2006 Singaporean general election was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2006 Singaporean general election was copied or moved into Pre-election day events of the 2006 Singaporean general election. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The section on "Influence of the Internet" is about the regulation of political content on the Internet with the MDA directive, which is quite vague, at least before the clarification was made in the Parliament. How the MDA regulation will be enforced is still an open question because there are quite a number of bloggers who apparently are already violating the regulation (by not registering their political website with MDA). On the other hand, the convictions of bloggers posting racist comments are unrelated because: (1) they were charged not under the MDA regulation but under the sedition act which has been around for a long time, (2) they were charged for posting racist remarks, not for political content, (3) sedition act covers all types of media, but the MDA regulation specifically deals with the Internet content. Therefore, the blogger cases are quite unrelated and have no effect on this election. Probably, a more related case (as a precedent) is one that led to the closing down of the (original) SINTERCOM website, but that was quite a while ago and I don't remember the details. -- Vsion 05:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Is the concerned article of The New Democrat available online? -- Vsion 06:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a big problem with the influence of the internet section at the bottom of the article. it needs cleaning up Bwithh 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The page size is now 62KB long, I suggest we summarise some sections and move the pre-election events to a sub-page as well as the nominations, list of MPs and election results. See United Kingdom general election, 2005 to see how to summarise it. Any suggestions? Who can create a table for every constituency articles as I'm going to create articles for every constituency? P.S. I'm bad at creating tables. -- Ter e nc e Ong 03:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The website http://www.singapore-elections.com/ is down the whole day already! The error says that "site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit". Poor guy, anyone knows what happened? -- Vsion 21:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I haven't keep track of the "First World" debate until recently; but tried to research and wrote something about it. Can someone please help and check if it is accuate and complete? -- Vsion 20:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know what were the crowd size at the rallies? There is a photo posted at yawningbread site [1] taken at WP's rally at Ubi on 28 April. The crowd was pretty large. -- Vsion 21:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The James Gomez issue is quite a big issue in this election. A mention of it will be good. There are many sources to cite for this issue. -- Ter e nc e Ong 14:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Re "Law Society of Singapore is formally investigating lawyer and Hong Kah GRC MP Ahmad Khalis Abdul Ghani,"
The table of result is moved to a template. There is a link at the top of the table to edit the table. This will facilitates entering the result later on. Standard practice for buzy page. Cheers. -- Vsion 04:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I never heard of the term "walkover" used for elections (I live in Canada). Usually a one-person contest is "acclaimed" or "uncontested" here. Is this a term commonly used in the SG media?). Kelvinc 16:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is. It has the same meaning as "uncontested". Constituencies which are not challenged are dubbed as walkovers. -- 202.156.6.54 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
How convenient, I just created walkover. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 21:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This might actually have a chance of being our next featured article (seeing the huge amount of refs) if we organise it enough (and correlate it back to the proper topics). First thing we need to trim this down, but where should we start subpages? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 16:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The life of an alternative party is not determined by the ruling party as they called them opposition parties. Alternative Parties are determined by the people to become the people's voices in the future. Fernvale 05:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to change terms, I think. The concept is well grounded in a parliamentary system, ie. the UK. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 09:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I like the NCMP section which contains sentences in Singlish, e.g. "The Workers' Party got 44% of the vots for the Group Representation Constituency" and "Twelve of the fifteen members of the CEC voted for Sylvia Lim whether to be the NCMP or not." . However this is an English wiki, so someone might want to edit out the Singlish sentences to proper English so that it makes sense to non-Singlish speakers. -- Novelty 04:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, this page is way too complicated for me ... can someone please summarize how the results come about. Why does the ruling party get 82 out of 84 seats and how do all these walkovers happen? gbrandt 21:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
When moving large content to sub-pages, please give notice for a few days, to seek any comments or suggestion. IMO, those content are the "juice" of the election and should be mentioned here, at least in summary form. I reverted the move because (1) it was not discussed (2) the summaries were not provided in the main page, (3) the references in the sub-pages are defunct. -- Vsion 04:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, IMO, the information regarding the amount of rallies and their details is useful historically and we should keep it in the article, but perhaps move it to a subpage. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 16:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that there's an effort underway to get this to GA status. Good job everyone, and I certainly hope this article makes it - but I've noticed that there are some fair use image problems. Many of the fair use images in the article do not contain rationales for their fair use status, as required by policy. This can be a bit of a stumbling block, especially if you want to try for FA later on. Aside from that, I've noticed a few problems with the writing style and tone, but nothing too serious. I think this article stands a good shot at GA once the copyright issues are fixed. Johnleemk | Talk 20:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The article has many references (60+), but could use some more in certain sections that lack in-line citations, which could be leading to OR. Also, there is a tag in the article that does say that the section needs to be updated, and I suggest that that update should happen. Other than that, the article looks like a GA. Diez2 01:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This article appears to have everything that a GA article requires. I don't know what the hold up is. I went ahead and passed it. Da54 22:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It sppears that User:Terence Ong's latest display of emotive behaviorisms [4] has led to an article protection, effectively making it impossible to further improve on it before the 7-day deadline is up. I find this kind of behavior at such a critical juncture simply immature and uncalled for.-- Huaiwei 15:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose we organise section 1 as follows:
Alternatively, we could move "election issues" into Section 2.3. -- Vsion 16:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I am passing this GA because all the sections that I marked above have been filled with appropriate citations. However, I must warn that this article will never reach FA status unless some stability is introduced to the article. I did notice that it was fully protected over the weekend. But the article looks good, and it looks like consensus has been reached, so congratulations to all the editors that worked on this article because it has reached GA status. Diez2 16:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:Img157.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This article has just has its GA status reassessed as part of the WP:SWEEPS; the article was found to have substantial problems, especially in the matter of referencing and prose quality. Given the substantial nature of these deficiencies, the article has been failed immediately as it is felt that the necessary improvements required to meet the GA criteria will not be made within a 7-day grace period. However, as there has been some (minor) activity on this article recently, and because it is listed under 2 WikiProjects, if the issues outlined in the reassessment are addressed and resolved within 7 days, then I will undertake an immediate GA review to re-list the article. The reassessment review can be found here. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries regarding this matter. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 15:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Punctuation should be either "pre–election day events" or "pre-election-day events". — kwami ( talk) 03:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Further down, it should be "fill/filled in" and not "fill/filled up" the form — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Steveielts (
talk •
contribs) 17:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:PAP logo variation.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:SDP logo variation.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:16, 16 May 2011 (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) 04:20, 1 May 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) 04:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
2006 Singaporean general election was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2006 Singaporean general election was copied or moved into Pre-election day events of the 2006 Singaporean general election. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The section on "Influence of the Internet" is about the regulation of political content on the Internet with the MDA directive, which is quite vague, at least before the clarification was made in the Parliament. How the MDA regulation will be enforced is still an open question because there are quite a number of bloggers who apparently are already violating the regulation (by not registering their political website with MDA). On the other hand, the convictions of bloggers posting racist comments are unrelated because: (1) they were charged not under the MDA regulation but under the sedition act which has been around for a long time, (2) they were charged for posting racist remarks, not for political content, (3) sedition act covers all types of media, but the MDA regulation specifically deals with the Internet content. Therefore, the blogger cases are quite unrelated and have no effect on this election. Probably, a more related case (as a precedent) is one that led to the closing down of the (original) SINTERCOM website, but that was quite a while ago and I don't remember the details. -- Vsion 05:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Is the concerned article of The New Democrat available online? -- Vsion 06:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a big problem with the influence of the internet section at the bottom of the article. it needs cleaning up Bwithh 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The page size is now 62KB long, I suggest we summarise some sections and move the pre-election events to a sub-page as well as the nominations, list of MPs and election results. See United Kingdom general election, 2005 to see how to summarise it. Any suggestions? Who can create a table for every constituency articles as I'm going to create articles for every constituency? P.S. I'm bad at creating tables. -- Ter e nc e Ong 03:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The website http://www.singapore-elections.com/ is down the whole day already! The error says that "site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit". Poor guy, anyone knows what happened? -- Vsion 21:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I haven't keep track of the "First World" debate until recently; but tried to research and wrote something about it. Can someone please help and check if it is accuate and complete? -- Vsion 20:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know what were the crowd size at the rallies? There is a photo posted at yawningbread site [1] taken at WP's rally at Ubi on 28 April. The crowd was pretty large. -- Vsion 21:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The James Gomez issue is quite a big issue in this election. A mention of it will be good. There are many sources to cite for this issue. -- Ter e nc e Ong 14:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Re "Law Society of Singapore is formally investigating lawyer and Hong Kah GRC MP Ahmad Khalis Abdul Ghani,"
The table of result is moved to a template. There is a link at the top of the table to edit the table. This will facilitates entering the result later on. Standard practice for buzy page. Cheers. -- Vsion 04:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I never heard of the term "walkover" used for elections (I live in Canada). Usually a one-person contest is "acclaimed" or "uncontested" here. Is this a term commonly used in the SG media?). Kelvinc 16:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is. It has the same meaning as "uncontested". Constituencies which are not challenged are dubbed as walkovers. -- 202.156.6.54 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
How convenient, I just created walkover. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 21:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This might actually have a chance of being our next featured article (seeing the huge amount of refs) if we organise it enough (and correlate it back to the proper topics). First thing we need to trim this down, but where should we start subpages? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 16:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The life of an alternative party is not determined by the ruling party as they called them opposition parties. Alternative Parties are determined by the people to become the people's voices in the future. Fernvale 05:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to change terms, I think. The concept is well grounded in a parliamentary system, ie. the UK. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 09:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I like the NCMP section which contains sentences in Singlish, e.g. "The Workers' Party got 44% of the vots for the Group Representation Constituency" and "Twelve of the fifteen members of the CEC voted for Sylvia Lim whether to be the NCMP or not." . However this is an English wiki, so someone might want to edit out the Singlish sentences to proper English so that it makes sense to non-Singlish speakers. -- Novelty 04:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, this page is way too complicated for me ... can someone please summarize how the results come about. Why does the ruling party get 82 out of 84 seats and how do all these walkovers happen? gbrandt 21:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
When moving large content to sub-pages, please give notice for a few days, to seek any comments or suggestion. IMO, those content are the "juice" of the election and should be mentioned here, at least in summary form. I reverted the move because (1) it was not discussed (2) the summaries were not provided in the main page, (3) the references in the sub-pages are defunct. -- Vsion 04:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, IMO, the information regarding the amount of rallies and their details is useful historically and we should keep it in the article, but perhaps move it to a subpage. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 16:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that there's an effort underway to get this to GA status. Good job everyone, and I certainly hope this article makes it - but I've noticed that there are some fair use image problems. Many of the fair use images in the article do not contain rationales for their fair use status, as required by policy. This can be a bit of a stumbling block, especially if you want to try for FA later on. Aside from that, I've noticed a few problems with the writing style and tone, but nothing too serious. I think this article stands a good shot at GA once the copyright issues are fixed. Johnleemk | Talk 20:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The article has many references (60+), but could use some more in certain sections that lack in-line citations, which could be leading to OR. Also, there is a tag in the article that does say that the section needs to be updated, and I suggest that that update should happen. Other than that, the article looks like a GA. Diez2 01:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This article appears to have everything that a GA article requires. I don't know what the hold up is. I went ahead and passed it. Da54 22:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It sppears that User:Terence Ong's latest display of emotive behaviorisms [4] has led to an article protection, effectively making it impossible to further improve on it before the 7-day deadline is up. I find this kind of behavior at such a critical juncture simply immature and uncalled for.-- Huaiwei 15:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose we organise section 1 as follows:
Alternatively, we could move "election issues" into Section 2.3. -- Vsion 16:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I am passing this GA because all the sections that I marked above have been filled with appropriate citations. However, I must warn that this article will never reach FA status unless some stability is introduced to the article. I did notice that it was fully protected over the weekend. But the article looks good, and it looks like consensus has been reached, so congratulations to all the editors that worked on this article because it has reached GA status. Diez2 16:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:Img157.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This article has just has its GA status reassessed as part of the WP:SWEEPS; the article was found to have substantial problems, especially in the matter of referencing and prose quality. Given the substantial nature of these deficiencies, the article has been failed immediately as it is felt that the necessary improvements required to meet the GA criteria will not be made within a 7-day grace period. However, as there has been some (minor) activity on this article recently, and because it is listed under 2 WikiProjects, if the issues outlined in the reassessment are addressed and resolved within 7 days, then I will undertake an immediate GA review to re-list the article. The reassessment review can be found here. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries regarding this matter. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 15:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Punctuation should be either "pre–election day events" or "pre-election-day events". — kwami ( talk) 03:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Further down, it should be "fill/filled in" and not "fill/filled up" the form — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Steveielts (
talk •
contribs) 17:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:PAP logo variation.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:SDP logo variation.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:16, 16 May 2011 (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) 04:20, 1 May 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) 04:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)