Talk:2020 Singaporean general election

Overseas vote shares should be displayed or otherwise?

​​​​​​​Hi there just for the curious, because I do not see overseas votes reflected in the last 2015 Singaporean general election, I would like to agree on consensus if whether or not overseas votes should be included as final results. If a consensus is made, can the changes be also made on the other elections if necessary? I had received an attention to a user, User:119.74.95.51's contributions that it added the overseas votes without first waiting for consensus. Let us know here down this discussion. Sculture65 (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Include - Well, they are votes (inclusive of spoilt/invalid) cast by eligible voters and are counted as an overall by ELD. With regards to display, I prefer a final vote count table (aka local + overseas) and a separate table just for overseas vote count. If not, a combined table similar to the article here is fine also. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should separate them. The official results usually take only the local votes. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

We could just include it with a footnote "inclusive of overseas vote" seeing as the official results do include them this time. There's no need to go back and dig out the results of older elections unless one of us is willing to dedicate the time to it. Seloloving (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean: official results include both local and overseas votes. As an example, in official record for West Coast lodged with Singapore Gazette, the Number of Ballot Papers "account for the votes cast in all local and overseas polling stations for the electoral division". I would say include, and with a simplified table without the need to separate the count done on the day itself and for overseas votes. The rationale is that there is no division with the overseas votes being the deciding factor, thus no need to give emphasis to the overseas votes as a separate tally. – robertsky (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No preference as long as the exact numbers can be sourced without having to do any hidden additions, since the math is the current point of contention. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

​​​​​​​​ So include it is; well since the same user had recently updated the table, so it's include. If time permits, can anyone also help contribute or update the vote/percentages for the 2015 elections as well? Would be nice to lend a help. Sculture65 (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm gonna close the discussion if no one oppose. Sculture65 (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Logos in all Singapore political pages

Pending the outcome in this discussion regarding the copyright of logos, I am making the proposal that all logos be removed from all pages with the exception of the page for the party, to standardise with US and UK electoral pages. Please do give your thoughts. Seloloving (talk) 10:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

One Vs Five! lawsuit

@Sculture65: Hello, I would just like to give my opinion that I disagree that this lawsuit should be included as a post-election event, as it has nothing to do with the conduct of the general election itself. It was also neither a major topic of contention during the election, nor was the "defamatory" post made during it. In any case, the case itself has been sufficiently covered in Lee Hsien Loong and Lim Tean's pages. Seloloving (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

​Sorry for the late reply, but I was way busy. I understand your decision, but can you assist me on the Town Council updates (I also want to see the "list of constituencies in Singapore" which i plan to do) and other updates if time permits? Sculture65 (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

No worries, apologies, but I myself have been caught up in matters of real life, and won't be able to dedicate time to Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. Seloloving (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sculture65: Do let me know if you still require assistance. Seloloving (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Split Results into its own page

May I suggest to split the result tables of the election to another page? At present, it takes up a huge chunk of the article with no discernible purpose as the table reflecting the national results of all the parties involved already clearly states the same fact. There had also been a consensus in the past that the swing should not be reflected in certain GRCS/SMCs due to the nature of shifting boundaries, but this was gradually added back.

I would appreciate feedback on this proposal, thank you. Seloloving (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't been following the changes to this page, but yes to split and yes the previous consensus that swing should be stated only on the 12 GRCs/SMCs that have no change to the boundaries should be respected. – robertsky (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Garfield 3185 edits

@Garfield 3185: Please do start to leave edit summaries. Most of your edits to the constituency pages consist of broken English, and as someone has noted on your talkpage, none of your edits have a summary. Most of your edits are also extremely unnecessary, simply changing data around for no comprehensible reason.

While edit summaries are not required, they do help us analyse and understand your edits. Please do start using them. Also, a more recent photo of Lee Hsien Loong is in my view preferable for a events-based page, in this case, the 2020 general election.

I am sorry, but should you decline to respond to any of the past warnings on your talkpage by other editors, including mine, I may have to report you to the administrator's noticeboard for behavioral problems and lack of competence in editing. I sincerely do not wish to do that. Seloloving (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Noted Garfield 3185 (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Remarks

This article has the potential to be classified as a good article, save for some minor tweaks. Perhaps those who have made major contributions to this article could nominate it and see how it goes. 116.15.119.173 (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Seloloving (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

---

2020 Singaporean general election → 2020 Singapore general election – Google search results with -wikipedia: "Singaporean general election" delivers 4180 resullts, while "Singapore general election" gets 79,600 results. It's clear the latter is the common name and should be applied to all past electoral pages as well.

On Google ngrams, "Singaporean general election" does not even feature once. Seloloving (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Question: Seloloving, Does you know that there is an similar articles named "XXXX Singaporean general election" like 2015 Singaporean general election, 2011 Singaporean general election? I would oppose the move unless all election articles moved under same name for consistency. 36.77.93.9 (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes IP 36.77.93.9, I had indicated that in my original request that it should be applied to all past electoral pages as well. The ngrams clearly show that the term "Singaporean general election" was not used even then. Seloloving (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NC-GAL, the naming convention for election and referendum articles, which requires the adjectival form of the country name to be used. The Ngrams/COMMONAME argument is not applicable here as this is a formulaic title format. Also, a move request for a single article cannot be applied to other articles. Number 57 19:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NC-GAL is merely a guideline, and the style says occasional exceptions may apply. Nowhere in the article does it also say that the Ngrams/COMMONAME is not applicable or that the guideline supersedes it in the event of a dispute. I have also searched up the adjectival forms of names for many countries on Ngrams and while they are widely used in many cases, the very prevailing exception is Singapore's of which "Singaporean general election" is not used at all and its proper name vastly outnumbers the former in news coverage and other sources. I would put forward that this merits an exception from the rule as provided.

I am also aware it would not be reasonable to post a move request across a dozen electoral pages, hence this move request is here merely to gauge the interest of the community. In the interest of not bludgeoning the discussion, I will refrain from replying as I have put my point across here. Seloloving (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

All naming guidelines are 'merely guidelines' and I can see zero reason why there should be an exception here; the fact that "Singaporean general election" is used less than the requested title elsewhere is irrelevant, because election articles are not named in accordance with common names – they are named according to a formula set out in the guideline. Number 57 20:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I know I had said I will not reply further, but I had left out this in my original argument of which you replied before I added it in: The guideline may have been written on the premise of the majority where the adjectival form is in nearly all cases the common naming convention. As such, the policy may have been written from a common name point of view, and I still maintain that the exception very much applies to Singapore of which "Singaporean general election" is an abnormal term and where common sense would dictate the usage of the proper name. Seloloving (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that's unfounded speculation. If I may equally speculate, I suspect it was written with naturalness in mind, and the adjectival form fits better in the format than the noun form. The only cases where the adjectival form is not used is because there is some kind of issue with it. This is not the case here. Number 57 21:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting proposal

I propose that section 2020 Singaporean general election#Post-election events be split into a separate page called 2020 Singaporean general election post-election events. This article is getting too long and this is the largest section. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the no reply, but I will agree too see it will be split as well, because it find it too long. If this is approved, could you also do on the past elections, just for their sake? Sculture65 (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The information in the section should just be summarised. It does not warrant its own article.

Dawkin Verbier (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)