This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hawker centre 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 Singaporean English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, centre, 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. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hawker centre. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hawker centre at the Reference desk. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
sorry, but that was both hard to read and extremely opinionated. [[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 09:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hawker centre. 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) 04:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I noticed through the edit history that this article has been the subject of several edit wars over two versions of the article - these being the current existing version and this old version. While I understand that the latter was most recently reverted due to the user who edited that version being blocked, I would like to seek a discussion on which version would be better (based on their own merits) so as to avoid future edit wars down the road. JaventheAldericky ( talk) 20:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
"their evolution into ultra-modern hawker centres"reference, implying lack of notability with respect to hawker centres in Malaysia, but at the same time more notability towards the general hawker culture in Malaysia). Should a split of this sort occur, then then the Malaysian section of this article can be moved over there as-is (i.e as a section of the new article).
"resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic", I'm confident that this would satisfy all sides in the long run, avoiding future edit wars in the future. ThungKrug ( talk) 11:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
My two cents in the matter is that I don't expect a new user to come out of nowhere and begin trying to revert to a version created by a blocked sock. I have always strove to assume good faith at all costs but this is stretching my limits and I was not born yesterday. In the spirit of it however, I would like to give the following opinions.
All four sources in INSTF's version only depict the rise of hawker culture in Singapore and the government's move to shift them into integrated centers. None specifically claim that the concept arose in Singapore. Even the new "most commonly associated with" phrase is not indicated in the sources. The SCMP's sentence "Hawker centres – arguably one of the most recognisable symbols of the Lion City’s culture and heritage" does not imply that it's is most commonly associated with Singapore or exclusive to it. National Geographic likewise does not claim anything of the sort and simply tells its history. I do not support adding the UNESCO tag to a page which is meant to cover the general topic. This page should not be exclusive to Singapore.
While I am generally in favour of a separate page entirely, considering how Singapore's hawker culture is covered by many relevant sources, this topic has been tainted by INSTF's involvement. Any reinstatement of INSTF's versions must be rejected outright with no compromises. Even if I think it's written from a neutral point of view, I will revert it immediately as INSTF is not to be encouraged. Per Hawker culture in Hong Kong, I would support a version for Singapore if there's enough content to cover it. At present, per this revision there is not enough to merit a separate page, and I would strongly encourage ThungKrug to cease pursuing the matter. I may eventually take up the task, but not now. Seloloving ( talk) 15:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
As this article has had a history of some back-and-forth reverts, this acts as a courtesy notice. I'm planning on adding the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) template, which are based upon the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists. This should be uncontroversial, as they do not originate from dubious/unreliable sources, and are common throughout other articles which are on the list as well. I also don't plan on changing anything else as it would probably end up being contentious, no thanks to the headaches the sockmaster has created for other users by damaging their credibility whenever they edit here. While such discussions has went stale, I'm still supportive of JaventheAlderick's proposal of splitting this article into their various countries to prevent future problems, and turning this into a disambiguation page. "Hawker centre" is just too broad. ThungKrug ( talk) 14:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hawker centre 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 Singaporean English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, centre, 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. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hawker centre. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hawker centre at the Reference desk. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
sorry, but that was both hard to read and extremely opinionated. [[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 09:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hawker centre. 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) 04:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I noticed through the edit history that this article has been the subject of several edit wars over two versions of the article - these being the current existing version and this old version. While I understand that the latter was most recently reverted due to the user who edited that version being blocked, I would like to seek a discussion on which version would be better (based on their own merits) so as to avoid future edit wars down the road. JaventheAldericky ( talk) 20:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
"their evolution into ultra-modern hawker centres"reference, implying lack of notability with respect to hawker centres in Malaysia, but at the same time more notability towards the general hawker culture in Malaysia). Should a split of this sort occur, then then the Malaysian section of this article can be moved over there as-is (i.e as a section of the new article).
"resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic", I'm confident that this would satisfy all sides in the long run, avoiding future edit wars in the future. ThungKrug ( talk) 11:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
My two cents in the matter is that I don't expect a new user to come out of nowhere and begin trying to revert to a version created by a blocked sock. I have always strove to assume good faith at all costs but this is stretching my limits and I was not born yesterday. In the spirit of it however, I would like to give the following opinions.
All four sources in INSTF's version only depict the rise of hawker culture in Singapore and the government's move to shift them into integrated centers. None specifically claim that the concept arose in Singapore. Even the new "most commonly associated with" phrase is not indicated in the sources. The SCMP's sentence "Hawker centres – arguably one of the most recognisable symbols of the Lion City’s culture and heritage" does not imply that it's is most commonly associated with Singapore or exclusive to it. National Geographic likewise does not claim anything of the sort and simply tells its history. I do not support adding the UNESCO tag to a page which is meant to cover the general topic. This page should not be exclusive to Singapore.
While I am generally in favour of a separate page entirely, considering how Singapore's hawker culture is covered by many relevant sources, this topic has been tainted by INSTF's involvement. Any reinstatement of INSTF's versions must be rejected outright with no compromises. Even if I think it's written from a neutral point of view, I will revert it immediately as INSTF is not to be encouraged. Per Hawker culture in Hong Kong, I would support a version for Singapore if there's enough content to cover it. At present, per this revision there is not enough to merit a separate page, and I would strongly encourage ThungKrug to cease pursuing the matter. I may eventually take up the task, but not now. Seloloving ( talk) 15:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
As this article has had a history of some back-and-forth reverts, this acts as a courtesy notice. I'm planning on adding the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) template, which are based upon the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists. This should be uncontroversial, as they do not originate from dubious/unreliable sources, and are common throughout other articles which are on the list as well. I also don't plan on changing anything else as it would probably end up being contentious, no thanks to the headaches the sockmaster has created for other users by damaging their credibility whenever they edit here. While such discussions has went stale, I'm still supportive of JaventheAlderick's proposal of splitting this article into their various countries to prevent future problems, and turning this into a disambiguation page. "Hawker centre" is just too broad. ThungKrug ( talk) 14:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)