Talk:International rankings of Singapore

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drastic edits to article[edit]

Hello, Cenwin88lee. You radically changed the article today, reducing it from over 26Kb to just 5Kb without giving any edit summaries. I think the changes are so drastic, and resulted in the loss of properly referenced information, that they need to be discussed first. Could you please explain the changes you made and why you feel that they improve the article? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello jack lee,

i noticed you were the original author of this page. i hope you will support the changes made to your article and add on any futher rankings in the table format.

i have summarised all the articles in a clear cut table form which is much easier to view than the original version which was very wordy and had unclear headings.

i have grouped the international rankings into 3 mains groups using the PESTLE concept - political, social and economics, which makes for easier viewing. PESTLE (political, economic, social, technological, environment) is a way of examining the macro economics of a country and it works well for grouping international rankings of a country.

under the current table format, one look is all you need to view all the rankings. having such a table format allows us to add it as a collapsible table to all other singaporean related articles, which will also increase views to this page.

i have also linked this table to other related singaporean pages under a collapsible table form as part of an "international rankings of singapore" section. (see the international rankings of singapore under the main "singapore" wiki article for an example of a collapsible table using this page)

generally, i have tried to keep almost all the rankings you talked (suicide, gdp, troops) about in your original articles albeit i presented them in a easier to view table form. the rankings have also been properly referenced, albeit with different sources in many cases. i did away with some rankings with i felt were not "international rankings" and were pedantic and irrelevant. for eg, online govt services , the awards receveived by changi airport etc.


feel free to add rankings to the article but please continue using the table form i have created. ok?

Cenwin88lee (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i have tried to be impartial and objective. so i tried to use the most authoritative and international rankings. my goal is to paint an accurate picture of reality and not distort it.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) the table format is indeed helpful but even in (well rated) pages about lists there is substantial accompanying explanatory text; (2) the references you use are wikipedia pages? no doubt those pages contain the actual references but it's more conventional to use the actual references here; and (3) this is OT, but two pics of the CBD? we should vary them if possible. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, it is too drastic and the guy who did it just transferred the whole big load of data to the Singapore page, potentially cluttering up the whole article. Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 17:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The table format works fine. Maybe you can include another column for explanatory notes in point form and keep it concise. I'm not against moving the Changi Airport and SIA rankings to Singapore Changi Airport awards and accolades and so on. They're not exactly representative of Singapore as a whole. I'm also quite surprised to see that the transport section only covers air transport. Where're SMRT's rankings? I support the PESTLE (political, economic, social, technological, legal, environmental) grouping. That'll be six groups in total, not three, and the current version of the article has information on all the groups, except for legal. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 05:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is up to you to decide dave. i did put in an hour of work on it. and i am glad the comments here seem to agree that the table form provides for much easier viewing.

referencing to other wiki pages is not wrong, in fact it is even better since the reader can click on it and see the tables + sources themselves. the sources quoted on these wiki pages are reliable and accurate. we are not writing an academic paper here so there is no point in harvard referencing it to newspapers and books when there are online website sources available (UN, IMF, etc websites) since people cannot look up and i truly doubt the moderators bother to check these non internet based references.

yes, the table format can be expanded to includes "TLE" later - technological, legal and environmental rankings when you have the time and if the moderator decides to go with the table format. it is a work in progess, i have just got started on it when it got killed off.

i respect the decisions made by everyone since this is a wiki that is open to be edited by anyone. i do believe that any reasonable person would agree the table format is better.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Like I've said before, you're cluttering up the page even though you think that what you're doing is for the benefit of everyone to read. The article page of Singapore takes a tad too long to load at times because of the amount of text, which stands at over 100kB now. IMO, we should be trimming off all the unnecessary parts or section and spinning them into another article instead in order to lessen the load of Wiki's server. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 06:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey dave, i was talking about using my table format for this page, not the main "singapore" wiki page. i dont notice any difference in speed in the singapore article with a collapsible box added but i guess for people who are slow, things would take ages to load.

but no problem, you seem to know it all. you strike me as a very intelligent and open minded guy, like most people in your line of work are. definitely not the drone minded, lowly educated, unreasonable and illiterate kind, are you?

Cenwin88lee (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create this article but have been making efforts to keep it up to date. I have no strong objections to the use of a tabular format, but think that your edit removed a lot of useful information. For example, the following rankings were deleted:
I also agree with the other comments on this page that references should be to reliable secondary sources and not to other Wikipedia articles as this does not comply with WP:CIRCULAR. The article is far more reliable when sourced directly to secondary sources. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes maybe i would do everything up with the original sources and rankings but in a table form when i am free.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No crime rankings? Would have thought that was fairly important for any country. For example, the homicide rate in Singapore is supposed to be one of the lowest in the world, if not the lowest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.249.52 (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on International rankings of Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deleting non-encyclopedic, subjective, obscure index and rankings[edit]

This page looks bloated, with indiscriminate addition of rankings and indices, many of which are not even mentioned as an article on Wikipedia to be deserved mentioning here. I will boldly delete some of these hardly known rankings if there are no objections here.

Rankings that can be backed by proper statistics such as population density and land area are welcomed to stay. Jane Dawson (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International rankings of Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International rankings of Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_rankings_of_Singapore&oldid=1201741121"