This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Singapore This page is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore

Archives

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Updated daily by AAlertBot — Discuss? / Report bug? / Request feature?
Click to watch (Subscribe via  RSS  Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics!

Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Whyiseverythingalreadyused#SPH Media Archive Blockers (thanks Icepinner) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 15:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please come join the discussion at Talk:Kampong#Splitting_proposal, this is in regards to the Cambodian section, but your input would be greatly appreciated. TansoShoshen (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed quite a number of The Online Citizen (TOC) citations (or its spin-offs such as Gutzy Asia and Heidoh) being used on Singapore-related articles, usually by TAs, new users, or "on-and-off" editors. Looking at the archives, it seems like TOC's reliability hasn't properly been established yet, but considering its "colourful history", I'm leaning towards it being a questionable source. I'm looking for input from other editors on this. Aleain (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a website for political activism. We don't know anything about its editorial oversight, or even the qualifications of its "editors". It seems that TOC allows whatever to be published on their website, including stuff that prompted the government to intervene several times over misinformation; the veracity of the government's justification is not certain as the original TOC articles were deleted, but I'm inclined to think that it is prone to misinformation given the lack of information on its editorial oversight (not to mention how TOC published an article with the exceptional claim that the Singapore government had "corruption at the highest echelons"... but that was 8 years ago). So probably questionable. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleain: I'd say that it's aligned with the Singaporean opposition Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I thought of bringing this to the attention of various active users on the WP:SG project here (Icepinner, Aleain, Actuall7, Whyiseverythingalreadyused, among others)

Basically, the Wikipedia community has decided on the following:

There is consensus to immediately deprecate archive.today, and, as soon as practicable, add it to the spam blacklist (or create an edit filter that blocks adding new links) and remove all links to it. There is a strong consensus that Wikipedia should not direct its readers towards a website that hijacks users' computers to run a DDoS attack (see [WP:ELNO#3]). Additionally, evidence has been presented that archive.today's operators have altered the content of archived pages, rendering it unreliable. Those in favor of maintaining the status quo rested their arguments primarily on the utility of archive.today for verifiability. However, an analysis of existing links has shown that most of its uses can be replaced. Several editors started to work out implementation details during this RfC and the community should figure out how to efficiently remove links to archive.today.

So what does this mean? Basically, due to aforementioned concerns, we cannot add any new archive.today links (and its variant subdomains like archive.vn, archive.md etc etc), and we have to work on removing and replacing as many of them as we can. Please note this is archive.today and not archive.org, the latter which is the web archive. See WP:ATODAY for more details.

I don't think this is a major problem for WP:SG, although I'm aware there are definitely a few cases where archive.org may not be as effective. Icepinner has raised with me off-wiki that SPH sites (like for The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao) has begun blocking the creation of Web Archive links. As such, I also recommend these alternatives: Ghost Archive and Megalodon.

Right now, specifically for MRT pages, I'm trying to replace most archive.today links that are still in used, particularly for SMRT Journeys pages that doesn't load as effectively on the Web Archive. As for now, Ghostarchive seems to be the best alternative at the moment, although a few tries are definitely needed for the capture to be effective.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, ZKang. I am aware that you've tested Megalodon with Choa Chu Kang's page on the SMRT Journeys website, but the station locality map isn't loading for me. Is Ghost Archive better for pages with such web elements? Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 06:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my understanding is that Ghostarchive seems to be the best alternative at the moment.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: On the original site there's the download map link which you can still preserve on megalodon.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was kinda late to this; if the other two archivers don't function on SPH, the PAP has the power to defeat Wikipedia's coverage of unappetising Singaporean events and figures and we are fried Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 07:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, as I said there are alternatives for now and we shouldn't worry too much.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! You are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Singapore LRT stations/archive1. We're still looking for a few more eyes before deciding if there is consensus to promote the topic. Aza24 (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiProject Singapore Members,

You are warmly invited to participate in Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026 on the English Wikipedia.

This campaign focuses on improving content related to Ramadan, its history, traditions, culture, heritage, notable events, and global observances.

You can participate by creating new articles related to Ramadan and its associated topics. Your contributions will help bridge content gaps and improve coverage of Islamic culture and history on English Wikipedia.

There are also International Prizes for eligible participants.

Please visit the project page for full details, timeline, and guidelines: Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026

We look forward to your participation. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 09:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested that Eileen Chong (politician) be moved to Eileen Chong, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 13:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]