Move "Pandan, Singapore" to "Pandan Gardens" (will restore edit history) Create new article for "Pandan, Singapore" (about URA subzone, content can be copied from Pandan Gardens) Change "Pandan Gardens" as required. Page can be redirected or content improved.
Sounds good to me :D MageLam ( talk) 06:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Looks like we made a move request at the same time XD -- MageLam ( talk) 14:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I think its appropriate that I redirect Pandan Gardens to Teban Gardens as that is the alternate name of Teban Gardens. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: The situation just now was just hilarious. XD I will be looking up on the Chai Chee article in the meantime. Once I've wrapped it up, I will begin on the new introduction to the Bishan article. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Anyways, I don't think it would be necessary to have an article regarding about Pandan Gardens as both Teban and Pandan Gardens relatively share the same history. I think it would be appropriate that we mention both Teban Gardens Estate and Pandan Gardens Estate in a section in the Teban Gardens article. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Pandan Gardens is pretty much located just adjacent to Teban Gardens. Although they are different by name, the two estates share the same history. -- MageLam ( talk) 04:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Move Bidadari, Toa Payoh to Bidadari, Singapore. Would satisfy general place name convention. Article already contains link to Bidadari Cemetery and a hatnote to prevent confusion. (There should not be confusion because the placenames are different. See similarly named articles Choa Chu Kang and Choa Chu Kang Cemetery.
Alright then, looks like there's nothing wrong with that. MageLam ( talk) 07:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Move Anson, Singapore back to Anson Road. Will restore original article subject and history. Create Anson, Singapore if required and add a link to Anson Road.
Anson Road and the subzone of Anson are historically synonymous with each other. Rather keep the content as it is, probably mention about the road in a section of the article. MageLam ( talk) 09:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirect Bartley, Singapore to Bartley Road. It appears that the term "Bartley" is used to colloquially refer to Bartley Road. Leave the Joo Seng article as it is. MageLam ( talk) 15:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I was just researching a bit about Chong Pang since I had earlier read somewhere that it used to be a village. Looks like, it does have a bit of history associated with it. See [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 18:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It appears that the village was historically associated with Sembawang. However, the article discussed quite a bit about the ward in the constituency itself rather than mentioning the village. MageLam ( talk) 18:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Is there anything we can do about this for the time being? -- MageLam ( talk) 05:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
So this situation remains unsolved or case closed? -- MageLam ( talk) 02:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I know this seems irrelevant at the moment, but I just wish to address this as it is still in a sense considered "fixing". I'm thinking of making this a goal after working on the names/content of the relevant subzone articles that are currently being contested. It seems like the main problem with most planning area/subzone articles is how broken they are in their current state. The lack of contributiors to these articles since the late 2000s, proper format and conventions have lead them to become as such. Before I came across you, I've only ran into one other editor who has worked with me on a SG Geo article. Its been harder to find people to collaborate with these days due to the pretty much dying community. From what I can tell, it seems like you are really taking the initiative to patch up these articles and I thought we could probably work on completely revising said articles together.
As I can't really write down all my goals in a single prose, I'll put them down on a checklist.
I know this seems quite impossible at the current moment. But if someone takes the initiative to do something, it could probably help in the long term. I'm hoping to see at least the planning area articles reach B class status or something better sometime in the future. Two good examples to look at would be Sengkang and Pedra Branca.
Aside from working on articles that we are currently fixing on now, I was thinking if we could also probably start on rewriting the introductions of all the new town and estate articles. We can consider doing any other additional content on these articles should there need be.
Your help and understanding will be most appreciated @ Lemongirl942. ;)
MageLam ( talk) 16:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Do you happen to know any IPA by chance? I need help. -- MageLam ( talk) 07:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Its finished! Have a look here. Give it a revision if need be. XD -- MageLam ( talk) 11:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I also kinda forgot to put in information regarding the two large tertiary institutions in Ang Mo Kio, ITE College Central and Nanyang Polytechnic. If possible, try to include it in the introduction where appropriate. -- MageLam ( talk) 11:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Any thoughts on the revised introduction or does it need more working on? -- MageLam ( talk) 03:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The terms "New town" and "urban planning area" appear to be rather outdated and have not been used since the early 2010s. It seems like the HDB prefers to use the term "HDB Town" now rather than using the term "New town" to describe the towns of Singapore. [34] The URA on the other hand also appear to prefer the term "planning area" over "urban planning area". [35] Isn't it about time we change the titles of Urban planning areas of Singapore and New towns and estates of Singapore to simply "Planning areas of Singapore" and "List of HDB towns and estates" respectively? Also should this change happen, we have to go through the hassle of editing every planning area article and correcting the terms used in those articles. MageLam ( talk) 13:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, I think I will put my introduction revising on hold until we sort this matter out as I think I can make the changes accordingly once a discussion on this is settled. MageLam ( talk) 13:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So I did a Google search on "urban planning area" today, all I saw was pretty much just "planning area". Any suggestions? MageLam ( talk) 02:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I think I'm just gonna change it from Urban planning areas of Singapore to Planning areas of Singapore. There is literally no mention or use of the term "urban planning area" anywhere. -- MageLam ( talk) 07:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: "Planning Area" dosen't have to be used in all caps, have a look at the bottom of this page for instance. -- MageLam ( talk) 06:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
It is usually in Caps though since it has a special meaning in the Singaporean context. The term "planning area" is a general term, while the caps kind of emphasises the specific meaning -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 07:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I realised HDB used the divisions of Neighbourhood, Precinct and Block. Is there a website/list where all of these are listed? -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: Cool! Thanks for this. It helps to clarify some things although it is a partial list of course (and some of it is based on their interpretation). HDB used to actually classify estates quite well. I guess I could also try to get the old HDB maps from somewhere as well. Pretty sure they would have this info. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So earlier on in the discussion, Regarding the terms "New town" and "Urban planning area", I made a short ramble about the official names of new towns in Singapore. Although the towns are often known by their common names, there is no denying that their formal names exist, usually ending with a "Town" or "New Town" suffix. Official titles usually apply to all new towns accept for Queenstown, Geylang and the estate of Bukit Timah. However, the reason why I call them confusing is because of how some seem to go by two names. Take Woodlands for example, signs within Woodlands call it "Woodlands Town", however a LTA sign at Woodlands Checkpoint refers to it as "Woodlands New Town" and so does the HDB website. I think we should we investigate the names of each individual town and get a proper conclusion to this. -- MageLam ( talk) 06:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, should the whole of Kallang be recognized as the HDB entity of Kallang/Whampoa or just as the planning area of Kallang? -- MageLam ( talk) 06:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The reason why I find this confusing is due to the fact that the HDB entity doesn't just cover the planning area of Kallang, but also the housing estate of Whampoa as well. Whampoa itself is geographically located within Balestier which itself is located in Novena, a planning area that is not a HDB town. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Is it possible to reach a consensus for this issue? Like, how the official names should be mentioned in the heading line of the article and in the infobox? Also, I think we should stick to modern formal titles instead of using an old title, like with Toa Payoh for instance. -- MageLam ( talk) 15:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I think there should be some sort of guideline for this, I feel it is important to me. Here is my suggestion, for towns which have a single official name, the heading line of the article should say, "officially _____ New Town" (like with Bukit Merah for instance). For towns whose official names are highly debatable, like with Woodlands or Toa Payoh, the heading line should indicate, "formally referred to as _______ New Town or _______ Town" and the infobox of that article should not indicate the formal name. -- MageLam ( talk) 08:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I think we should also agree that instead of following the names given by other sources (most of whom are often vague and confusing), we should base our references of the official names from just governmental sources. More specifically with the MND, its subsidiaries (HDB, URA) and the NHB. -- MageLam ( talk) 08:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So what about towns and estates which are referred to by a single official name. For example Bukit Merah and Marine Parade? -- MageLam ( talk) 09:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I have written down several guidelines regarding the official names of towns and estates on the Naming conventions (Singapore) page. If need be, modify it accordingly. -- MageLam ( talk) 15:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I also think it is more appropriate to describe them as "long conventional names" rather than "official names" due to how confusing they are. This excludes Kallang/Whampoa however. -- MageLam ( talk) 04:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Can you look up on Ang Mo Kio Town and Tampines Town for me, I feel convinced that those are the official names of AMK and Tampines. -- MageLam ( talk) 04:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, can you tag my name when you message me, I need to be notified when I receive your message. Thanks! :) -- MageLam ( talk) 04:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: I did a brief search for both. Both seem to have been referred to as "new towns" for quite a while. The word "town" is more recent but usually occurs alongside "Town Centre" or "Town Council". HDB is ambivalent - Ang Mo Kio is simply Ang Mo Kio, while Tampines is sometimes referred to as Tampines town. I guess just mention both -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 05:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So earlier today, someone restored the entire article regarding Chai Chee. I do agree that the place has some kinda history, but I don't exactly think that the article should be written as an existing place but rather, like how I mentioned before, written as a former entity. The anonymous person who restored the article just simply left the article as it is. -- MageLam ( talk) 11:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I remembered this Kampong being mentioned by Jack Neo as the inspiration for his recent film, Long Long Time Ago. It seems pretty significant enough to be covered. However like I said before, the article should be re-written in the context of a former entity and if need be, include how the name is used at present. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The article also lacks references, and I think we need to include some. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The reason why I redirected Chai Chee to Kembangan that time was because of its location. The vicinty known as Chai Chee coresponded with the subzone of Kembangan. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I'm currently busy researching information that I can include in the new introduction for the Bedok article. In the meantime, do help me out and handle the Chai Chee and Chong Pang articles on my behalf when you can. Thanks ;) -- MageLam ( talk) 14:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
(A new section. Since main page is getting bulkier, I created this for easy editing just by section.) List of pages which have lost edit history and require moving back.
Seems like Whampoa, Novena contains the edit history of Whampoa, Singapore.
Lol, I realised long before you were experienced because of the way you fix articles. I used to edit anonymously once in a while but never bothered creating an account. Finally decided to do one last year. Anyway, as for this page, right now I think I will let it be since I find it easier to have stuff at one place although later I will archive it sectionally. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 11:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: The history of "Holland Road, Singapore" (article about Road) in this case has been transferred to "Holland Drive". Do we need an article about the subzone called "Holland Road"? Because Holland Road in general use refers to usually the road itself. Large parts of the Holland Road are also in the other planning areas of Tanglin while also bordering Queenstown. My recommendation would be to keep the article centred on the road. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 01:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I am currently making a move request to transfer the current Holland Drive page to Holland Road, Singapore proper. Once that's done I will be creating a new page for Holland Drive. The thing is, content that already exists will remain in their current articles. As for the article regarding Holland Road, the article will both focus on both the road and the subzone itself. -- MageLam ( talk) 02:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Ok, maybe we don't necessarily need a Holland Drive article, but we do need a Holland Road article. -- MageLam ( talk) 02:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The history seems to have been messed up here as well. Again, the question is are Changi Village and Changi Point the same neighbourhood? Changi Village was the former village with the hawker centre and shops. Changi point was near the coast which had a British base. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: I'm not very sure about this. I have heard Museum District a few times, but most other times I have read Museum Planning Area. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 00:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: I couldn't find references to Museum District though, although Museum Planning Area has multiple references. The only district I know in and around the Central area is the Civic District (and the Museum Planning Area is a part of it). -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: I checked the history of the original article. It was about this park [52] and not the beach itself. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 07:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Actually, either term is used to refer to Changi Beach. The beach itself is physically a part of the park. -- MageLam ( talk) 07:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I think this is more or less a minor issue that we can fix easily. I don't really see what's the problem with either name anyways. :\ -- MageLam ( talk) 07:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Sorry about that, I think I may have taken things a little too personally. My uncivil and rash actions have already been restored by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I just wanna put this drama aside in the past and move on. Let's continue with our project proper, I'm gonna start on my Bukit Batok introduction again. ;) -- MageLam ( talk) 03:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I understand that you have been put through a similar situation like this as well before you met me. I know how it feels like to be in the same position as you. ;) -- MageLam ( talk) 03:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I would suggest that these two articles be merged. Marina Bay is Marina Reservoir. Marina Bay is the water body that sits in the middle of the Downtown Core, which was enclosed in by Marina Barrage in 2008, forming the so-called "Marina Reservoir". -- MageLam ( talk) 19:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I don't think I'm still entirely convinced that they are separate. Before Marina Bay was enclosed in by Marina Barrage in 2008, it was a bay that was actually connected to the sea. When it was converted into a reservoir, the PUB preferred to describe the bay as "Marina Reservoir", obviously excluding the other estuaries around it such as the Kallang River for example. The entire bay itself is the reservoir, dammed by the barrage itself. The term "Marina Bay" is still used to describe the bay and its surrounding area even to this day. -- MageLam ( talk) 05:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: I had to unfortunately revert to a previous version for this since the original article was about the road. I guess we will have to draft a convention soon. There also seems to have been one existing draft which I found. Looks like the members back in 2006 actually planned for separate articles for planning area/town/road etc. but maybe due to time constraints they were not able to carry it out. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 12:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Look, can we not always use WP:STATUSQUO as an excuse to revert all my edits. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded a little rude to you. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
And that is something I've been begging you to do in quite a while. Should we settle this as our main priority for now? -- MageLam ( talk) 12:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
All of this while I'm still working on my draft... -- MageLam ( talk) 12:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Well I've told you about that before. It really is pointless waiting for a month. The community here is dead. Just dead. All that is left is just a few fellas remaining. Its basically like Kodak, a sunset industry really. Look, I think every Singaporean Wikipedian out there is probably interested in other affairs right now. If we want to handle this, we have to take responsibility for the entire project on our own from here. But if we continue on like this, we will more or less act like two veto powers at a Security Council meeting. If this goes on without any neutral consensus, the results may end up pretty bad. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I've been noticing this weird trend where editors generalize a housing estate as a proper geographical location, adding info about unrelated surrounding facilities and etc. I don't think this is appropriate given the fact that housing estates are property developments. All housing estate articles should only and only discuss about their general development and not something else which is unrelated. A good example to follow would be The Pinnacle@Duxton article. I'm hoping there is some kind of guideline for this. -- MageLam ( talk) 11:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Well, the thing is, estates don't usually have very clearly defined boundaries, they usually tend to be located in some sort of general area which Singaporeans often identify by name (especially if there is a MRT station using that name). And to me that is usually the main problem, if there is no clearly defined boundary for an estate, how far should we extend our reach to discuss these facilities? -- MageLam ( talk) 07:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
It is so rediculous to an extent that people just simply name areas based on the names of surrounding facilities. For example, there was an article an ACTUAL article that was named St. Michael's, Singapore (it has been redirected to Balestier btw). It was a place that didn't existed and yet somehow, just somehow, someone had the audacity to make up an article on it, claiming the name of a bus terminal for an "ACTUAL" place. -- MageLam ( talk) 07:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Well, it appears that no one talk about it these days and apparently even if it exists, it dosen't even really have any kind of established notability. The original article was written in a way like it was treated like some sorta district or something, it's kinda stupid to see estate articles written like this, seriously... - MageLam ( talk) 14:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: WP:NOTE, remember? -- MageLam ( talk) 14:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
So I'm kind of having a writer's block right now. I need some ideas that I can use to describe Bedok for the new introduction. Every contribution helps. -- MageLam ( talk) 11:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I usually base my introductions off the way U.S state articles are written. Look at the introduction of the Massachusetts article for instance. -- MageLam ( talk) 11:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So I've been looking up on the history of Bedok and it appears that there's nothing much I could find. Here are my best sources at the current moment [61] [62]. If you can find any extra information, do send me the links. Thanks! -- MageLam ( talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll have a look at this. :D -- MageLam ( talk) 15:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So I'm done with the new introduction. If there's anything else I can do for now, do talk about it. -- MageLam ( talk) 19:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: It seems like most of the locator maps for Singapore are pretty outdated as most of the maps on Wikimedia Commons are based off the 2003 and 2008 URA Master Plan boundaries. There are even some maps for certain regions and planning areas which are missing in fact. If it is somehow possible, we would need someone who is able redo new locator maps for the planning area articles. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I don't think publicly available maps will do as those images fall under WP:NFC, I would preferably have new original vector locator maps instead, if we can find someone to do them that is. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: *Sigh* If only my PC was still working, maybe I could do some of those maps. -- MageLam ( talk) 15:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Chongkian: Hey there! I think I may have just found the first assignment for you. Do you know anyone who can help us out with redoing several locator maps? -- MageLam ( talk) 06:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Chongkian: I got the entire library of outdated maps right here. Also, some locator maps are missing and since these maps were made around 2006 during the whole sovereignty dispute with Malaysia, they don't show an inset of Pedra Branca. -- MageLam ( talk) 07:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Chongkian: Hahaha, sorry, I wish I had the hardware to do it to begin with, my PC broke down several months back and I've yet to replace it. In the mean time, I've been editing on mobile via the desktop interface, that's why I'm here to enquire about this. The person responsible for creating these maps is a user who goes by the name of Vsion, he was apparently last active in 2015, so doubt I can get to him. A German user by the name of TUBS apparently has a similar collection of maps on Wikimedia Commons, albeit depicting only the constantly fluctuating CDC districts, which means the CDC boundaries depicted, are outdated as well. -- MageLam ( talk) 07:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Can you get engaged with TUBS on the German Wikipedia for us? I think he can do some locator maps for the project. Your help would be most appreciated. -- MageLam ( talk) 10:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: TUBS recently revised a few maps regarding the new boundaries of the provinces of Italy, an example of which you can clearly see here. So I don't think he does country maps exclusively. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Haven't you seen this as well? -- MageLam ( talk) 14:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: In other words, I would preferably have TUBS's professional hands do the job. Should we get him to help us out? -- MageLam ( talk) 21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Are we gonna do something about this in the meantime? -- MageLam ( talk) 09:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: He speaks pretty decent English from what I can see on his talk page on the German Wikipedia. So help me get into contact him instead while I work on my draft. -- MageLam ( talk) 09:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Gzyeah and Lemongirl942: Would it really be necessary to create a seperate template for subzones in Singapore? The old " Template:Places in Singapore" was recently repurposed by me into just a template regarding planning areas. It was subsequently redirected by Gzyeah to Template:Planning Areas of Singapore. He has since created a new template exclusively for subzones, which destroys the edit history of the old template. How do we solve this? -- MageLam ( talk) 16:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: I never damaged the edit history but just keep them for your new subzone edits. The two templates should be necessary and not supposed to confuse since general "places" & "planning areas" are different conceptions. All the old edit history are still remained with Template:Planning Areas of Singapore. and I only modify redirection for Template:Places in Singapore with right sources after moving in order to keep less harm to other users whom focusing on "places" more than "planning areas" at the moment. Hope you can understand.-- Gzyeah ( talk) 16:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: You might wanna refer to my personal discussion with Gzyeah on this, here.
@ Lemongirl942: You know, I think the current Places in Singapore template is pretty cluttered. Let's solve this. -- MageLam ( talk) 17:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So as you can tell, the current state of the Tanah Merah article is pretty... broken. While there is some content, it basically just lacks references. I'm thinking of improving it much like how I did with the Jurong article (in fact I'm thinking of modeling the Tanah Merah article off the Jurong article). The problem is, there isn't really much information on the Internet regarding Tanah Merah. If you could look into it, I could probably use some references for the write-up. I'll be getting back to working on the new introduction for Bishan now, hopefully once I'm done I'll see what I can do about this topic. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I think my best bet for this topic is to do physical research myself. I'll see if I can take the time to head on down to the library for resources. There's hardly any information regarding Tanah Merah on the web. -- MageLam ( talk) 08:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I kinda think that we are just doing up articles without any proper objectives. Let's start making some goals and priorities for this collaborative project. How about we start out with the PA articles first, shall we? I think we can work systematically from there. -- MageLam ( talk) 07:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: With the whole drama subsiding, I thought we should talk about this. Any thoughts or opinions you might wanna offer? -- MageLam ( talk) 08:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I think our real main problem right now is that we have yet to list out our project priorities. It is because of this that we can't really function that well right now. It seems like we are rather divided on our priorities. I want to get new locator maps done while you are trying to get proper naming conventions. Don't you think we should discuss this out now so that other future members are aware of our goals? -- MageLam ( talk) 13:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: The wait for new members is taking way too long. I think its about time we discuss our priorities now. I don't really know where exactly this project is heading towards. -- MageLam ( talk) 13:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I'll give it a bit more of a wait. But I'm hoping this doesn't take long... -- MageLam ( talk) 14:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So I apparently ran through the edited disambiguation page to have a look at what Linrx had to say. The whole thing was just pure political commentary and also lots of Shakespearean English, that basically screams alien. I suggest we do something about the content. Also, since when has a "Civil District" ever existed? -- MageLam ( talk) 14:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Speaking about the Civic District, I'm just wondering about its borders. I've heard on several occasions that the Museum Planning Area is a part of the district alongside the City Hall subzone. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully this drama has ended, its one I definitely would not watch. Especially with a guy who has a strange obsession with Old World English, which sounds completely foreign in this current day and age. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I guess I will be putting the Bukit Batok introduction on hold, given the situation we are currently in. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Anyways, back to the "City of Singapore" and "Central Area" issue. Have you seen the map I provided on the talk page? -- MageLam ( talk) 14:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Try comparing this with maps of Singapore Town. -- MageLam ( talk) 15:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: What I meant was, take a look at the maps of the City of Singapore and the pre-1952, Town of Singapore. Compare them with the present-day Central Area and see if you can come up with any conclusive results. -- MageLam ( talk) 15:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Well in Singapore's case, the Central Area is often called the "The City" or the "City Area". If you ask anyone on the streets in Singapore where the "Central Area" is however, everyone would be scratching their heads because no one knows what the "Central Area" is. -- MageLam ( talk) 16:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Anyways, sorry if I gave you a bad impression that day, I'm not usually like this. I had a rather busy day at college, keeping up with the stress. -- MageLam ( talk) 17:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: He's apparently mad or something. He recently deleted his user page which was followed up by some vandalism on the SGPedians' Notice board. -- MageLam ( talk) 02:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: It appears that he has gone under the alias of Ronggy before as well. Looks like Shakespeare isn't new to the game. -- MageLam ( talk) 03:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I believe I may have just found a sock puppet of a vandal. Do you suggest we report? -- MageLam ( talk) 03:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't believe I fed the hunger of a literal troll all this while... -- MageLam ( talk) 03:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Check Ronggy's page, it shows that he has indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. -- MageLam ( talk) 04:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Have you seen Shakespeare's message yet? Looks like he is just pure trolling at this point. -- MageLam ( talk) 04:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: In any case, I would prefer to stay out of the picture, there's no need for me to repeat what happened yesterday. -- MageLam ( talk) 04:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I suggest that you avoid unnecessary communication with him as well. He is putting both of us on the other end of the rope. -- MageLam ( talk) 04:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Chongkian and Lemongirl942: It appears that most of us don't even know what's the difference between the Central Area (aka "The City") and the Central Business District. According to the URA, the Downtown Core is defined as such:
The Downtown Core (part) Planning Area is made up of 4 zones of Bugis, City Hall, Marina Centre and CBD (part); CBD (part) zone is further divided into 7 subzones.
The Central Business District is a district located within the Downtown Core, which in turn, is a part of the Central Area itself. The Central Area is the area roughly defined as the present day "city-centre" of Singapore and shouldn't be confused with the CBD. The terms "CBD" and "Central Area" have been used so interchangeably that even the LTA themselves made a mistake with defining the boundaries of the CBD on this map. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: This issue is just getting out of hand. Look at what is happening with all the new town articles. The longer they rust, the more vandals they invite. To get straight to the point, I would preferably have some (if not all of them) semi-protected. -- MageLam ( talk) 15:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Quite true, but nonetheless I still feel these articles are still very vulnerable. I just hope this wave of vandalism does down after a while... -- MageLam ( talk) 04:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: I restored WP:STATUSQUO in this case. Sin Ming is a distinct and well known estate in Bishan. For example, The Eunoia JC is in Sin Ming. The Thomson, Singapore area on the other hand is a private residential area is located to the west of the Thomson road as far as I know. The exact location of the "Thomson Area" needs to be verified though. However, Sin Ming is definitely not located to the west of the Thomson Road. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 07:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, the article I linked has a noteworthy mention of Boon Lay Place in it. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So should we create an article for Sembawang Hills? I do believe that it is indeed of some significance you know. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I suggest we do a merge from Thomson, Singapore into Thomson Road, Singapore as both entities are closely tied to each other (more specifically the road itself). -- MageLam ( talk) 06:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm also probably gonna start writing something basic for the "Sembawang Hills" article. Probably you could help me improve it while I work on the new introduction for Bukit Merah? -- MageLam ( talk) 06:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I still do believe that both the general area is mostly defined by the road and the two articles should be merged into one. As for Sembawang Hills, I still think its a noteworthy neighborhood to be covered given its historical importance. -- MageLam ( talk) 07:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I think I'll put the Sembawang Hills article aside for now. I'm currently real busy working on the new introduction for the Bukit Merah article. There is literally so much to discuss about it, the place is just filled with history. I'm gonna work on Sembawang Hills once I'm done with the colossal giant of an introduction, that is Bukit Merah. Doing this contribution as a proud resident myself (shoo, no COI to see here). ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) -- MageLam ( talk) 18:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Anyways, I think it would be appropriate to discuss the merger of Thomson, Singapore and Thomson Road, Singapore once I'm done with what I said earlier. Also, I think the same could be said with Bras Basah and Bras Basah Road. I don't mind if you leave a bit of remarks now, but keep the big talk for the discussion once I'm done with the new and possibly long introduction for Bukit Merah. ;) -- MageLam ( talk) 09:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: The area known as Thomson appears to be very loosely defined, it doesn't really cover an exact or specific region, although we do know it is roughly located in the northern part of central Singapore. I know you would still insist on having two seperate articles, but I think it would be really appropriate if we discuss about the Thomson area in the Thomson Road article, given the fact that the area known as "Thomson" covers the strech of the road. I don't really see any usefulness in having two articles discussing about a similar topic. -- MageLam ( talk) 05:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: For Bras Basah and Bras Basah road, I don't mind if you do Bras Basah + Bras Basah Road -> Bras Basah Road. I have looked up references extensively for this and it seems all previous references are in the context of the road. In any case, the article content of Bras Basah is copied from Bras Basah Road, so instead of a merge, a simple redirect of Bras Basah to Bras Basah Road can be done as well. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 10:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: I looked up on this in the archives. Bras Basah was originally a river and a road, with the road having existed since 1840s. There wasn't any mention of a precinct in the maps I checked. The Singapore Infopedia has an article about the road, but not the precinct. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 11:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I'm just gonna put my points here. You can reply any time you want. Firstly, for a WP:COMMONNAME to apply, the common name has to be in cited sources, or it has to be noted in sources that people informally call it as such. Basically it all comes down to citations. I have seen the brochure before. URA however seems to be treating it as "Bras Basah.Bugis" precinct. Notice the combined name. Historically though, there may have been an area known as "Bras Basah" possibly around the Sungei Bras Bassa.
The Bras Basah Road has existed since Raffles was here, albeit under a different name. For a road that has existed since the birth of modern Singapore, I would consider it notable. The other reason is that the road exists beyond the "Bras Basah.Bugis" precinct, as shown in the map [68]. Raffles Hotel is an important landmark on Bras Basah road. There was also a former community centre named "Bras Basah Road CC" [69]. Newspapers have multiple references to this road.
Now, whether "Bras Basah" needs an article or not, this is debatable. It is entirely possible that sources are found. Indeed, it is interesting that the "Bras Basah Complex" (on Victoria street) is named "Bras Basah"; there may have been a historical area informally referred to as Bras Basah. Was it the constituency? At the moment I don't know enough. I will have to search for it. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 15:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: It's been awhile since this project embarked on a mission. I recently realized that the area sizes and population density for each planning area are incorrect (information which I got from citypopulation.de of course). I found this after realizing that Sengkang and Punggol were conterminous with their planning areas. I analyzed the size of Sengkang and compared it to the statistics I found on citypopulation.de, the figures didn't correspond to each other. However, when I compared the area size given by the HDB to the area size provided by Singapore Infopedia, I realized they were both the same, 1,055 hectares. The planning report also proofs the same, 1,055 hectares. However, given the fact that the planning reports were written in the 90s, the size of Singapore has since changed due to all the land reclamation that has been going on in the pass two decades since then. This renders the statistics on the planning reports, outdated. I've been unable to find any official new statistics online regarding the sizes of these planning areas. Probably you could do me a favor. Try researching online first and see if you can dig up anything. If not, I recommend you head on down to the URA Resource Centre and see what info you can grab out from there. If you can find any that is. -- MageLam ( talk) 17:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: ??? -- MageLam ( talk) 17:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Back on the main topic of discussion. What do you have to say about this? -- MageLam ( talk) 03:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Answers? -- MageLam ( talk) 09:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Let's avoid all the talk regarding "technical moves". This page is full of them and I wish to move on from this. I don't want you to picture me as a trouble maker. I came here to help develop an encyclopedia, just like everyone else. -- MageLam ( talk) 09:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I think I will make a commitment for myself. From now on, I'm going to stop all this technical moving until we are done with the guidelines. I'm sick of this and it is this that ruined my reputation as an editor. I returned to Wikipedia to start a peaceful movement to resurrect Singapore geographical articles. Instead, I brought myself into a messy situation I shouldn't have been in. -- MageLam ( talk) 09:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I get to stressed out at times. Sometimes I feel like belong to this community, other times I just feel like shouldn't have been involved in the first place. But since I'm already here, I guess its my responsibility to do the spring cleaning. -- MageLam ( talk) 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Any answers? -- MageLam ( talk) 10:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942 and Chongkian: I think its about time we made one of our own and transfer the contents of this page over to the WikiProject page in question. -- MageLam ( talk) 05:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Move "Pandan, Singapore" to "Pandan Gardens" (will restore edit history) Create new article for "Pandan, Singapore" (about URA subzone, content can be copied from Pandan Gardens) Change "Pandan Gardens" as required. Page can be redirected or content improved.
Sounds good to me :D MageLam ( talk) 06:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Looks like we made a move request at the same time XD -- MageLam ( talk) 14:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I think its appropriate that I redirect Pandan Gardens to Teban Gardens as that is the alternate name of Teban Gardens. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: The situation just now was just hilarious. XD I will be looking up on the Chai Chee article in the meantime. Once I've wrapped it up, I will begin on the new introduction to the Bishan article. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Anyways, I don't think it would be necessary to have an article regarding about Pandan Gardens as both Teban and Pandan Gardens relatively share the same history. I think it would be appropriate that we mention both Teban Gardens Estate and Pandan Gardens Estate in a section in the Teban Gardens article. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Pandan Gardens is pretty much located just adjacent to Teban Gardens. Although they are different by name, the two estates share the same history. -- MageLam ( talk) 04:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Move Bidadari, Toa Payoh to Bidadari, Singapore. Would satisfy general place name convention. Article already contains link to Bidadari Cemetery and a hatnote to prevent confusion. (There should not be confusion because the placenames are different. See similarly named articles Choa Chu Kang and Choa Chu Kang Cemetery.
Alright then, looks like there's nothing wrong with that. MageLam ( talk) 07:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Move Anson, Singapore back to Anson Road. Will restore original article subject and history. Create Anson, Singapore if required and add a link to Anson Road.
Anson Road and the subzone of Anson are historically synonymous with each other. Rather keep the content as it is, probably mention about the road in a section of the article. MageLam ( talk) 09:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirect Bartley, Singapore to Bartley Road. It appears that the term "Bartley" is used to colloquially refer to Bartley Road. Leave the Joo Seng article as it is. MageLam ( talk) 15:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I was just researching a bit about Chong Pang since I had earlier read somewhere that it used to be a village. Looks like, it does have a bit of history associated with it. See [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 18:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It appears that the village was historically associated with Sembawang. However, the article discussed quite a bit about the ward in the constituency itself rather than mentioning the village. MageLam ( talk) 18:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Is there anything we can do about this for the time being? -- MageLam ( talk) 05:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
So this situation remains unsolved or case closed? -- MageLam ( talk) 02:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I know this seems irrelevant at the moment, but I just wish to address this as it is still in a sense considered "fixing". I'm thinking of making this a goal after working on the names/content of the relevant subzone articles that are currently being contested. It seems like the main problem with most planning area/subzone articles is how broken they are in their current state. The lack of contributiors to these articles since the late 2000s, proper format and conventions have lead them to become as such. Before I came across you, I've only ran into one other editor who has worked with me on a SG Geo article. Its been harder to find people to collaborate with these days due to the pretty much dying community. From what I can tell, it seems like you are really taking the initiative to patch up these articles and I thought we could probably work on completely revising said articles together.
As I can't really write down all my goals in a single prose, I'll put them down on a checklist.
I know this seems quite impossible at the current moment. But if someone takes the initiative to do something, it could probably help in the long term. I'm hoping to see at least the planning area articles reach B class status or something better sometime in the future. Two good examples to look at would be Sengkang and Pedra Branca.
Aside from working on articles that we are currently fixing on now, I was thinking if we could also probably start on rewriting the introductions of all the new town and estate articles. We can consider doing any other additional content on these articles should there need be.
Your help and understanding will be most appreciated @ Lemongirl942. ;)
MageLam ( talk) 16:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Do you happen to know any IPA by chance? I need help. -- MageLam ( talk) 07:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Its finished! Have a look here. Give it a revision if need be. XD -- MageLam ( talk) 11:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I also kinda forgot to put in information regarding the two large tertiary institutions in Ang Mo Kio, ITE College Central and Nanyang Polytechnic. If possible, try to include it in the introduction where appropriate. -- MageLam ( talk) 11:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Any thoughts on the revised introduction or does it need more working on? -- MageLam ( talk) 03:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The terms "New town" and "urban planning area" appear to be rather outdated and have not been used since the early 2010s. It seems like the HDB prefers to use the term "HDB Town" now rather than using the term "New town" to describe the towns of Singapore. [34] The URA on the other hand also appear to prefer the term "planning area" over "urban planning area". [35] Isn't it about time we change the titles of Urban planning areas of Singapore and New towns and estates of Singapore to simply "Planning areas of Singapore" and "List of HDB towns and estates" respectively? Also should this change happen, we have to go through the hassle of editing every planning area article and correcting the terms used in those articles. MageLam ( talk) 13:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, I think I will put my introduction revising on hold until we sort this matter out as I think I can make the changes accordingly once a discussion on this is settled. MageLam ( talk) 13:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So I did a Google search on "urban planning area" today, all I saw was pretty much just "planning area". Any suggestions? MageLam ( talk) 02:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I think I'm just gonna change it from Urban planning areas of Singapore to Planning areas of Singapore. There is literally no mention or use of the term "urban planning area" anywhere. -- MageLam ( talk) 07:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: "Planning Area" dosen't have to be used in all caps, have a look at the bottom of this page for instance. -- MageLam ( talk) 06:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
It is usually in Caps though since it has a special meaning in the Singaporean context. The term "planning area" is a general term, while the caps kind of emphasises the specific meaning -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 07:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I realised HDB used the divisions of Neighbourhood, Precinct and Block. Is there a website/list where all of these are listed? -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: Cool! Thanks for this. It helps to clarify some things although it is a partial list of course (and some of it is based on their interpretation). HDB used to actually classify estates quite well. I guess I could also try to get the old HDB maps from somewhere as well. Pretty sure they would have this info. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So earlier on in the discussion, Regarding the terms "New town" and "Urban planning area", I made a short ramble about the official names of new towns in Singapore. Although the towns are often known by their common names, there is no denying that their formal names exist, usually ending with a "Town" or "New Town" suffix. Official titles usually apply to all new towns accept for Queenstown, Geylang and the estate of Bukit Timah. However, the reason why I call them confusing is because of how some seem to go by two names. Take Woodlands for example, signs within Woodlands call it "Woodlands Town", however a LTA sign at Woodlands Checkpoint refers to it as "Woodlands New Town" and so does the HDB website. I think we should we investigate the names of each individual town and get a proper conclusion to this. -- MageLam ( talk) 06:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, should the whole of Kallang be recognized as the HDB entity of Kallang/Whampoa or just as the planning area of Kallang? -- MageLam ( talk) 06:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The reason why I find this confusing is due to the fact that the HDB entity doesn't just cover the planning area of Kallang, but also the housing estate of Whampoa as well. Whampoa itself is geographically located within Balestier which itself is located in Novena, a planning area that is not a HDB town. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Is it possible to reach a consensus for this issue? Like, how the official names should be mentioned in the heading line of the article and in the infobox? Also, I think we should stick to modern formal titles instead of using an old title, like with Toa Payoh for instance. -- MageLam ( talk) 15:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I think there should be some sort of guideline for this, I feel it is important to me. Here is my suggestion, for towns which have a single official name, the heading line of the article should say, "officially _____ New Town" (like with Bukit Merah for instance). For towns whose official names are highly debatable, like with Woodlands or Toa Payoh, the heading line should indicate, "formally referred to as _______ New Town or _______ Town" and the infobox of that article should not indicate the formal name. -- MageLam ( talk) 08:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I think we should also agree that instead of following the names given by other sources (most of whom are often vague and confusing), we should base our references of the official names from just governmental sources. More specifically with the MND, its subsidiaries (HDB, URA) and the NHB. -- MageLam ( talk) 08:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So what about towns and estates which are referred to by a single official name. For example Bukit Merah and Marine Parade? -- MageLam ( talk) 09:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I have written down several guidelines regarding the official names of towns and estates on the Naming conventions (Singapore) page. If need be, modify it accordingly. -- MageLam ( talk) 15:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I also think it is more appropriate to describe them as "long conventional names" rather than "official names" due to how confusing they are. This excludes Kallang/Whampoa however. -- MageLam ( talk) 04:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Can you look up on Ang Mo Kio Town and Tampines Town for me, I feel convinced that those are the official names of AMK and Tampines. -- MageLam ( talk) 04:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, can you tag my name when you message me, I need to be notified when I receive your message. Thanks! :) -- MageLam ( talk) 04:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: I did a brief search for both. Both seem to have been referred to as "new towns" for quite a while. The word "town" is more recent but usually occurs alongside "Town Centre" or "Town Council". HDB is ambivalent - Ang Mo Kio is simply Ang Mo Kio, while Tampines is sometimes referred to as Tampines town. I guess just mention both -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 05:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So earlier today, someone restored the entire article regarding Chai Chee. I do agree that the place has some kinda history, but I don't exactly think that the article should be written as an existing place but rather, like how I mentioned before, written as a former entity. The anonymous person who restored the article just simply left the article as it is. -- MageLam ( talk) 11:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I remembered this Kampong being mentioned by Jack Neo as the inspiration for his recent film, Long Long Time Ago. It seems pretty significant enough to be covered. However like I said before, the article should be re-written in the context of a former entity and if need be, include how the name is used at present. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The article also lacks references, and I think we need to include some. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The reason why I redirected Chai Chee to Kembangan that time was because of its location. The vicinty known as Chai Chee coresponded with the subzone of Kembangan. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I'm currently busy researching information that I can include in the new introduction for the Bedok article. In the meantime, do help me out and handle the Chai Chee and Chong Pang articles on my behalf when you can. Thanks ;) -- MageLam ( talk) 14:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
(A new section. Since main page is getting bulkier, I created this for easy editing just by section.) List of pages which have lost edit history and require moving back.
Seems like Whampoa, Novena contains the edit history of Whampoa, Singapore.
Lol, I realised long before you were experienced because of the way you fix articles. I used to edit anonymously once in a while but never bothered creating an account. Finally decided to do one last year. Anyway, as for this page, right now I think I will let it be since I find it easier to have stuff at one place although later I will archive it sectionally. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 11:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: The history of "Holland Road, Singapore" (article about Road) in this case has been transferred to "Holland Drive". Do we need an article about the subzone called "Holland Road"? Because Holland Road in general use refers to usually the road itself. Large parts of the Holland Road are also in the other planning areas of Tanglin while also bordering Queenstown. My recommendation would be to keep the article centred on the road. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 01:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I am currently making a move request to transfer the current Holland Drive page to Holland Road, Singapore proper. Once that's done I will be creating a new page for Holland Drive. The thing is, content that already exists will remain in their current articles. As for the article regarding Holland Road, the article will both focus on both the road and the subzone itself. -- MageLam ( talk) 02:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Ok, maybe we don't necessarily need a Holland Drive article, but we do need a Holland Road article. -- MageLam ( talk) 02:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The history seems to have been messed up here as well. Again, the question is are Changi Village and Changi Point the same neighbourhood? Changi Village was the former village with the hawker centre and shops. Changi point was near the coast which had a British base. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: I'm not very sure about this. I have heard Museum District a few times, but most other times I have read Museum Planning Area. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 00:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: I couldn't find references to Museum District though, although Museum Planning Area has multiple references. The only district I know in and around the Central area is the Civic District (and the Museum Planning Area is a part of it). -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: I checked the history of the original article. It was about this park [52] and not the beach itself. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 07:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Actually, either term is used to refer to Changi Beach. The beach itself is physically a part of the park. -- MageLam ( talk) 07:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I think this is more or less a minor issue that we can fix easily. I don't really see what's the problem with either name anyways. :\ -- MageLam ( talk) 07:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Sorry about that, I think I may have taken things a little too personally. My uncivil and rash actions have already been restored by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I just wanna put this drama aside in the past and move on. Let's continue with our project proper, I'm gonna start on my Bukit Batok introduction again. ;) -- MageLam ( talk) 03:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I understand that you have been put through a similar situation like this as well before you met me. I know how it feels like to be in the same position as you. ;) -- MageLam ( talk) 03:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I would suggest that these two articles be merged. Marina Bay is Marina Reservoir. Marina Bay is the water body that sits in the middle of the Downtown Core, which was enclosed in by Marina Barrage in 2008, forming the so-called "Marina Reservoir". -- MageLam ( talk) 19:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I don't think I'm still entirely convinced that they are separate. Before Marina Bay was enclosed in by Marina Barrage in 2008, it was a bay that was actually connected to the sea. When it was converted into a reservoir, the PUB preferred to describe the bay as "Marina Reservoir", obviously excluding the other estuaries around it such as the Kallang River for example. The entire bay itself is the reservoir, dammed by the barrage itself. The term "Marina Bay" is still used to describe the bay and its surrounding area even to this day. -- MageLam ( talk) 05:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: I had to unfortunately revert to a previous version for this since the original article was about the road. I guess we will have to draft a convention soon. There also seems to have been one existing draft which I found. Looks like the members back in 2006 actually planned for separate articles for planning area/town/road etc. but maybe due to time constraints they were not able to carry it out. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 12:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Look, can we not always use WP:STATUSQUO as an excuse to revert all my edits. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded a little rude to you. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
And that is something I've been begging you to do in quite a while. Should we settle this as our main priority for now? -- MageLam ( talk) 12:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
All of this while I'm still working on my draft... -- MageLam ( talk) 12:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Well I've told you about that before. It really is pointless waiting for a month. The community here is dead. Just dead. All that is left is just a few fellas remaining. Its basically like Kodak, a sunset industry really. Look, I think every Singaporean Wikipedian out there is probably interested in other affairs right now. If we want to handle this, we have to take responsibility for the entire project on our own from here. But if we continue on like this, we will more or less act like two veto powers at a Security Council meeting. If this goes on without any neutral consensus, the results may end up pretty bad. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I've been noticing this weird trend where editors generalize a housing estate as a proper geographical location, adding info about unrelated surrounding facilities and etc. I don't think this is appropriate given the fact that housing estates are property developments. All housing estate articles should only and only discuss about their general development and not something else which is unrelated. A good example to follow would be The Pinnacle@Duxton article. I'm hoping there is some kind of guideline for this. -- MageLam ( talk) 11:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Well, the thing is, estates don't usually have very clearly defined boundaries, they usually tend to be located in some sort of general area which Singaporeans often identify by name (especially if there is a MRT station using that name). And to me that is usually the main problem, if there is no clearly defined boundary for an estate, how far should we extend our reach to discuss these facilities? -- MageLam ( talk) 07:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
It is so rediculous to an extent that people just simply name areas based on the names of surrounding facilities. For example, there was an article an ACTUAL article that was named St. Michael's, Singapore (it has been redirected to Balestier btw). It was a place that didn't existed and yet somehow, just somehow, someone had the audacity to make up an article on it, claiming the name of a bus terminal for an "ACTUAL" place. -- MageLam ( talk) 07:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Well, it appears that no one talk about it these days and apparently even if it exists, it dosen't even really have any kind of established notability. The original article was written in a way like it was treated like some sorta district or something, it's kinda stupid to see estate articles written like this, seriously... - MageLam ( talk) 14:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: WP:NOTE, remember? -- MageLam ( talk) 14:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
So I'm kind of having a writer's block right now. I need some ideas that I can use to describe Bedok for the new introduction. Every contribution helps. -- MageLam ( talk) 11:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I usually base my introductions off the way U.S state articles are written. Look at the introduction of the Massachusetts article for instance. -- MageLam ( talk) 11:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So I've been looking up on the history of Bedok and it appears that there's nothing much I could find. Here are my best sources at the current moment [61] [62]. If you can find any extra information, do send me the links. Thanks! -- MageLam ( talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll have a look at this. :D -- MageLam ( talk) 15:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So I'm done with the new introduction. If there's anything else I can do for now, do talk about it. -- MageLam ( talk) 19:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: It seems like most of the locator maps for Singapore are pretty outdated as most of the maps on Wikimedia Commons are based off the 2003 and 2008 URA Master Plan boundaries. There are even some maps for certain regions and planning areas which are missing in fact. If it is somehow possible, we would need someone who is able redo new locator maps for the planning area articles. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I don't think publicly available maps will do as those images fall under WP:NFC, I would preferably have new original vector locator maps instead, if we can find someone to do them that is. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: *Sigh* If only my PC was still working, maybe I could do some of those maps. -- MageLam ( talk) 15:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Chongkian: Hey there! I think I may have just found the first assignment for you. Do you know anyone who can help us out with redoing several locator maps? -- MageLam ( talk) 06:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Chongkian: I got the entire library of outdated maps right here. Also, some locator maps are missing and since these maps were made around 2006 during the whole sovereignty dispute with Malaysia, they don't show an inset of Pedra Branca. -- MageLam ( talk) 07:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Chongkian: Hahaha, sorry, I wish I had the hardware to do it to begin with, my PC broke down several months back and I've yet to replace it. In the mean time, I've been editing on mobile via the desktop interface, that's why I'm here to enquire about this. The person responsible for creating these maps is a user who goes by the name of Vsion, he was apparently last active in 2015, so doubt I can get to him. A German user by the name of TUBS apparently has a similar collection of maps on Wikimedia Commons, albeit depicting only the constantly fluctuating CDC districts, which means the CDC boundaries depicted, are outdated as well. -- MageLam ( talk) 07:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Can you get engaged with TUBS on the German Wikipedia for us? I think he can do some locator maps for the project. Your help would be most appreciated. -- MageLam ( talk) 10:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: TUBS recently revised a few maps regarding the new boundaries of the provinces of Italy, an example of which you can clearly see here. So I don't think he does country maps exclusively. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Haven't you seen this as well? -- MageLam ( talk) 14:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: In other words, I would preferably have TUBS's professional hands do the job. Should we get him to help us out? -- MageLam ( talk) 21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Are we gonna do something about this in the meantime? -- MageLam ( talk) 09:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: He speaks pretty decent English from what I can see on his talk page on the German Wikipedia. So help me get into contact him instead while I work on my draft. -- MageLam ( talk) 09:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Gzyeah and Lemongirl942: Would it really be necessary to create a seperate template for subzones in Singapore? The old " Template:Places in Singapore" was recently repurposed by me into just a template regarding planning areas. It was subsequently redirected by Gzyeah to Template:Planning Areas of Singapore. He has since created a new template exclusively for subzones, which destroys the edit history of the old template. How do we solve this? -- MageLam ( talk) 16:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: I never damaged the edit history but just keep them for your new subzone edits. The two templates should be necessary and not supposed to confuse since general "places" & "planning areas" are different conceptions. All the old edit history are still remained with Template:Planning Areas of Singapore. and I only modify redirection for Template:Places in Singapore with right sources after moving in order to keep less harm to other users whom focusing on "places" more than "planning areas" at the moment. Hope you can understand.-- Gzyeah ( talk) 16:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: You might wanna refer to my personal discussion with Gzyeah on this, here.
@ Lemongirl942: You know, I think the current Places in Singapore template is pretty cluttered. Let's solve this. -- MageLam ( talk) 17:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So as you can tell, the current state of the Tanah Merah article is pretty... broken. While there is some content, it basically just lacks references. I'm thinking of improving it much like how I did with the Jurong article (in fact I'm thinking of modeling the Tanah Merah article off the Jurong article). The problem is, there isn't really much information on the Internet regarding Tanah Merah. If you could look into it, I could probably use some references for the write-up. I'll be getting back to working on the new introduction for Bishan now, hopefully once I'm done I'll see what I can do about this topic. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I think my best bet for this topic is to do physical research myself. I'll see if I can take the time to head on down to the library for resources. There's hardly any information regarding Tanah Merah on the web. -- MageLam ( talk) 08:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I kinda think that we are just doing up articles without any proper objectives. Let's start making some goals and priorities for this collaborative project. How about we start out with the PA articles first, shall we? I think we can work systematically from there. -- MageLam ( talk) 07:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: With the whole drama subsiding, I thought we should talk about this. Any thoughts or opinions you might wanna offer? -- MageLam ( talk) 08:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I think our real main problem right now is that we have yet to list out our project priorities. It is because of this that we can't really function that well right now. It seems like we are rather divided on our priorities. I want to get new locator maps done while you are trying to get proper naming conventions. Don't you think we should discuss this out now so that other future members are aware of our goals? -- MageLam ( talk) 13:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: The wait for new members is taking way too long. I think its about time we discuss our priorities now. I don't really know where exactly this project is heading towards. -- MageLam ( talk) 13:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I'll give it a bit more of a wait. But I'm hoping this doesn't take long... -- MageLam ( talk) 14:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So I apparently ran through the edited disambiguation page to have a look at what Linrx had to say. The whole thing was just pure political commentary and also lots of Shakespearean English, that basically screams alien. I suggest we do something about the content. Also, since when has a "Civil District" ever existed? -- MageLam ( talk) 14:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Speaking about the Civic District, I'm just wondering about its borders. I've heard on several occasions that the Museum Planning Area is a part of the district alongside the City Hall subzone. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully this drama has ended, its one I definitely would not watch. Especially with a guy who has a strange obsession with Old World English, which sounds completely foreign in this current day and age. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I guess I will be putting the Bukit Batok introduction on hold, given the situation we are currently in. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Anyways, back to the "City of Singapore" and "Central Area" issue. Have you seen the map I provided on the talk page? -- MageLam ( talk) 14:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Try comparing this with maps of Singapore Town. -- MageLam ( talk) 15:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: What I meant was, take a look at the maps of the City of Singapore and the pre-1952, Town of Singapore. Compare them with the present-day Central Area and see if you can come up with any conclusive results. -- MageLam ( talk) 15:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Well in Singapore's case, the Central Area is often called the "The City" or the "City Area". If you ask anyone on the streets in Singapore where the "Central Area" is however, everyone would be scratching their heads because no one knows what the "Central Area" is. -- MageLam ( talk) 16:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Anyways, sorry if I gave you a bad impression that day, I'm not usually like this. I had a rather busy day at college, keeping up with the stress. -- MageLam ( talk) 17:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: He's apparently mad or something. He recently deleted his user page which was followed up by some vandalism on the SGPedians' Notice board. -- MageLam ( talk) 02:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: It appears that he has gone under the alias of Ronggy before as well. Looks like Shakespeare isn't new to the game. -- MageLam ( talk) 03:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I believe I may have just found a sock puppet of a vandal. Do you suggest we report? -- MageLam ( talk) 03:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't believe I fed the hunger of a literal troll all this while... -- MageLam ( talk) 03:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Check Ronggy's page, it shows that he has indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. -- MageLam ( talk) 04:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Have you seen Shakespeare's message yet? Looks like he is just pure trolling at this point. -- MageLam ( talk) 04:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: In any case, I would prefer to stay out of the picture, there's no need for me to repeat what happened yesterday. -- MageLam ( talk) 04:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I suggest that you avoid unnecessary communication with him as well. He is putting both of us on the other end of the rope. -- MageLam ( talk) 04:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Chongkian and Lemongirl942: It appears that most of us don't even know what's the difference between the Central Area (aka "The City") and the Central Business District. According to the URA, the Downtown Core is defined as such:
The Downtown Core (part) Planning Area is made up of 4 zones of Bugis, City Hall, Marina Centre and CBD (part); CBD (part) zone is further divided into 7 subzones.
The Central Business District is a district located within the Downtown Core, which in turn, is a part of the Central Area itself. The Central Area is the area roughly defined as the present day "city-centre" of Singapore and shouldn't be confused with the CBD. The terms "CBD" and "Central Area" have been used so interchangeably that even the LTA themselves made a mistake with defining the boundaries of the CBD on this map. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: This issue is just getting out of hand. Look at what is happening with all the new town articles. The longer they rust, the more vandals they invite. To get straight to the point, I would preferably have some (if not all of them) semi-protected. -- MageLam ( talk) 15:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Quite true, but nonetheless I still feel these articles are still very vulnerable. I just hope this wave of vandalism does down after a while... -- MageLam ( talk) 04:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: I restored WP:STATUSQUO in this case. Sin Ming is a distinct and well known estate in Bishan. For example, The Eunoia JC is in Sin Ming. The Thomson, Singapore area on the other hand is a private residential area is located to the west of the Thomson road as far as I know. The exact location of the "Thomson Area" needs to be verified though. However, Sin Ming is definitely not located to the west of the Thomson Road. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 07:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, the article I linked has a noteworthy mention of Boon Lay Place in it. -- MageLam ( talk) 12:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: So should we create an article for Sembawang Hills? I do believe that it is indeed of some significance you know. -- MageLam ( talk) 14:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I suggest we do a merge from Thomson, Singapore into Thomson Road, Singapore as both entities are closely tied to each other (more specifically the road itself). -- MageLam ( talk) 06:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm also probably gonna start writing something basic for the "Sembawang Hills" article. Probably you could help me improve it while I work on the new introduction for Bukit Merah? -- MageLam ( talk) 06:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I still do believe that both the general area is mostly defined by the road and the two articles should be merged into one. As for Sembawang Hills, I still think its a noteworthy neighborhood to be covered given its historical importance. -- MageLam ( talk) 07:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I think I'll put the Sembawang Hills article aside for now. I'm currently real busy working on the new introduction for the Bukit Merah article. There is literally so much to discuss about it, the place is just filled with history. I'm gonna work on Sembawang Hills once I'm done with the colossal giant of an introduction, that is Bukit Merah. Doing this contribution as a proud resident myself (shoo, no COI to see here). ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) -- MageLam ( talk) 18:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Anyways, I think it would be appropriate to discuss the merger of Thomson, Singapore and Thomson Road, Singapore once I'm done with what I said earlier. Also, I think the same could be said with Bras Basah and Bras Basah Road. I don't mind if you leave a bit of remarks now, but keep the big talk for the discussion once I'm done with the new and possibly long introduction for Bukit Merah. ;) -- MageLam ( talk) 09:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: The area known as Thomson appears to be very loosely defined, it doesn't really cover an exact or specific region, although we do know it is roughly located in the northern part of central Singapore. I know you would still insist on having two seperate articles, but I think it would be really appropriate if we discuss about the Thomson area in the Thomson Road article, given the fact that the area known as "Thomson" covers the strech of the road. I don't really see any usefulness in having two articles discussing about a similar topic. -- MageLam ( talk) 05:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: For Bras Basah and Bras Basah road, I don't mind if you do Bras Basah + Bras Basah Road -> Bras Basah Road. I have looked up references extensively for this and it seems all previous references are in the context of the road. In any case, the article content of Bras Basah is copied from Bras Basah Road, so instead of a merge, a simple redirect of Bras Basah to Bras Basah Road can be done as well. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 10:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@ MageLam: I looked up on this in the archives. Bras Basah was originally a river and a road, with the road having existed since 1840s. There wasn't any mention of a precinct in the maps I checked. The Singapore Infopedia has an article about the road, but not the precinct. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 11:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I'm just gonna put my points here. You can reply any time you want. Firstly, for a WP:COMMONNAME to apply, the common name has to be in cited sources, or it has to be noted in sources that people informally call it as such. Basically it all comes down to citations. I have seen the brochure before. URA however seems to be treating it as "Bras Basah.Bugis" precinct. Notice the combined name. Historically though, there may have been an area known as "Bras Basah" possibly around the Sungei Bras Bassa.
The Bras Basah Road has existed since Raffles was here, albeit under a different name. For a road that has existed since the birth of modern Singapore, I would consider it notable. The other reason is that the road exists beyond the "Bras Basah.Bugis" precinct, as shown in the map [68]. Raffles Hotel is an important landmark on Bras Basah road. There was also a former community centre named "Bras Basah Road CC" [69]. Newspapers have multiple references to this road.
Now, whether "Bras Basah" needs an article or not, this is debatable. It is entirely possible that sources are found. Indeed, it is interesting that the "Bras Basah Complex" (on Victoria street) is named "Bras Basah"; there may have been a historical area informally referred to as Bras Basah. Was it the constituency? At the moment I don't know enough. I will have to search for it. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 15:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: It's been awhile since this project embarked on a mission. I recently realized that the area sizes and population density for each planning area are incorrect (information which I got from citypopulation.de of course). I found this after realizing that Sengkang and Punggol were conterminous with their planning areas. I analyzed the size of Sengkang and compared it to the statistics I found on citypopulation.de, the figures didn't correspond to each other. However, when I compared the area size given by the HDB to the area size provided by Singapore Infopedia, I realized they were both the same, 1,055 hectares. The planning report also proofs the same, 1,055 hectares. However, given the fact that the planning reports were written in the 90s, the size of Singapore has since changed due to all the land reclamation that has been going on in the pass two decades since then. This renders the statistics on the planning reports, outdated. I've been unable to find any official new statistics online regarding the sizes of these planning areas. Probably you could do me a favor. Try researching online first and see if you can dig up anything. If not, I recommend you head on down to the URA Resource Centre and see what info you can grab out from there. If you can find any that is. -- MageLam ( talk) 17:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: ??? -- MageLam ( talk) 17:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Back on the main topic of discussion. What do you have to say about this? -- MageLam ( talk) 03:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Answers? -- MageLam ( talk) 09:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Let's avoid all the talk regarding "technical moves". This page is full of them and I wish to move on from this. I don't want you to picture me as a trouble maker. I came here to help develop an encyclopedia, just like everyone else. -- MageLam ( talk) 09:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I think I will make a commitment for myself. From now on, I'm going to stop all this technical moving until we are done with the guidelines. I'm sick of this and it is this that ruined my reputation as an editor. I returned to Wikipedia to start a peaceful movement to resurrect Singapore geographical articles. Instead, I brought myself into a messy situation I shouldn't have been in. -- MageLam ( talk) 09:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: I get to stressed out at times. Sometimes I feel like belong to this community, other times I just feel like shouldn't have been involved in the first place. But since I'm already here, I guess its my responsibility to do the spring cleaning. -- MageLam ( talk) 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942: Any answers? -- MageLam ( talk) 10:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lemongirl942 and Chongkian: I think its about time we made one of our own and transfer the contents of this page over to the WikiProject page in question. -- MageLam ( talk) 05:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)