This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2013 Southeast Asian haze article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A news item involving 2013 Southeast Asian haze was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 21 June 2013. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please help to update this page Orangewarning ( talk) 06:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I wrote a script to automatically download the values from NEA's website and stick it in a spreadsheet, the graph and spreadsheet can be found here :) Zhongfuli ( talk) 02:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Why not adding haze at Northern Thailand and surrounding areas in March 2013? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maracana09 ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, Does anyone will help adding The Thailand section? South Thailand had haze for today, and, in the unhealthy range. Thelegoers ( talk) 15:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I found it too tedious to manually add the formatting for all of the Singapore 24-hour PSI readings, so I made a simple batch file to do it. I will be updating the Singapore PSI readings when I have time. Is haze.gov.sg down for anyone else? The NEA website says to clear my cache, but I have already done so and it still does not load :o Squc ( talk) 09:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Should the citation for the first death be this instead of this? Can another citation for the second death be this The Sun (daily) article (should this website be used, is it a good source to use?) I am not very sure.. Squc ( talk) 14:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Please be alert that another haze of the same year is coming. I suggest that this "2nd haze" should be written on this page in another section. Meanwhile, do update the page! Thelegoers ( talk) 22:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it's better if someone could put a "free map" to show the most affected area by the haze here. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 13:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. But what's stopping us is that there are very unclear copyright status of the maps. Currently National Environment Agency and Meteorological Services Singapore own the images and according to their Website Terms of Use, all images and media content published are copyrighted to the agencies. This means that we cannot use it freely on Wikipedia or other websites. Hopefully we can obtain permission from the respective agencies before putting it up on this page. Hellclanner ( talk) 14:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Discussion closed. Results are obvious, but will be offically released soon. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 16:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
A discussion about this issue may take place again in the near future, depending on the length of the Singapore section. But if it happens, please start another section. Thank you to all for your participation in this discussion.
Arctic Kangaroo (
✉ •
✎) 16:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Official results
Final result: 8 / 3 / 0
Final decision: Merge
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am currently discussing with Reywas92 over the merger of 2013 Singapore haze into this article. Here is our conversation on Reywas92's talk page:
Hi Reywas92, regarding the 2 haze articles, perhaps I will try to shorten the one on the
S.E.A article then restore the
Singapore article. This haze is the worst in Singapore so far, so I think it really deserves an article.
Yienshawn would also not have created the article for nothing. Cheers.
Arctic Kangaroo (
✉ •
✎) 08:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
So, anyone who wants to discuss this or voice their opinions? Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 09:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I will wait for Yienshawn's comment before closing this discussion, since he was the one who started the page. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 10:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, thanks for opening a discussion for this. I was aware of the 2013 Southeast Asian haze article yesterday when I opened the 2013 Singapore haze at midnight. I started the 2013 Singapore haze page because the situation was really bad and it hit the record-breaking reading in Singapore, also, the current 2013 Southeast Asian haze as of yesterday was lacking quite a bit of information in the Singapore section; hence I thought of just opening a new page specially for Singapore haze and at the same time, better update the page with latest data, news and developments as well as preventive measures taken. However, I wouldn't mind merging the page with this since they are of quite the same information. Either that or we can simplify the data of the Singapore section at the 2013 Southeast Asian haze page. Both works for me. Also, I would wish to thank User:Arctic Kangaroo for helping me to update the Singapore page this morning! Yienshawn ( talk) 13:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we should have a Singapore wiki page instead than having all facts lump on this Southeast Asian article. Don't people want to see just about singapore rather than the whole of SEA? 58.146.156.20 ( talk) 14:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Support merge. They both refer to the exact same incident. It's not even a incident that derived from the haze (like how the Fukushima nuclear reactors failed after the tsunami). Singapore seems the hardest hit, but remember, the haze map (on June 19) shows that the densest haze is at Malaysia. We can intentionally place more emphasis on Singapore, but I emphasize again that Malaysia cannot be left out. Maybe we should get Wikiproject Malaysia more involved. Oliver lyc 00:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: 3 supports, 2 opposes, 1 neutral.
If that's the case now, we will wait for Oliver, RectorRocks and/or Hellclanner to respond. If no response, will proceed to close within the next few days. Hope you guys don't mind the wait.
Arctic Kangaroo (
✉ •
✎) 15:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to highlight, what Yienshawn said and suggested was about the same as me. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 15:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, I would like to highlight that when I started the 2013 Singapore haze page, there wasn't the "preventive measures taken" section on this 2013 Southeast Asian haze page. So, if we decided to have two separate issues, I would suggest having a lesser or more general information on this page and then on the Singapore page, we can have all these details. As the haze situation will probably remain for another few weeks, definitely we will have much more news to cover on the Singapore page as well. Just today, we can even add in news that PM Lee said in a press conference. For e.g: *masks will be restocked, *Under 18 and senior citizens can just pay $10 to their GP for medical and MOH will pay the rest, etc. Yienshawn ( talk) 17:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: 4 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 01:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The current results are hard for conclusion, so perhaps you guys want to find some reasons to support/oppose Yienshawn's comment at 1:59am, 21 June 2013 (GMT+8)? Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 01:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I just don't think the article is long enough to need a split, nor will it be. It's the same topic, so either the SEA article will be incomplete or the SG article will be redundant (or both); no need to update the same readings table on two articles, nor should readers of SEA have to go to SG to see it. The details such as measures should not be shoved away into a subarticle: they're still relevant to Southeast Asia. Keep it concise and together. Cheers, Reywas92 Talk 03:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I would still think that having a SG page will work better, simply because the Malaysia section here are not even updated that much compared to the Singapore section on this page. Also, why are measures taken from the Malaysia authority being written under Singapore's measures taken? Then again, of course, I understand all your concerns that the article was not too long enough to open a new wiki page. So, let's see how things go. With the current situation and news developing each day and SG government meeting the Indo government now to discuss, I would still vote for support! While we wait and see what others think :) Yienshawn ( talk) 06:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: 4 / 3 / 0 -- Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 08:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Not a good stat to close, will see how it goes. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 11:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
At least the difference between support and oppose should be at least 2. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 11:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: 5 / 3 / 0 -- Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 12:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Please give me a while to confirm if all invitees have used/wasted their chance to vote before I close... Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 12:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: 6/3/0 ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC) I wanted to make the result more convincing, actually. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: 6 / 3 / 0
Bonkers, wrong stats. --
Arctic Kangaroo (
✉ •
✎) 12:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Would still think a singapore page will work. Furthermore, each and every single day the government has been implementing measures. Just today, government will be giving free masks to poor household, also closure of restaurants, and the running out of masks. Definitely much news than just what listed here on this page. 58.146.156.20 ( talk) 14:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: 6 / 3 / 0 -- Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 14:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Last call for opinions or comments. Gate closes at 12:15am tonight (GMT+8). Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 14:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I am more inclined to think that the SEA page can stay as it is until it comes a time when the Singapore section begins to overwhelm the page, where a separate section then becomes more justifiable. And looking at the way things are going, it is quite likely that this will happen soon. But meanwhile, I think we need to consider how to improve on the Singapore section so that it can stand on its own as a full-length article. There are actually plenty of details which have yet to be fully discussed, especially in terms of international diplomacy and economic impact, the later of which is still..erm...hazy at this stage.-- Huaiwei ( talk) 14:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: 8 / 3 / 0 -- Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 15:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Last call for opinions or comments. Gate closes at 12:15am tonight (GMT+8). Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 15:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have a picture of the haze that can be included in the article?
ihatefile007 ( talk) 23:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The quality of writing especially in the 'international reactions' portion is quite substandard, with bad grammar, odd sentence structure, awkward word choice and incorrect use of tenses, conjugation and articles. This has the chronic effects of making things difficult to understand. For instance:
Agung Laksono, the Indonesian Minister for People's Welfare, called for Singapore to cease "making all these noise" and "behaving like a child", insisting that that Singapore companies that own plantations on Sumatra must be shared the blame
MJXcess ( talk) 05:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
@ Arctic Kangaroo & @ MJXcess, please stop.
MJXcess, I understand you have picked out several grammatical errors and pointed it out to us, and I thank you for that. :) However, you put it in a way that seems to "insult", for lack of a better word, our capabilities in English. I hope you can exercise a reasonable degree of caution so as to avoid offending any editors (to be honest, I felt a little offended and uncomfortable too).
As for Arctic Kangaroo, you should have put your words in a less confrontational manner. As you have pointed out, we should assume good faith. The problem here is that you seemed to assume bad faith here, and jumped to the conclusion that MJXcess is insulting our abilities in English. I trust that MJXcess here is also trying to contribute, though unfortunately he/she just put it in a manner that is a little blunt for us accept. MJXcess has just created his/her account, and is new to the community here. We should put that in mind before making any accusations. I hope you will exercise a degree of caution in the future.
Anyway, I hope both of you will be able to contribute positively to Wikipedia in the future. MJXcess, I look forward to your future contributions! ;) Oliver lyc 04:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
While Indonesia is the culprit for this one, it cannot be denied that they are actually the ones affected the most. PSI readings in the country have reached close to 500. We should most probably have a subsection devoted to Indonesia in the mother section, "Countries affected". Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I try to provide the data from Indonesian side. This is a PR disaster for Indonesian Govt. Causing fires and haze pollutions is totally wrong in all level, and the culprit plantations should be held responsible and brought to justice. My deepest sympathy for affected people in Singapore, Malaysia, and Riau. Gunkarta ( talk) 17:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The statement that Indonesia is the source of the haze should (must) have citation, or else, it's just a blatant accusation. sentausa ( talk) 11:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, I see that everyone is eagerly contributing to this article, trying to make it better and so on. After a reassessment this morning, the article moved from Start-class to C-class. I just reassessed it minutes ago for B-class status, but unfortunately, it still does not meet the criteria. I see that this article is being improved steadily, getting better every moment, and it sparkles with the potential of a GA or even FA. So, should we just work harder, pour in whatever content or knowledge that we find/know, and work towards that goal? Cheers. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 14:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I think this article needs a good cleanup. I might copyediting it when I return to the hotel. Actually typing this while waiting for a roller coaster ride. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 02:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
@Crisco: If you shorten it, then the article will become botak. Then, why is a botak article a GA? And, people will become curious, want to find out the details. If you go and read the article assessment criteria (which you definitely have done so), some of the lower classes focus on saying that the readers are left curious and still wanting more content. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 14:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I have made the Singapore 24-hour PSI reading table collapsed, does it look better this way? Should any other table be collapsed too? Squc ( talk) 14:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Crisco, if I don't remember wrongly, all the issues you highlighted seem to have been resolved. Do you have any other suggestions at the moment? I will probably try going for GA/FA status after the whole thing has ended, which will probably be in a few months' time. Cheers. -- Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 13:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I have just reassessed the article and it looks more like B-class now. Feel free to revert it back to C-class if you feel that it is still not up to standard. Cheers. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 07:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, I have noted that the Bedok South pictures for comparison on Singapore's section were taken of different timing. Though it works really good as a tool for comparison, one picture is taken during sunset at 7+p.m in 2010 and another one is 11.03a.m during the haze situation, I guess it doesn't make such a fair comparison after all. Also, the first picture kinda show the silhouette of the buildings rather than a full clear scenery. What do you guys think? ~ Yienshawn ( talk) 19:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Yellowdesk says it should be used only on articles edited by many in an hour. This article has been edited many times every hour (perhaps except when Singapore sleeps), and most hours, it is edited by a few editors, consisting of both registered users, newbies, and IPs. So I don't understand why he keeps removing it. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 03:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:LEADCITE, statements in the lead need no citations unless deemed as controversial. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 02:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The article is quite a mess. I'm seeing very close paraphrasing from sources and useless bare URLs as references (I.e. channelnewsasia.com). Also, please try not to use present perfect tenses. Just past will do. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering, does anyone think that Section 1.4.1 (Measures Taken) is kind of too detailed? Hz. tiang 06:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
When exactly will the haze be considered to have ended? I think it's pointless to post daily PSI readings if they are healthy only. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
RectorRocks ( talk) 13:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I am wondering where are all the PSI and API readings, lately? The event was continuing and I had tried adding it, but later, it disappeared. I wonder if we agree to add them in. The Pollutant Standards Index, which isn't that link to the haze, however, had the readings and tables. 183.90.41.20 ( talk) 11:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Should the haze comes back, would we continue on this page or split into two sections of June and July haze? ( Yenwei ( talk) 06:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC))
Also, a reader suggested that we should add a before/after meteorogical graph for this topic. ( Yenwei ( talk) 07:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC))
@Arctic Kangaroo: Then can someone update Malaysia's one. Because I'm not quite familiar. ( Yenwei ( talk) 09:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC))
Section for first wave and second wave...hmm...seems like a good idea. And BTW, our 3h readings are very precious! The 401 is not the 24h reading! ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 14:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Is someone able to help me with this? I'm no expert in tables...and I'm very busy now. Thanks a lot. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 15:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
And oh, it would be good to just update from 21 July onwards. Cheers. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 15:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Will stop updating API readings from Sunday, if API levels did not hit the unhealthy levels over the next two days. ( Yenwei ( talk) 13:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC))
Latest update on API reading (5pm) was by me, because I was not logged in. As the API readings did not reach unhealthy levels and have improved, the July readings will end here.( Yenwei ( talk) 10:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC))
Just stand by for a while, Cheras in Kuala Lumpur reported unhealthy reading as of 4PM.( Yenwei ( talk) 09:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC))
Will update API readings again for the next three days, because Cheras, KL reported unhealthy reading as of 5PM today. ( Yenwei ( talk) 10:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC))
@иz нίpнόp: No problem! ( Yenwei ( talk) 12:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC))
Will stop updating API readings from now. ( Yenwei ( talk) 11:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC))
Will update again, should API readings hit unhealthy levels. ( Yenwei ( talk) 08:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC))
Woohoo!
[1]
✉→
Arctic Kangaroo
←✎ 15:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Can I suggest not adding PSI readings for every day in fully prose form? Adding a paragraph per day per country is really bloating the page with insignificant information that can be displayed just fine with a table anyway. Quite a few sections have moved into {{ Overly detailed}} or even WP:NOTSTATSBOOK territory. — Reatlas (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
On 18 August, there is a "third haze" with hotspots reaching 200 and above. Here in Kuala Lumpur, the sky is slightly haze. Anyone help to update this page? 120.138.91.68 ( talk) 05:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
@User: Depends on either the API or PSI indexes that reaches unhealthy levels or above. Lastly, do sign up for Wikipedia, it's free to join! :)( Yenwei ( talk) 14:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC))
Probably the haze is coming. The first time I see dense haze. The west part of the Southeast Asia will be hit painfully if the wind direction is the same and the hot spots continue! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelegoers ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia reports excessive content in this page, suggesting that the part "Countries affected" is over written. Do we need to describe the time lapse day after day? Probably not. Also, the introduction is overly written. Any suggestions to reduce the wordings in the page? Thelegoers ( talk) 13:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2013 Southeast Asian haze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://hazecam.netcompartner.com/kl-cam/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on 2013 Southeast Asian haze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2013 Southeast Asian haze article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A news item involving 2013 Southeast Asian haze was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 21 June 2013. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please help to update this page Orangewarning ( talk) 06:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I wrote a script to automatically download the values from NEA's website and stick it in a spreadsheet, the graph and spreadsheet can be found here :) Zhongfuli ( talk) 02:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Why not adding haze at Northern Thailand and surrounding areas in March 2013? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maracana09 ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, Does anyone will help adding The Thailand section? South Thailand had haze for today, and, in the unhealthy range. Thelegoers ( talk) 15:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I found it too tedious to manually add the formatting for all of the Singapore 24-hour PSI readings, so I made a simple batch file to do it. I will be updating the Singapore PSI readings when I have time. Is haze.gov.sg down for anyone else? The NEA website says to clear my cache, but I have already done so and it still does not load :o Squc ( talk) 09:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Should the citation for the first death be this instead of this? Can another citation for the second death be this The Sun (daily) article (should this website be used, is it a good source to use?) I am not very sure.. Squc ( talk) 14:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Please be alert that another haze of the same year is coming. I suggest that this "2nd haze" should be written on this page in another section. Meanwhile, do update the page! Thelegoers ( talk) 22:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it's better if someone could put a "free map" to show the most affected area by the haze here. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 13:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. But what's stopping us is that there are very unclear copyright status of the maps. Currently National Environment Agency and Meteorological Services Singapore own the images and according to their Website Terms of Use, all images and media content published are copyrighted to the agencies. This means that we cannot use it freely on Wikipedia or other websites. Hopefully we can obtain permission from the respective agencies before putting it up on this page. Hellclanner ( talk) 14:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Discussion closed. Results are obvious, but will be offically released soon. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 16:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
A discussion about this issue may take place again in the near future, depending on the length of the Singapore section. But if it happens, please start another section. Thank you to all for your participation in this discussion.
Arctic Kangaroo (
✉ •
✎) 16:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Official results
Final result: 8 / 3 / 0
Final decision: Merge
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am currently discussing with Reywas92 over the merger of 2013 Singapore haze into this article. Here is our conversation on Reywas92's talk page:
Hi Reywas92, regarding the 2 haze articles, perhaps I will try to shorten the one on the
S.E.A article then restore the
Singapore article. This haze is the worst in Singapore so far, so I think it really deserves an article.
Yienshawn would also not have created the article for nothing. Cheers.
Arctic Kangaroo (
✉ •
✎) 08:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
So, anyone who wants to discuss this or voice their opinions? Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 09:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I will wait for Yienshawn's comment before closing this discussion, since he was the one who started the page. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 10:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, thanks for opening a discussion for this. I was aware of the 2013 Southeast Asian haze article yesterday when I opened the 2013 Singapore haze at midnight. I started the 2013 Singapore haze page because the situation was really bad and it hit the record-breaking reading in Singapore, also, the current 2013 Southeast Asian haze as of yesterday was lacking quite a bit of information in the Singapore section; hence I thought of just opening a new page specially for Singapore haze and at the same time, better update the page with latest data, news and developments as well as preventive measures taken. However, I wouldn't mind merging the page with this since they are of quite the same information. Either that or we can simplify the data of the Singapore section at the 2013 Southeast Asian haze page. Both works for me. Also, I would wish to thank User:Arctic Kangaroo for helping me to update the Singapore page this morning! Yienshawn ( talk) 13:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we should have a Singapore wiki page instead than having all facts lump on this Southeast Asian article. Don't people want to see just about singapore rather than the whole of SEA? 58.146.156.20 ( talk) 14:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Support merge. They both refer to the exact same incident. It's not even a incident that derived from the haze (like how the Fukushima nuclear reactors failed after the tsunami). Singapore seems the hardest hit, but remember, the haze map (on June 19) shows that the densest haze is at Malaysia. We can intentionally place more emphasis on Singapore, but I emphasize again that Malaysia cannot be left out. Maybe we should get Wikiproject Malaysia more involved. Oliver lyc 00:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: 3 supports, 2 opposes, 1 neutral.
If that's the case now, we will wait for Oliver, RectorRocks and/or Hellclanner to respond. If no response, will proceed to close within the next few days. Hope you guys don't mind the wait.
Arctic Kangaroo (
✉ •
✎) 15:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to highlight, what Yienshawn said and suggested was about the same as me. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 15:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, I would like to highlight that when I started the 2013 Singapore haze page, there wasn't the "preventive measures taken" section on this 2013 Southeast Asian haze page. So, if we decided to have two separate issues, I would suggest having a lesser or more general information on this page and then on the Singapore page, we can have all these details. As the haze situation will probably remain for another few weeks, definitely we will have much more news to cover on the Singapore page as well. Just today, we can even add in news that PM Lee said in a press conference. For e.g: *masks will be restocked, *Under 18 and senior citizens can just pay $10 to their GP for medical and MOH will pay the rest, etc. Yienshawn ( talk) 17:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: 4 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 01:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The current results are hard for conclusion, so perhaps you guys want to find some reasons to support/oppose Yienshawn's comment at 1:59am, 21 June 2013 (GMT+8)? Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 01:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I just don't think the article is long enough to need a split, nor will it be. It's the same topic, so either the SEA article will be incomplete or the SG article will be redundant (or both); no need to update the same readings table on two articles, nor should readers of SEA have to go to SG to see it. The details such as measures should not be shoved away into a subarticle: they're still relevant to Southeast Asia. Keep it concise and together. Cheers, Reywas92 Talk 03:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I would still think that having a SG page will work better, simply because the Malaysia section here are not even updated that much compared to the Singapore section on this page. Also, why are measures taken from the Malaysia authority being written under Singapore's measures taken? Then again, of course, I understand all your concerns that the article was not too long enough to open a new wiki page. So, let's see how things go. With the current situation and news developing each day and SG government meeting the Indo government now to discuss, I would still vote for support! While we wait and see what others think :) Yienshawn ( talk) 06:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: 4 / 3 / 0 -- Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 08:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Not a good stat to close, will see how it goes. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 11:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
At least the difference between support and oppose should be at least 2. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 11:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: 5 / 3 / 0 -- Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 12:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Please give me a while to confirm if all invitees have used/wasted their chance to vote before I close... Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 12:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: 6/3/0 ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC) I wanted to make the result more convincing, actually. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: 6 / 3 / 0
Bonkers, wrong stats. --
Arctic Kangaroo (
✉ •
✎) 12:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Would still think a singapore page will work. Furthermore, each and every single day the government has been implementing measures. Just today, government will be giving free masks to poor household, also closure of restaurants, and the running out of masks. Definitely much news than just what listed here on this page. 58.146.156.20 ( talk) 14:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: 6 / 3 / 0 -- Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 14:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Last call for opinions or comments. Gate closes at 12:15am tonight (GMT+8). Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 14:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I am more inclined to think that the SEA page can stay as it is until it comes a time when the Singapore section begins to overwhelm the page, where a separate section then becomes more justifiable. And looking at the way things are going, it is quite likely that this will happen soon. But meanwhile, I think we need to consider how to improve on the Singapore section so that it can stand on its own as a full-length article. There are actually plenty of details which have yet to be fully discussed, especially in terms of international diplomacy and economic impact, the later of which is still..erm...hazy at this stage.-- Huaiwei ( talk) 14:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: 8 / 3 / 0 -- Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 15:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Last call for opinions or comments. Gate closes at 12:15am tonight (GMT+8). Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 15:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have a picture of the haze that can be included in the article?
ihatefile007 ( talk) 23:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The quality of writing especially in the 'international reactions' portion is quite substandard, with bad grammar, odd sentence structure, awkward word choice and incorrect use of tenses, conjugation and articles. This has the chronic effects of making things difficult to understand. For instance:
Agung Laksono, the Indonesian Minister for People's Welfare, called for Singapore to cease "making all these noise" and "behaving like a child", insisting that that Singapore companies that own plantations on Sumatra must be shared the blame
MJXcess ( talk) 05:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
@ Arctic Kangaroo & @ MJXcess, please stop.
MJXcess, I understand you have picked out several grammatical errors and pointed it out to us, and I thank you for that. :) However, you put it in a way that seems to "insult", for lack of a better word, our capabilities in English. I hope you can exercise a reasonable degree of caution so as to avoid offending any editors (to be honest, I felt a little offended and uncomfortable too).
As for Arctic Kangaroo, you should have put your words in a less confrontational manner. As you have pointed out, we should assume good faith. The problem here is that you seemed to assume bad faith here, and jumped to the conclusion that MJXcess is insulting our abilities in English. I trust that MJXcess here is also trying to contribute, though unfortunately he/she just put it in a manner that is a little blunt for us accept. MJXcess has just created his/her account, and is new to the community here. We should put that in mind before making any accusations. I hope you will exercise a degree of caution in the future.
Anyway, I hope both of you will be able to contribute positively to Wikipedia in the future. MJXcess, I look forward to your future contributions! ;) Oliver lyc 04:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
While Indonesia is the culprit for this one, it cannot be denied that they are actually the ones affected the most. PSI readings in the country have reached close to 500. We should most probably have a subsection devoted to Indonesia in the mother section, "Countries affected". Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I try to provide the data from Indonesian side. This is a PR disaster for Indonesian Govt. Causing fires and haze pollutions is totally wrong in all level, and the culprit plantations should be held responsible and brought to justice. My deepest sympathy for affected people in Singapore, Malaysia, and Riau. Gunkarta ( talk) 17:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The statement that Indonesia is the source of the haze should (must) have citation, or else, it's just a blatant accusation. sentausa ( talk) 11:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, I see that everyone is eagerly contributing to this article, trying to make it better and so on. After a reassessment this morning, the article moved from Start-class to C-class. I just reassessed it minutes ago for B-class status, but unfortunately, it still does not meet the criteria. I see that this article is being improved steadily, getting better every moment, and it sparkles with the potential of a GA or even FA. So, should we just work harder, pour in whatever content or knowledge that we find/know, and work towards that goal? Cheers. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 14:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I think this article needs a good cleanup. I might copyediting it when I return to the hotel. Actually typing this while waiting for a roller coaster ride. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 02:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
@Crisco: If you shorten it, then the article will become botak. Then, why is a botak article a GA? And, people will become curious, want to find out the details. If you go and read the article assessment criteria (which you definitely have done so), some of the lower classes focus on saying that the readers are left curious and still wanting more content. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 14:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I have made the Singapore 24-hour PSI reading table collapsed, does it look better this way? Should any other table be collapsed too? Squc ( talk) 14:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Crisco, if I don't remember wrongly, all the issues you highlighted seem to have been resolved. Do you have any other suggestions at the moment? I will probably try going for GA/FA status after the whole thing has ended, which will probably be in a few months' time. Cheers. -- Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 13:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I have just reassessed the article and it looks more like B-class now. Feel free to revert it back to C-class if you feel that it is still not up to standard. Cheers. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 07:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, I have noted that the Bedok South pictures for comparison on Singapore's section were taken of different timing. Though it works really good as a tool for comparison, one picture is taken during sunset at 7+p.m in 2010 and another one is 11.03a.m during the haze situation, I guess it doesn't make such a fair comparison after all. Also, the first picture kinda show the silhouette of the buildings rather than a full clear scenery. What do you guys think? ~ Yienshawn ( talk) 19:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Yellowdesk says it should be used only on articles edited by many in an hour. This article has been edited many times every hour (perhaps except when Singapore sleeps), and most hours, it is edited by a few editors, consisting of both registered users, newbies, and IPs. So I don't understand why he keeps removing it. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 03:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:LEADCITE, statements in the lead need no citations unless deemed as controversial. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 02:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The article is quite a mess. I'm seeing very close paraphrasing from sources and useless bare URLs as references (I.e. channelnewsasia.com). Also, please try not to use present perfect tenses. Just past will do. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering, does anyone think that Section 1.4.1 (Measures Taken) is kind of too detailed? Hz. tiang 06:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
When exactly will the haze be considered to have ended? I think it's pointless to post daily PSI readings if they are healthy only. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
RectorRocks ( talk) 13:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I am wondering where are all the PSI and API readings, lately? The event was continuing and I had tried adding it, but later, it disappeared. I wonder if we agree to add them in. The Pollutant Standards Index, which isn't that link to the haze, however, had the readings and tables. 183.90.41.20 ( talk) 11:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Should the haze comes back, would we continue on this page or split into two sections of June and July haze? ( Yenwei ( talk) 06:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC))
Also, a reader suggested that we should add a before/after meteorogical graph for this topic. ( Yenwei ( talk) 07:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC))
@Arctic Kangaroo: Then can someone update Malaysia's one. Because I'm not quite familiar. ( Yenwei ( talk) 09:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC))
Section for first wave and second wave...hmm...seems like a good idea. And BTW, our 3h readings are very precious! The 401 is not the 24h reading! ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 14:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Is someone able to help me with this? I'm no expert in tables...and I'm very busy now. Thanks a lot. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 15:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
And oh, it would be good to just update from 21 July onwards. Cheers. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 15:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Will stop updating API readings from Sunday, if API levels did not hit the unhealthy levels over the next two days. ( Yenwei ( talk) 13:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC))
Latest update on API reading (5pm) was by me, because I was not logged in. As the API readings did not reach unhealthy levels and have improved, the July readings will end here.( Yenwei ( talk) 10:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC))
Just stand by for a while, Cheras in Kuala Lumpur reported unhealthy reading as of 4PM.( Yenwei ( talk) 09:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC))
Will update API readings again for the next three days, because Cheras, KL reported unhealthy reading as of 5PM today. ( Yenwei ( talk) 10:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC))
@иz нίpнόp: No problem! ( Yenwei ( talk) 12:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC))
Will stop updating API readings from now. ( Yenwei ( talk) 11:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC))
Will update again, should API readings hit unhealthy levels. ( Yenwei ( talk) 08:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC))
Woohoo!
[1]
✉→
Arctic Kangaroo
←✎ 15:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Can I suggest not adding PSI readings for every day in fully prose form? Adding a paragraph per day per country is really bloating the page with insignificant information that can be displayed just fine with a table anyway. Quite a few sections have moved into {{ Overly detailed}} or even WP:NOTSTATSBOOK territory. — Reatlas (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
On 18 August, there is a "third haze" with hotspots reaching 200 and above. Here in Kuala Lumpur, the sky is slightly haze. Anyone help to update this page? 120.138.91.68 ( talk) 05:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
@User: Depends on either the API or PSI indexes that reaches unhealthy levels or above. Lastly, do sign up for Wikipedia, it's free to join! :)( Yenwei ( talk) 14:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC))
Probably the haze is coming. The first time I see dense haze. The west part of the Southeast Asia will be hit painfully if the wind direction is the same and the hot spots continue! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelegoers ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia reports excessive content in this page, suggesting that the part "Countries affected" is over written. Do we need to describe the time lapse day after day? Probably not. Also, the introduction is overly written. Any suggestions to reduce the wordings in the page? Thelegoers ( talk) 13:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2013 Southeast Asian haze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://hazecam.netcompartner.com/kl-cam/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on 2013 Southeast Asian haze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)