![]() | Fall of Singapore was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 28, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fall of Singapore 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 |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 15, 2005, February 15, 2006, February 15, 2007, February 15, 2008, February 15, 2009, February 15, 2010, February 15, 2017, February 15, 2022, and February 15, 2023. |
![]() | On 21 December 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Battle of Singapore to Fall of Singapore. The result of the discussion was moved. |
![]() | There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
A choice had been made to defend Britain against the German airforce resulting in British victory at the Battle of Britain, but too many infantry forces were left to try and defend Singapore. Britain had six aircraft carriers, three operational and all stationed in the Atlantic. The Japanese Navy had 10 aircraft carriers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.174.111 ( talk) 02:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Why does the article not mention that Churchill was largely to blame for the Fall of Singapore by diverting vital supplies including tanks to the Soviet Union? ( Wuhdsh ( talk) 20:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC))
@ AustralianRupert: Er, I think I must have deleted that bit inadvertently, apols. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Added commemorative event in Singapore occurring on the relevant date each year (Total Defence Day). Point to note in relation to timing - while the main article mentions the surrender timing as "shortly after 17:15", the commemorative sirens are sounded at 18:20 each year. This is the official timing given by the Singapore government for this event; not sure how to explain the discrepancy. It may be noted that Singapore's official time zone shifted forward by 30 mins in 1981, but that doesnt fully explain the difference. Not sure how to reconcile this. Thekmt ( talk) 10:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Battle of Singapore → Fall of Singapore – Clear common name. See Google NGRAMS or Google Scholar results ( 5,770 results for "fall" vs 297 for "battle"). Results indicate that this topic the only one commonly referred to as "fall of Singapore". Regardless of "battle" or "fall", there is no consistent capitalization for either. ( t · c) buidhe 04:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@ BUZZLIGHTYEAR99: result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
I don't have to justify following a rule and I couldn't if I wanted to as I helped to make it, it's a conflict of interest. All you have to do is read this "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"" Keith-264 ( talk) 21:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Fall of Singapore was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 28, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fall of Singapore 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 |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 15, 2005, February 15, 2006, February 15, 2007, February 15, 2008, February 15, 2009, February 15, 2010, February 15, 2017, February 15, 2022, and February 15, 2023. |
![]() | On 21 December 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Battle of Singapore to Fall of Singapore. The result of the discussion was moved. |
![]() | There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
A choice had been made to defend Britain against the German airforce resulting in British victory at the Battle of Britain, but too many infantry forces were left to try and defend Singapore. Britain had six aircraft carriers, three operational and all stationed in the Atlantic. The Japanese Navy had 10 aircraft carriers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.174.111 ( talk) 02:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Why does the article not mention that Churchill was largely to blame for the Fall of Singapore by diverting vital supplies including tanks to the Soviet Union? ( Wuhdsh ( talk) 20:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC))
@ AustralianRupert: Er, I think I must have deleted that bit inadvertently, apols. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Added commemorative event in Singapore occurring on the relevant date each year (Total Defence Day). Point to note in relation to timing - while the main article mentions the surrender timing as "shortly after 17:15", the commemorative sirens are sounded at 18:20 each year. This is the official timing given by the Singapore government for this event; not sure how to explain the discrepancy. It may be noted that Singapore's official time zone shifted forward by 30 mins in 1981, but that doesnt fully explain the difference. Not sure how to reconcile this. Thekmt ( talk) 10:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Battle of Singapore → Fall of Singapore – Clear common name. See Google NGRAMS or Google Scholar results ( 5,770 results for "fall" vs 297 for "battle"). Results indicate that this topic the only one commonly referred to as "fall of Singapore". Regardless of "battle" or "fall", there is no consistent capitalization for either. ( t · c) buidhe 04:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@ BUZZLIGHTYEAR99: result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
I don't have to justify following a rule and I couldn't if I wanted to as I helped to make it, it's a conflict of interest. All you have to do is read this "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"" Keith-264 ( talk) 21:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)