'clock" (even though in Ethiopia this may mean either noon or midnight, depending on the context), most of the world has now switched to the shorter 24 hour time format of 11:45-22:20 in written material such as airline, rail, ferry and bus timetables so that the 24 hour time format is now an acceptable format in Wikivoyage.
Since most have conceded that all the 10 district articles of Singapore should share the same time format as the "parent" article, the only real question that remains is what format that should be and I think that this is one of the rare instances where the policy at the legacy site of is better and clearer than ours and avoids these time wasting discussions that often generate more heat than light:
" As an alternative, a 12 hour, am/pm format may be used consistently in any destination article where the 24 hour format is locally very rarely seen in print, eg: 10:30am-5pm.
Choose to deviate from our standard, 24 hour format only to follow overwhelming local written usage. Ask yourself: "which format will visitors see in newspapers, on shop doors, and on train schedules?" If the answer is "a mixture", then use our standard 24 hour format. "
in so far as it both makes clear that the test is written rather than spoken usage (otherwise almost all our articles would stick with 12h) and provides a tie-breaker if the local written usage is mixed.
I approached this from a different sequence to what you describe:
1) I saw the main article had Star status and that it was fairly consistent in its use of the 24h time format
2) I thought that the district articles should have the same format as the main article
3) I saw you making an edit to our Singapore/East Coast district article which introduced more inconsistency
4) I made an edit which corrected US English to Singapore English and made other copy edits (including restoring the 24h time format) half an hour later
5) I looked at the other district articles and left the same suggestion on three or four of them: "May I recommend using the same time formats for all the Singapore articles? Our main Singapore city state article has Star status and uses the universally understood, unambiguous and usually shorter 24 hour time format (as does Singapore/East Coast)."
6) I do agree that it would have been better to have added a suggestion to centralise the discussion here, but I must admit that I thought using the 24h time format was pretty much a no-brainer for all articles other than the US (plus cultural colonies) and "Old Commonwealth" countries of the world.
Since I'm not an admin and don't have rollback powers, now that we've decided that all SG articles should standardise on 24h time formats, would somebody rollback the relevant edits that changed some text to 12h format? --118.93nzp (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


This is from "Do/Culture":

"In summer, don't miss the yearly Singapore Arts Festival."

This is from "Understand/Climate":

"As Singapore is located a mere 1.5 degrees north of the Equator, its weather is usually sunny with no distinct seasons."

So what and when is the "summer" that's being referred to? I think the month(s) need to be specified. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

May and June. Yes Done --118.93nzp (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent copy edits[edit]

For unknown reasons a number of recent copy edits have been reverted. Those which were reverted include:

  • 'While normal Singaporean taxis are not allowed to cross into Malaysia and vice versa, specially licenced Singaporean' Changed => 'While normal Singaporean taxis are not allowed to cross into Malaysia and vice versa, specially licensed'
Reason for change - the correct spelling is licensed.
  • 'construction crews directing' Changed =>'construction teams directing'
Reason for change - in Singapore such workers are known as a team.
  • 'Cycling on the pavement (sidewalk) is illegal in most parts of Singapore.' Changed => 'Cycling on the pavement is illegal in most parts of Singapore.'
Reason for change - in Singapore the word pavement is used, and given its very wide use elsewhere there is no need to translate it to a word that is used less frequently.
  • 'where Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Baha'i faith, Christianity, Islam and even Judaism all exist in sizeable numbers.' Changed => 'where Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Baha'i faith, Christianity, Islam and Judaism all exist in sizeable numbers.'
Reason for change - why highlight Judaism? What point is the editor trying to make?
  • 'A favourite of flight crew and repeat tourists due to' Changed => 'A favourite of flight crews and repeat tourists due to'
Reason for change - to make it plural.
  • 'here are coins of $0.05 (gold), $0.10 (silver), $0.20 (silver), $0.50 (silver) and $1 (gold), plus bills of $2 (purple), $5 (green), $10 (red), $50 (blue), $100 (orange), $1,000 (purple) and $10,000 (gold).' Changed => 'here are coins of $0.05 (gold), $0.10 (silver), $0.20 (silver), $0.50 (silver) and $1 (gold), plus notes of $2 (purple), $5 (green), $10 (red), $50 (blue), $100 (orange), $1,000 (purple) and $10,000 (gold).'
Reason for change - in Singapore paper money is issued as notes.
  • 'Tipping is actually prohibited at the airport. Changed => Tipping is prohibited at the airport.'
Reason for change - sloppy language by user of a filler word.
  • 'can be yours for $300 with the right discounts during the off-peak season.' Changed => 'can cost $300 after discounts during the off-peak season.'
Reason for change - unnecessarily long-winded & sloppy language.
  • 'the most common scam is doubling the charge without your agreement, daylight robbery, essentially.)' Changed => 'the most common scam is doubling the charge without your agreement'
Reason for change - unnecessarily stating the obvious to repeat what was noted earlier in the same sentence.
Reason for change - 'data point' is meaningless in this conteext.
  • 'Sporting goods: Queensway Shopping Centre, off Alexandra Rd and rather off the beaten track (take a cab),' Changed => 'Sporting goods': Queensway Shopping Centre, off Alexandra Rd and rather off the beaten track (take a taxi')
Reason for change - in Singapore such vehicles are known as a taxis.
  • 'but if you want a plain black cup of joe,' Changed => 'but if you want a plain black cup of coffee'
Reason for change - 'joe' is a very infrequently used slang term for coffee. Readers should not be expected to used Google to translate content.
  • 'you will face jail time and possibly caning.' Changed => 'you will face prison and possibly caning.'
Reason for change - in Singapore criminals are sentenced to prison, and this word is in common use elsewhere.
  • 'Most Malays, being Muslims, eat only halal food, while most Indians, being Hindu, abstain from beef.' Changed => Most Malays, being Muslims, eat only halal food, while most Hindus abstain from beef.'
Reason for change - this implies all Indians are Hindus, which is both incorrect and offensive. Also, the change reflects that not all Hindus are Indians. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)
You have reasons for your changes. Most of the changes are indeed meritorious, but some of them make the writing less lively. This is a Star article, partly because of the engaging writing. We have a difference of opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
As a local-born Singaporean, I am a tad surprised this is a star article, especially considering it contains too much personal opinion which enforces stereotypes or over-simplifies complex issues which will likely cause wrong assumptions (Eg: the "Banned in Singapore" lists gives travellers the impression that they cannot bring any of those stuff in. In reality, only handcuffs and chewing gum cannot be brought in). Yes, it may seem more interesting and thus possibly engaging to some readers, but it puts me off reading what appears to be an article writtern to push personal opinions (Eg: "unless you're coming from Peninsular Malaysia or Batam/Bintan in Indonesia, the easiest way to enter Singapore is by air." I am not sure whose opnion that is, but flying to/from Singapore from/to Peninsular Malaysia is actually pretty popular, with KUL happening to be one of the top 3 destinations by air from SIN, so I suppose there must be plenty of people willing to put up with inconenience?) and writtern only with a specific (Western) audience in mind. Will other authors resist changes to be made, such as by the editor above, just because this is a star article? Huaiwei (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think people are likely to resist changes in content and tone that you would put in out of personal knowledge, and I'd encourage you to make the appropriate edits. My problem is simply with changes in phrasing that don't really change the fundamental meaning but remove nice expressions, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Just one specific comment: I don't think the quote about entering Singapore is meant to imply that flying from the Malaysian part of the peninsula is inconvenient, just that it's one of the few origins for which other options are at least as convenient as flying. Powers (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

This page has been the target of persistent edit warring lately (see Special:Diff/2811913/2812083 for one of many examples). User:Andrewssi2 noted that "Edits should not be in the first person, and should use facts rather than personal anecdotes" in one revert, and talk page messages were left at User talk: requesting feedback and suggesting fixes. I'm not sure if the anonymous user who is making these edits has seen these messages or not, but it seemed worthwhile to at least start a discussion on this talk page in the hopes of catching his/her attention and potentially leading to more productive actions than the days-long edit war that is currently ongoing. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm in favor of blocking said user or semi-protecting this page temporarily. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I've already protected the page against non-autoconfirmed edits for a short while. As to a block, if we assume good faith then the user may just be frustrated at seeing an edit reverted, so let's give it a bit more time to see if they will stop edit warring and discuss the changes. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Wow, looking at the history it seems they are really keen to share their shopping experience in Singapore. Agree with protecting against non-autoconfirmed edits, since this seems to be the only page they care about and they may be willing to discuss next time. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Good catch. Hope that does it for now. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


Banner 1 (current)
Banner 2
Banner 3
Banner 4
Banner 5
Banner 6

Can I suggest changing the banner to something else? My suggestion would be something with the Merlion. (A perhaps too easy icon, but many other cities including Paris use it)

The current banner.. at least to me feels a bit weird and doesn't say Singapore to me... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Weird, how? I think the important thing is that it shows a unique sight that makes people want to know more. Powers (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
It is a shot of the large artificial trees in Marina Park. I would say that this isn't something that will compell people to visit Singapore.
Also the contention that the banner should provide a unique sight is not universal on WV. (Check any other major city) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say "visit Singapore"; I said "know more". And I also didn't say that banners "should" provide a unique sight; I said that was an important aspect of the image. Powers (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't pretend to understand what you mean by that, however your previous comment was clear enough. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it was clear enough, since you seem to have misunderstood it, based on your rebuttals. Powers (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I added a selection of banners to choose from.--Renek78 (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Prices Need Update[edit]

This continues to be one of our best articles. I relied on this heavily for my recent vacation to Singapore. The prices for various attractions are out of date and need update. I'll do the update when I can, but if anyone can chip in, please do. Ravikiran (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Self-promotion of business by BonAppetour[edit]

Bonappetour added a subsection to "Eat" in Aug 2014 about "Supper clubs". The only mentioned & linked business is BonAppetour itself, though similar dining experiences exist (from a quick googling: Singapore Secret Supper Society, lolla’s secret suppers, Khana Commune, etc.). The activity of "supper clubs" still seems very niche to me, and Bonappetour might be a marketing employee of the business. Should the section be removed, or expanded with other listings? -- Creamyhorror (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all new sections are commonly added to the bottom of talk pages - most established editors may overlook your addition as they won't be looking for it at the top of the page. As for your concerns, I tend towards deleting wholesale, but I am not sure maybe User:Andrewssi2 or User:Ikan Kekek want to weigh in? Also have a look at our WV:don't tout policy when in doubt. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a grey area since we recently had a conversation around listing 'Escape Rooms' in Prague that people seemed to think might be traveler related.
Personally I would say the 'Supper clubs' content is not relevant here. They exist all over the world, and the the link to a general search site only reinforces their temporary nature. It would be like linking AirBnb in our 'Sleep' section. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to add a counter point to this, using such a supper club does actually sound like a great way to experience another country (talking to the hosts, eating local food) than eating in a tourist restaurant. Just the format of using a global search site doesn't sit well... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this should deleted. I haven't heard about any supper clubs in Singapore and I don't think this is a popular thing in Singapore. This might also be a bit confusing as 'supper' in Singapore usually refers to the very common and popular activity of late-night meals with a lot of eateries serving specific 'supper' choices. --Drat70 (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I deleted this today, as this seems to be supported by a couple people here. Please feel free to revert if necessary. --Drat70 (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Pictures of different taxi companies[edit]

User:EurovisionNim added some pictures of the taxis of the different taxi companies. This brings the total number of pictures of taxis in this article to 10. While I think knowing how the local taxis look like is certainly useful, I think this is just too many pictures for one article, for the following reasons:

  • On my screen the pictures of the taxis go all the way down to the 'on foot' section, pushing the bumboat picture and the picture of the traffic sign to where there are very far from the text they correspond to.
  • Some of the taxis are quite generic and won't really help the traveller recognise it and some are so rare, that they don't warrant a picture on their own.
  • Picturing taxis makes IMO sense in cities where there is one or two reliable taxi services and then a lot of scams. But in Singapore virtually every taxi will be okay, so I don't think there's a need to identify all the brands.

For those reasons I think we should limit the amount of taxi pictures to maybe 2-3 (I suggest the more common ones: maybe CityCab, Comfort and SMRT). Any opinions on this? Drat70 (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow! 10 different pictures of taxis? That is rather excessive. It isn't useful for me as a traveler to know every model and color of taxi used in Singapore, especially if there are so many. Agree to reduce to the most common ones. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I just went ahead and removed 9 of the taxi pictures. Basically they are all normal looking cars with a taxi light on top. I have saved the pictures here. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirect for 'singapur' ?[edit]

According to Alexa, the 2nd searched term taking people to WV is Singapur. Since that just dumps you onto the search page (with a suggestion for Singapore) it it worth creating a Redirect for this? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, please create one. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Zika outbreak in Singapore[edit]

There is currently Zika outbreak in Singapore. As far as I am aware, some countries issued warning advisories. Should we add a warning template to the page? Jianhui67 (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There already is one, in Stay healthy. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes. Thank you very much. Jianhui67 (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Thankfully it looks like they have the epidemic under control now, with only one or two new cases per day for the last couple of days. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep, the number is decreasing gradually day by day. The Singaporean government has already taken preventive measures to stop the virus from spreading around the country. Jianhui67 (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Just 4 new cases last week, so it doesn't look so alarming any longer. Maybe the red warning box can be replaced with a sentence or two in Stay healthy. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No fingerprinting at immigration[edit]

Contrary to what the page says, my friend and I were not fingerprinted when entering Changi via a Phuket flight on December 31, 2016. -- dandv —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Moving hotels in Singapore[edit]


I saw you have been doing a lot of work recently on some of the Singapore articles. Thanks for that, those are really huge improvements.

I saw that you have been moving some listings around which where in the wrong district. Generally I think that is a good idea, but there is one case where I would like to revert your move. You moved two hotels from Singapore/Riverside to Singapore/North and West. Now while the two hotels are technically in the area which we designate North and West, I would argue that they belong to the other article. They are still pretty close to the river and in my opinion fall into that same group of hotels as all the other ones along the river. North and West is a sort of collection of everything outside the city centre, and as such in my opinion should contain hotels outside the city centre.

Let me know what you think.

BTW, if your motivation for the move was that there is not enough hotels in the North and West article, then I can think of a couple other ones to add to that article.

Drat70 (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Drat70, please go ahead and undo the relevant changes. On a more general note I think, that we should stick to the districts. The purpose of them is to bring some structure into the article after all. In the case of Singapore it would simply mean, that the districts need some finetuning, i.e. either of the central districts should be extended. Please see my recommendation in the link below. The red area (Outram) should be added to either Riverside or Chinatown. Maybe Riverside makes more sense? Please tell me, what you think and I update the dynamic map.
PS: I added this conversation to the Singapore talk page. Guess it is relevant for other editors of the article as well.
--Renek78 (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Renek78: What you say makes a lot of sense. Extending the Riverside district would be a good solution I think. The red area you marked out, I would actually cut it into half between Chinatown and Riverside, delimited by the Expressway. I would however also add an extra area containing more of the river, including the River Valley area, to the Riverside district. There are two malls there and this area might get more developed in the coming years due to a new MRT extension. I roughly marked out the areas in the map below with the areas I mentioned above.
Do you think that would make sense?
Drat70 (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Drat70. Try to do it tonight. So the grey and yellow areas to Riverside and the lilac one to Chinatown, right?--Renek78 (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Exactly those areas. Drat70 (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Done.--Renek78 (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Renek78: I have been working on updating those static maps (so far only Bugis and Marina Bay are done), and while doing so I noticed one area where we could improve the district borders. Notably Sim Lim Centre is currently in the Orchard area and according to the map, so should the Albert Village Hotel. However, both those places are far more easily reached from Little India or Bugis and so I would suggest moving the Little India border one road westwards. (Here's a map of the area to be added to Little India and substracted from Orchard: What do you think? As I go along making the static maps, I might find one or the other discrepancy like this and have to tweak some borders a bit (no major changes I think). I could do those myself, but I'd really hate to mess up your very clean map files, so I wanted to ask you, would you rather I ask you to change those or are you okay with me changing them myself? Drat70 (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Drat70, gonna do it as soon as possible. Hopefully today or tomorrow.--Renek78 (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. --Renek78 (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much! That's perfect. Drat70 (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Nil error?[edit]

What is this, and can someone who knows how please fix it?

Lua error in mw.wikibase.entity.lua at line 37: data.schemaVersion must be a number, got nil instead.

Thank you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's impossible to say without knowing what module is producing the error. Where did you see it? Powers (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I saw it in bold red text right after the "Singapore is a huge city" text, I think, but it's no longer there now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)