Talk:2020 Singaporean general election/Archive 1

Archiving references

To ensure the references remain accessible and at least readable years from now, ensure that all references are archived if it is possible to do so. This is to allow readers in later years having full access to references via archives so that they can better experience the atmosphere of our current era even when actual links of online references are down. Wayback Machine is one good place to archive your references. Yenwei (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Using GE as acronym for general election?

Shall we use the GE acronym so that we do not have to type 'general election' whenever we have to use it several times? Any structure for this or any other inputs about this idea? Yenwei (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Singapore doesn't have primary elections, why not just use 'election'? I don't think there's any confusion with by-elections. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Political parties and changes in election process in background section

1) Shall we also list out the parties that were formed and also the major leadership changes that occurred within each party? This is necessary for readers who are quite foreign to Singapore's political arena and for readers who need updates after our last election in 2015.

2) I think a brief mention of the changes to this year's election such as the use of stamp is necessary to elevate the details in this article.

Yenwei (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yenwei I have tried to improve the sections for the PAP and WP. I am sort of wondering if we should write an email to all the not so prominent parties to ask if they can "release" a photo of their leaders on their websites under the PD...but am lazy for now... Seloloving (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Pritam-singh-feb-28.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Pritam Singh.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• RDU logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Intention to contest

Should we create a table of all the parties and the seats they intend to contest (with sources of course)? There's a lot of news right now which might pertain to the immediate future. Seloloving (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Section on new candidates

Should a list of new candidates introduced be created? Need to track the progress. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for popping; actually it is not required right now but I do have a standby for the candidates table (which is hidden right now) which will only be added after nominations; as such for previous elections, this table will list only first-time candidates (from all parties, including independents) participating in the elections. I have previously done so on GE2006, GE2011 and GE2015 as reference. Hope this helps. Sculture65 (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Table has been uploaded; note that the occupations for the candidates are all correct based on the various news sources, and I have removed a few candidates who ultimately did not participate this election such as Lee Hsien Yang. You did a good job, and all the other editors. Sculture65 (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

How should we trim the list of events to 30 June?

The section is becoming very bloated, and we still have 3 days to go. I suggest we remove:

• All retirements, covered in a separate list below.
• NCMP Daniel Goh - not an elected MP anyway.
• LTK being warded in ICU - not part of the election, he had decided to retire prior to this.
• Combine all the RDU news to the final announcement and list the other dates the 4 were announced.

Any more ideas? Seloloving (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Or we can simply split, like what was done for 2011 article: Pre–election day events of the 2011 Singaporean general election. – robertsky (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

We could effect the move once the election was over, then. Since the primary interest will be more on the results than the leadup by then? Seloloving (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yea, it will be good to split the section into a separate article like 2011 after the election concludes. Until then, however, I'd suggest leaving the section in the main article for the time being. JaventheAldericky (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the format should be based on the 2015 election page. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This page will exceed the 2015 page in size by the time the polling day arrives. A split may be inevitable. – robertsky (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

If choose to split, then the contents leading up to the polling day should be in a separate section; I will also suggest doing the same for the 2015 election as well. Among which I will also suggest include Ivan Lim controversy to be notable and have its subsection (controversies); however, I fine with just a simple page, but watch the size (split only when the file size bytes exceed 250,000; the number can be find on the page information and view history; the size so far is 142,762 at the time of reply) Sculture65 (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

​ For now, leave the page as it is for the time being; after the polling day, we'll discuss again. Is that alright? Just remember to watch the page size (250,000). Sculture65 (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all recommendations. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Pritam Singh photo

Did anyone get permission from the WP to use the photo of Pritam? Their website states © Copyright 2020, All Rights Reserved, which means we are not allowed to use the photo. Please note we can't upload images on Commons unless the materials are copyright free in Singapore and the United States. In addition, we can only upload it to Wikipedia itself under a fairuse policy, downsized to a low resolution and only if no alternative is available. There was already an alternative available before this photo.

Requesting to please help to check the status of the photo, thank you. Otherwise I will have to mark it for deletion. Seloloving (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Update, photo was uploaded by JoeFondeau and inserted by the user, as it's unlikely we will be able to communicate with the person on whether he had permission to use it, I have marked the the photo for speedy deletion. Seloloving (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Seloloving: Regarding the aforementioned photo in question, they are also present in two other articles, Leader of the Opposition (Singapore) and Pritam Singh (Singaporean politician), as well as an article over at the French Wikipedia. I'll try and remove the photo from the three articles. JaventheAldericky (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Seloloving: Update: All fixed; pictures have been replaced with the previous free image. JaventheAldericky (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Outgoing MPs

Hi @Sculture65:, understand you wrote Yaacob did leave the cabinet in 2018 and the status Former Cabinet Minister reflects the status in the table for Outgoing MPs section but as the field name indicates Latest portfolio, Yaacob is no longer the portfolio holder even though he held it in the 13th Parliament term. Similar with Goh Chok Tong, listed as former PM. Its either Last held highest portfolio (condition being the portfolio held in the 13th Parliament term) or the portfolio the MP is holding when he retires. It made the table pretty inconsistent, despite the conditions written in comments inside the table. I suggest to make it simple, Yaacob as just a MP, and Goh as Emeritus Senior Minister (only), the portfolio they are holding when they announced their retirement--Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Justanothersgwikieditor:, I think this one should be fine; the portfolio column list just the profile up to the dissolution of the current parliament starting from the formation in 2015. It should be alright. Thank you for concerning. Sculture65 (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sculture65: As mentioned, I like consistency and while I am okay with your suggestion, apparently, you are not following your suggestion? --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Justanothersgwikieditor:, I am, just accepting your feedback. Cheers and take care. Sculture65 (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• PSP logo variation.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

ITN nomination

I've nominated this article for ITN here. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 01:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

On splitting

There is a banner suggesting to split into a dedicated results page. I suggest splitting the pre-polling day activities into its own article instead. – robertsky (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• agree with that A10203040 (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• I support this if there's consensus to split, but I'm fine with the entire article on its own too. If we split maybe pre-nomination day activities can be split too. Another possibility is that we can also split the constituencies and combine them with Constituencies of Singapore#Current Electoral Map (2020–present) to form its own article like one of those Lists of Singaporean electoral divisions. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. It should remain as it is. M nurhaikal (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to oppose; instead I suggest splitting pre-polling day activities into a single article, along with the new candidates and outgoing candidates. This one should be OK. Sculture65 (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

And why is the list of new candidates and outgoing candidates removed? This one should be a comprehensive list and those profile should be fine. Sculture65 (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone split it to List of candidates in the 2020 Singaporean general election -- AquaDTRS (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I reversed the split and put it in Pre-election day events of the 2020 Singaporean general election instead. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@AquaDTRS: Thanks, and can you do the same thing for the 2015 Singaporean general election on a new article called Pre-election day events of the 2015 Singaporean general election, because it's also big. And we need to fill up post-election events on both 2015 and 2020 articles. Sculture65 (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Combined results table for SMCs and GRCs

Previously, the results table were split into SMCs, 4-membered GRCs and 5-membered GRCs, as follows:

Example

Single Member Constituencies Candidates and results of 2020 Singaporean general election Division Seat Voters Rejected Party Candidate(s) Votes Votes % Sample counts % 4-member Group Representation Constituencies Candidates and results of 2020 Singaporean general election Division Seats Voters Rejected Party Candidate(s) Votes Votes % Sample counts % 5-member Group Representation Constituencies Candidates and results of 2020 Singaporean general election Division Seats Voters Rejected Party Candidate(s) Votes Votes % Sample counts

I've merged them into a single table so that the results can be sorted, taking advantage of Wikipedia's in-built sorting function. This is also in line with GE2015 and GE2011 pages. Wpeneditor (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

On the relevance of timeline tables

At ITN, this nom faced opposition due to the quality of the article, particularly the excessive length of the tables. While I was initially planning to trim the timeline tables, I wonder if there is even a need for them at all. The announcements of various candidates by political parties may have been relevant information in the days leading up to the election, but it is not relevant now as readers can just read the results to find the candidates and elected MPs. The only information in the timeline that is not already present in the results section is the specific dates of announcements, which I just don't think is very relevant or useful information, especially considering the length of the table and the fact that the information is largely duplicated. The rest of the timeline tables focus on specific political issues and should thus be rewritten as prose, reorganised by topic. WP:NOTNEWS states that routine news reporting of announcements... is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and I think that applies to political announcements as well. Thus, I propose removing the pre-nomination day and pre-polling day tables. Thoughts? Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 03:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Sculture65:, @TheGreatSG'rean:, @Seloloving:, @JaventheAlderick:, @Singapore freak93:, @LaurenceLian02:, @Robertsky:, @AquaDTRS: as the most active editors on the article. Thoughts? Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 03:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I was going to summarize the entire leadup into 2 or 3 paragraphs, with only the notable incidents. Introduction of candidates can be shifted to the separate page we discussed above. Seloloving (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I prefer to have these tables split to another article. But if WP:NOTNEWS cannot be met even if split, summarise and delete. – robertsky (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

If anyone doing it? I wouldn't want to do it if someone else is already working on it as I have other commitments at the moment, apologies. Otherwise, I can do it.Seloloving (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to trim it on my sandbox. Given that the ITN nom is ongoing, I think deleting it for now and deciding what to do with it later would be ideal. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 04:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reorganised information on political issues into a single section on my sandbox. It still requires significant reorganisation, condensing and rewriting. @Seloloving: @Robertsky: Do you think you can help? Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 04:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Giving some two cents on this; I wonder if we can move the table listing the events leading up to the polls to be a separate sub page or something. The table could really be trimmed down and be written in prose.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest put it on a new page called Pre-election day events of the 2020 Singaporean general election. Sculture65 (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I see encyclopedic value in the timelines in describing the GE. There may be a lot of trivial details on the list because things get added as the event was developing, but I think with some clean up the list can be trimmed to be concise in the points it is trying to make. Also, since we're going for a reduction in length, we can split the tables so that it is a list article, and then make a short summary of whats inside. (e.g. The pre-nomination day events are essentially parties revealing their candidates and manifestos, while the pre-polling day events are campaigning and issues raised by parties during the campaign.) I don't think it counts as regular reporting of announcements in WP:NOTNEWS since we are only covering things that happen specific to the GE and we are not going to update these tables when we are done. It would appear to be news now because information is being included as the article is being developed. There may be details that some readers may find relevant in understanding how the election is set up days leading to nomination or polling day. This would not be of interest to all readers of course, so keeping details on a separate article and leaving the gist on the main article would probably be a good solution. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darylgolden: I saw your sandbox, I think splitting is much easier because it will considerably reduce the article size and reduce the amount of editorial effort in trying to rewrite the entire thing before your ITN nomination expires. I can start with a bold split of pre-polling day events because that's where all the tables are at. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the split, the pre-nomination and pre-polling day events are at Pre-election day events of the 2020 Singaporean general election. Also merged the new candidates/outgoing MPs in there since the 2006/2011 ones had them there too and because the previous merge was botched -- AquaDTRS (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darylgolden Is there a reason the stub COVID 19 pandemic header is there? I understand it was a issue in the election but it's not in your sandbox. Is anyone writing it? Seloloving (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Seloloving: I just placed it there under the assumption that someone would write it. Given that no one has yet, I've temporarily removed it. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darylgolden I added some information now. Feel free to add to it, I am trying to find the PAP's response to this allegations. Seloloving (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Use (up to 2 ncmp) for psp in the infobox for now?

s 52(3A) of the PEA allows for up to 2 ncmps from the same electoral division to be elected. Even if TCB doesn't take up his seat, there are still 2 other members that may do so. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PEA1954?ProvIds=P1III-#pr52- A10203040 (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This a bit WP:CRYSTAL as PSP may still on the whole reject the NCMP nominations. – robertsky (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I'm hesitant to have ncmp seats on the infobox now A10203040 (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably best to leave it out until the seats have been accepted since it will be difficult to trace which party the NCMP seats would presumably be going to -- AquaDTRS (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should leave it in. Irregardless of whether PSP accepts the NCMP seats, they won them as part of the election. Seloloving (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Akuindo made a change to put 1 NCMP to WP. I had reverted it. I have put a source to the NCMP offering, but with a tentative tag to reflect them not accepting yet. – robertsky (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Analysis

The following discussion 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.

---

For the analysis, I noticed it has been removed, but the template which is similar to the GE2011 and GE2015, because of original research content. But do we agree on scrapping this section for the rest or keep it that way? Sculture65 (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

We’re currently having a discussion here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Singaporean_general_election#Please_revert_the_deletion_of_the_analysis_page_on_GE2020

Let’s not do anything until the discussion is over. Bvdrst Adabra (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see. It's OK. Can close the section here. Sculture65 (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2020 (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.

Photographs on candidates

​​​​​​​ Because of this year's campaigning rules due to COVID-19, we will have limited opportunities to have photographs of this year's candidates, especially the newer faces uploaded onto wikipedia. The most efficient time to take photographs should be during the Nomination Day, when the candidates for the various constituencies turn up at nomination centres. If possible, can fellow editors make a trip to the various nomination centres and snap some photos of the candidates? – robertsky (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I thought no one is allowed to gather there? TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, as I am still part of the SAF, I can't risk being anywhere near the nomination center and these people. Seloloving (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean: As long you are an individual and not as a group, I think it should be fine. But if the police or anyone else ask you to leave, please follow the instructions and leave. Do not get into any trouble because of this.

@Seloloving: If you are a NSF, I believe there is no issue that you are still serving NS and will not cause any issues. Again, as per above, if asked to leave, please leave.

@Robertsky: Thank you for your hard work but nay, not going hahah! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky, I am not. Haha. Seloloving (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: Nope, not needed unless if necessary; Hope this will help. Sculture65 (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: Sorry but unfortunately I can't go either :/ JaventheAldericky (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

oh well. looks like the nomination centres are out of bounds anyway. urgh. – robertsky (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There is televised broadcast, but the problem is subject to copyright. You can try anyway but it's up to you; do what you want. Sculture65 (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've emailed Parliament to request for freely licensed photographs, but I personally doubt that I'll get a response. I intend to email parties with elected candidates on Saturday as well. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 09:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I have emailed the PAP and WP. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 01:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't bother guys, I emailed them months ago. Only Jose Raymond of SPP replied to me personally, none of the other parties responded. Seloloving (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Term end date on outgoing MPs pages

What should we put the term end date? The polling date, 10 July 2020, or when the parliament was dissolved on 23 June 2020? Technically, there are no members of parliament from 23 June 2020 onwards, until 10 July 2020. – robertsky (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, since they are all ending on the same day. Seloloving (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

23 June 2020; since there are outgoing MPs and the parliament is dissolved already. Sculture65 (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

23 June 2020 it is then. I am going by this as well: https://mothership.sg/2020/06/what-does-it-mean-to-dissolve-parliament-singapore/. So MP end date on 23 June 2020 (if we want to be pedantic, even the incumbent MPs pages should be updated, but let's hold until the election is over); ministerial appointments end date can be tentatively fixed to 2020, since they can only hold the post until the first seating of the next parliament. – robertsky (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean: see this please for the end date of the term. it should be 23 June 2020, not 10 July 2020. – robertsky (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: By the way, if we're following the MP profiles on the Parliament website, the end date of office term is one day before Parliament dissolves. This year would be 22 June 2020. See example: https://www.parliament.gov.sg/mps/list-of-current-mps/mp/details/heng-swee-keat -- AquaDTRS (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@AquaDTRS: makes sense. let's gnome away. – robertsky (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Term start date for new positions/MPs

Need opinion on the term start date. Should we put 10 July, or when the 14th Parliament convenes? @Sgconlaw: Any opinion? – robertsky (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The term doesn't start until the first sitting of the new Parliament. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean:, @AquaDTRS:, take note to put the assumption of office in new MP-elects' articles as TBA until the new parliament sits. – robertsky (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

ok noted -- AquaDTRS (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Given this, there appears to be lots of errors in politician biographies where the term start dates are set as the election dates and not the first sitting of parliament. Probably worth an AWB find and replace. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Upon taking a closer look in the last hour, I realised that on parliament's website, they put the start date at when the election was held. see: https://www.parliament.gov.sg/mps/list-of-current-mps/mp/details/charles-chong. By the way, I think we may have lost a couple of MP profiles from there, even in archive.org. – robertsky (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I encountered some resistance from changing 10 July 2020 to TBA as it appears that by some historical convention the office term on some Wikipedia articles is stated as ("date of election") to (last day of parliament). There doesn't seem to be any guideline on this on the help pages. To me, it makes more sense for an officeholder to assume office on the day they are sworn in than on the day they were revealed to be elected. The "date of election" is not going to be consistent because one can argue to have it on the day of the polls (10 July), the day the election results were read (11 July) or the day they were revealed to be elected (14 July for NCMP), and it could be much more complicated if there was a recount over a few days or if overseas votes have to be counted. However, Wikipedia convention can take precedence over what seems like a logical solution sometimes. If all the articles state the start date as polling day/date of reveal then I probably shouldn't argue against established consensus (if there was one) as I'm not particularly interested in cleaning up hundreds of articles for the dates nor want to be patrolling articles to ensure that the term dates are correct. Any thoughts on this? @Robertsky:, @Sgconlaw:, @Darylgolden:, @TheGreatSG'rean:, @Kingoflettuce: -- AquaDTRS (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@AquaDTRS: let's take the dates stated on https://www.parliament.gov.sg/mps/list-of-current-mps. The full list except for NCMPs is out. – robertsky (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I will say that Ministers only take over the role when they are appointed. I dun think when seats are lost means they will quit immediately. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: thinking about this issue more, the difficulty is what it means exactly for an MP’s term to ‘start’. Legally, the term for each new Parliament only starts when it holds its first sitting after a general election; this is the date which legally determines when the next election must be held. Is there any significance for an MP’s term to be considered as having started before that date? I’m uncertain. On the one hand, if polling day (or the day after polling day when the official results are announced) is taken as the start of the term, then it means that MPs actually serve in their offices longer than the actual term of Parliament. On the other hand, if an MP in an SMC vacates their seat between polling day and the first sitting of Parliament when they are sworn in, I would imagine that a by-election would need to be held, which shows that they are in fact an MP already. On balance, perhaps this is sufficient reason for taking the date when the general results are officially announced as the date when the term starts (the Elections Department issues a formal notification for each constituency which is published in the Government Gazette and should be available on its website – check the date). — SGconlaw (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: I have a similar train of thoughts as you on this. With all the considerations of the different dates, I think we should simply take the ones from parliament.gov.sg website, because parliament.gov.sg would probably be more accessed than ELD website, let alone going to the ELD gazette, and conventionally, the dates here matches (mostly) in the profiles on parliament.gov.sg. By the way, ELD's gazette is dated 13 July https://www.eld.gov.sg/gazettes/2020/Candidates_with_Greatest_Number_of_Votes.pdf. – robertsky (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

All right, lets just go with the dates on the Parliament website since that appears to be the convention established on the articles here. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Source for rejected ballots?

Hi, the results for the GE2020 include a rejected vote tally, but there are no primary sources(eld.gov.sg) that point in the direction of this number per constituency. In fact, the 2 primary sources cited ( and ) do not include this information. I found one example of rejected vote counts on the Yahoo News Singapore Facebook page (One example here: ) But there are no cited sources(for rejected votes) on this wiki page. I'm pretty new here, so I'd appreciate a lil' guidance with regards to this, thanks! --Obwama (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

References

• The numbers were probably updated as they were announced live on television broadcast, so some possible sources are the CNA YouTube and The Straits Times YouTube. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• web source: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/specialreports/sg-votes/results – robertsky (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll plonk these sources in place of the eld! Thanks Obwama (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The information will eventually be on the ELD website, as the ELD issues a formal statement of the poll in each constituency. See, for example, this statement of the poll in Yuhua from the 2015 general election. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Colour of parties

I propose we remove all the little bars representing the colour of the parties. It's clear that none of the parties in Singapore identify with a single colour, what's more, we can't even use their shirt colours as PAP wears white... If anyone has a better solution, I would love to hear them. Seloloving (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe the colour represents the colours used in the map of the infobox, so it doesn't have to be the party colours. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Difference in numbers of electors between CNA and ELD sources

There are slight differences in the numbers of electors between the CNA and ELD webpages, which one should we use? Txnmk (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Follow the ELD source will do, it's more accurate. Sculture65 (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Colors from pages to pages

Please don't change the colors of the parties without a good reason, as to keep the continuity of election pages over the years.--Aréat (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Please revert the deletion of the analysis page on GE2020

(Moved from User_talk:Robertsky#Please_revert_the_deletion_of_the_analysis_page_on_GE2020) I do not agree with your deletion of the entire analysis panel from the Singapore General Election 2020 page conducted on 20:27, 11 July 2020. This is because of 4 main reasons. 1. This analysis page has been published in every another singaporean general election that has the data to make such a page, and it is therefore highly irregular to delete the entire thing. 2. The analysis page provides very useful information for wikipedia viewers, and deleting it is detrimental to the page as a whole. I for one like viewing the top 10 best PAP and Opposition performing constituencies to see where the Opposition can focus their efforts on in the future. 3. I have no idea whst you are refering to when you say you are "not convinced that this section is free of original research and unpublished synthesis." These tables are all factual information taken directly from the election results; what is the problem here? 4. Accuracy comparison is quite important in showing that the sample counts are fairly accurste and shows potential outliers in the system. Even if you think that it is not relevant, that is still not justification for deleting the entire analysis page compared to just that specific part of the analysis. As i do not wish to start and editting war UNLESS I have to, I am contacting you first in hopes that we can reach an agreement before doing anything else. Bvdrst Adabra (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bvdrst Adabra: Simply the tables need sources. I had looked for sources, but I have yet to find one which detail the swing figures, statistical 'inaccuracy' (variance may be a better term) in this manner. Whilst there are articles having swing figures, they are either incomplete or rounded up... 'nearly/almost x percentage points reduction/increase' (in any variation) or simply 'claimed the highest percentage of victory in any constituency', https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ge2020-general-election-final-result-pap-wp-12922882 https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/ge2020-polling-results-as-the-opposition-seizes-another-grc-time-for-the-great-re-invention https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/world/asia/singapore-election-results.html As for the statistical variances, these are a consequences of random selection in the sample counting. The variances between the sample and actual counts are largely within the standard deviations. A simple paragraph is sufficient, however I have yet to see news articles going into this. There is however this but it is user generated and would probably be yanked from the article even if it is included. As for other general election pages, if they are included, they have to be evaluated individually as well. Do they have sources? If yes, then they will be included, If no, if it happens that I am doing a review on each of these pages, they will be similar removed with the same reason. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we are not a newspaper and we should not be the ones doing the analysis.

I am not alone with similar concerns. A couple of reviewers (and its nominator) in the In The News nomination have similar concerns. Pinging @Kingsif:, @Amakuru:, @Darylgolden: for this. I agree that there should not be an edit war, you shouldn't have threaten one as well by the way. – robertsky (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: I do not think that the simple mathematics of comparing this election's votes to the previous one and getting a percentage figure is considered original research. There are sources for the results of both elections, and hence we can get the swing figures from comparing the two. Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 02:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pentagon 2057: whilst I agree that simple maths is not original research, the attempt to make it an analysis is. Again, the 2015 results are neither cited or shown here. A casual glance that the tables would assume original research on that basis as well. – robertsky (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: I do not see the issue here. The 2015 and 2020 election results can be taken from the elections department:

https://www.eld.gov.sg/elections_past_parliamentary2015.html for 2015,

https://www.eld.gov.sg/finalresults2020.html for 2020.

From there, getting the swing simply invovles the subtraction of the 2020 results from the 2015 results, which are routine calculations and therefore not original research.

Additionally, I would like to apologize for my aggressive tone in my initial post. I was extremely angry at the removal of the analysis portion on wikipedia so I came as extremely aggressive in the post. – Bvdrst Adabra (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Always good to step away from making an angry post and think for a while before posting. I find it helps. In any case, I too am not really supportive of the move to remove the entire section on the basis of original research as factual numbers are hard facts, though titling it an "Analysis" might be detrimental. On the other hand, given that a lot of the GRCs have had their boundaries changed, the swing vote probably won't be entirely accurate either.

I would say I support the decision to remove it, but not for the reason of OR. Seloloving (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the analysis is considered Original research, besides I came up with the "Sample count accuracy" tables. If you want to remove, then I'm respect your decision. There are those analysis tables in GE2011 and GE2015 too that might also see fit to be removed. Trivia is not necessary. Sculture65 (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If you everyone also agree, then don't forget removing the analysis tables in GE2011 and GE2015 as well. Sculture65 (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If your problem with the analysis page is that it can be construed as original research, then I suggest that we give the users the same functionality the analysis page gave via the sorting mechanism. Currently, the sorting mechanism for the voting results is extremely flawed: For one, the parties are all placed under one column, so when attempting to sort by voting percentages, the parties are all split up from their constituencies, making it impossible to actually compare results. Additionally, it prevents us from comparing strong opposition support from strong PAP support. Additionally, the swing of the constituency is not shown, forcing us to click into the page of the constituency itself to check it, which is tedious if you are trying to compare the swing of multiple constituencies. Finally, the sample count accuracies are missing. Both swing and sample count accuracies are simple arithmetic, so they should not be considered original research. In other to fix this, I have a few solutions:

1. Split the opposition and the PAP party into separate columns, like was originally done for the analysis tables. This allows us to easily compare the results if we want to by using the sort function.

2. Add swing and sample count accuracies to the columns. This would also allow us to compare the swings of each constituency using the sort function.

This way, we will be able to retain the same functionality the original analysis table gave while avoiding the “original research” banner. But given that it would be easier to just restore the analysis part of the page, I do not see any reason for the change to have been made in the first place.

Bvdrst Adabra (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, my point remains that since the boundaries of several GRCs were shifted, the swing vote is invalid. Only constituencies without boundary changes should be added. Just because the past pages included it does not mean it was correct then, any more than it should be correct now. In any case, the consensus remains to remove it for now, so it should not be readded into the article, as someone did when I was typing this. Seloloving (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

In addition, while it may be tedious to go to each constituency's page to check the swing vote, looking at the pages for the 2018 Malaysian general election and the 2019 Indonesian general election, neither provide a blow by blow breakdown of each seat's swing either (though I am aware theirs vastly outnumber ours). A swing for or against a party is factually correct, but for seats with boundary changes every 5 years? I don't think it's valid. Seloloving (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Seloloving: Oh further thought, I agree with your argument that swing should not be added to the results table. However, I still stand by the rest of the proposed changes. If you look at the Malaysian General Election page again, you’ll see that even though they don’t show the individual constituencies, they still show how each party won each state, and the parties there are arranged among the column, instead of just lumping them all under a generic “party” column. This allows us to easily sort the results based on a specific parties performance: for example, if we want to see where the Pakatan Harapan did best in, we simply press the sort button for the percentages Pakatan Harapan received. We don’t have that luxury here, where the parties are all placed under one column. Bvdrst Adabra (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you try creating such a table like the Malaysian one and posting it in the Talkpage? I don't mind new ideas or improvements which can help the page. In any case, I think this discussion can be closed if we are all in favour of the removal of the Analysis section regarding the swing vote, as that was the original topic of contention. Seloloving (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Seloloving: uhhh sorry but I have absolutely no idea how to actually create such a table. I mean, I have basically no knowledge on how Wikipedia coding actually works: I made this account on an impulse because the analysis page was deleted and I wanted to argue against it. Bvdrst Adabra (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Paging @Robertsky: and @Sculture65: since they were the ones that made this argument in the first place. I have done some more research on how Wikipedia’s OR policies work and I feel that I can conclusively prove that the original analysis page wasn’t Original Research. This is because counting and sorting are not original research. The original analysis page had 4 main tables, and I will show why none of them should be considered OR:

Top 10 best opposition/PAP constituencies: This is just the constituencies sorted by the vote share for the opposition and the PAP respectively and placing the highest 10 into a table. All routine calculations.

Largest Swings: Swing is simply calculated by the subtraction of the 2020 GE results from the 2015 GE results and finding the largest swing simply involves sorting them from highest to lowest. Nothing here can be construed as original research. There is an argument that the vote swings are inaccurate because of the constant boundary changes, but that is not relevant to the current discussion.

Sample count accuracies: Sample count accuracies are simply the subtracting the actual result by the sample count, and then sorting accuracy from highest to lowest. Again, all routine calculations and not OR.

If your problem with the table is that the word analysis could be considered OR, label it something else, like “Trivia”. That would solve the problem. Therefore, I believe that all changes should be reverted. Bvdrst Adabra (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bvdrst Adabra: my stand is based on these two points: 1. the 2015 results weren't shown or even cited, thus the swing calculation is OR. 2. Although there are articles with swing mentioned, more often than not, they are vague and/or incomplete in relation to the figures in the tables, thus the sources for swing calculation may be hard to verify or even incomplete. My opinion is that the table can be reincluded if the table has changed to address the points above. However, as Seloloving has also raised, comparison between elections is inconclusive and moot for many of the constituencies as the boundaries have changed for most of them (there are only 12 constituencies with unchanged boundaries). Using Malaysia's or Indonesia's election pages as comparison is like comparing apples to pears. The inter-state/province boundaries are largely unchanged, unlike Singapore's electoral boundaries which is way more fluid. You can argue that there are electoral boundaries changes in these countries, but they are largely, if not totally contained within the states/provinces' borders, which in summation would make such tables sensible for comparison . A more appropriate comparison would be the state level result pages like Results of the 2018 Malaysian state elections by constituency, since electoral changes are within the individual states, which does not include the swing calculation, ranking comparison, or prior result comparison. With this point added on, I don't see how such tables can be included or be indicative of party performances. Tables with just the 12 constituencies are not indicative of party performances as well as there is no homogeneity between the different constituencies. – robertsky (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: As I have already stated above, the full 2015 GE results can be collected from the elections department, as well as the vote share. I will not link to it again as I have already done so, just scroll up. For the final argument, if your only remaining problem with the data is that the swing is inaccurate due to boundary changes, that does not make it justifiable to delete the entire analysis page just because of that: Just remove the swing from the comparison and remove the third table. The sample count accuracies are still mostly unchanged, and the top 10 PAP/Opposition constituencies can still be placed without the swing included. Bvdrst Adabra (talk) 1:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are statistics, not "analysis", and contribute little to the article even if sourced. Real "analysis" is political experts commenting on the possible reasons for the election results, which is what the current Analysis section contains. --Hildanknight (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hildanknight: Like I’ve already said, if your problem is that it is labelled “analysis”, then just call it “trivia” instead or something. Bvdrst Adabra (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I seen those replies and I'm glad that there were support on the analysis being acceptable content. If that does not turn out tedious, I'm supporting the idea. Sculture65 (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I am supportive of inclusion of only the 12 constituencies which boundaries are unchanged. – robertsky (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: which 12 constituencies are those again? Also, just to be clear, when you talk about only the inclusion of the 12 constituencies, you are talking about the third table only right? Bvdrst Adabra (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Since I have heard no more arguments against reverting the deletion of the analysis page, I will be making a summary of what I intend to revert now: 1. The entire analysis deletion will be reverted and renamed “Trivia” 2. Every constituency which has had a boundary change will not have a swing: instead there will be a “Boundary Changed” (B/C) label instead. 3. The third table (largest swing) will be removed entirely.

If no one contests these changes in the next 24 hours, then I will revert the deletion and make those edits. Incidentally, @Robertsky:, which 12 constituencies have no boundary changes, I can’t find out no matter where I search. Bvdrst Adabra (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bvdrst Adabra: the 12 are stated somewhere in here: https://www.straitstimes.com/multimedia/graphics/2020/03/singapore-general-election-boundaries-maps/index.html?shell – robertsky (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I am past debating this as it has grown beyond my comprehension and I am a little tired, but do take note of WP:TRIVIA sections too. All the best. Seloloving (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bvdrst Adabra: I've seen the re-addition of the tables. I respect the decision. Sculture65 (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bvdrst Adabra Is there a way to simplify the sample count even more? Having two columns showing the same percentage differences with different arrows seems a tad pointless. In my honest opinion, we could probably render it as a simple image chart than a long column of text. Seloloving (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Political party colours

Moved from Template talk:Workers' Party of Singapore/meta/color#Color to use

 – more relevant to GE2020 than to a single party -- AquaDTRS (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

For years Wiki has used a light blue color for the WP, as this is the primary color they use on their party flag. However, this has bad contrast with the dark blue used on the Wiki for the PAP.

The media in Singapore (see here and here) has tended to prefer blue for the WP and red for the PAP, however, Wiki has traditionally used a dark blue for the PAP. I would change them both to match this, but due to the quagmire/edit wars from pro-PAP accounts that always transpire around any significant edits to the PAP page, I'd rather not touch that page.

The yellow color used briefly would be unique to the WP, however it has poor contrast with the white background of the wiki, is the most minimal color on the party flag, and is not a particularly attractive color in general.

Therefor, I've gone ahead and set the color back to the red it was during the 2020 campaign as it stands out clearly from PAP blue. While several other parties also use red, those parties are not represented in parliament and as such won't show up in the most active Singapore political pages. Heighliner10191 (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The PSP, which uses red as their primary colour, are entitled to NCMPs, meaning their colors will blend in should a diagram be created. Yellow has been used on Wikipedia for parties in other countries before as well, and should it be necessary, an outline can be added. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 05:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Chiming in as I produced the maps for this year's election. I would suggest PAP to retain red as it has, with the WP blue. Until the other parties gain enough prominence for the MSM to give them a distinctive colour, we should just assign them whatever colours is best. I would like to suggest adopting the colours used in the legend of this map I have produced. Seloloving (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

We could just use different shades of red. There's tons of them. Work on the fr wiki.--Aréat (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest different colours please. Not all can differentiate the shades of red well. – robertsky (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

In addition, different shades of red won't work well on maps with a percentage factor... if we are looking into aligning future maps with the Wiki... Seloloving (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Then it would make way more sense to assign a distinct color to the newcomer party, the PSP, as changing the color of the PAP and/or the WP mean changing it on a lot of different pages in diagrams and maps. A shade of yellow (for example) for the PSP would change nothing else than this one and the party's page itself.--Aréat (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(reply to 2nd comment) I don't completely agree with the colour change. Changing the colour scheme may make it inconsistent with tables or diagrams used across a huge number of articles, and with older maps drawn for previous elections (see File:Singapore_election_2001_results.png and File:Singaporean_election_1980_map.png). Although there is no concrete rule as to what colours we should use for each party, there isn't one which says we have to follow the media either. Ultimately, the choice of colours is an editorial discretion.

There are quite a number of edits that have been made on this article and a few others result in the colors being changed every few edits, and it can be quite disruptive because some of them may end up with accessibility issues (see MOS:COLOR). I feel like we need to establish some form of consensus as to how we pick the colours so that it can be consistent and edit wars over the colour of the template are avoided (see WP:COLOURWAR).

For a start, I think we could stick with the original scheme of PAP/WP = blue/red since that reduces the amount of clean up on the previous articles that followed this colour scheme, and pick some other colour like green for PSP, like SDA in 2006 Singaporean general election. There isn't a need to strictly follow the party colours or the colours used in their logo since it may end up being a poor colour scheme, especially when the point of having the colours is to show contrast between the different parties in the infobox. (The ST source above picked brown for PSP, which is neither its party nor logo colour.) -- AquaDTRS (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I drafted the above text before I saw the subsequent replies, but I agree PAP/WP = red/blue can work too. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, it would be way easier to simply revert to PAP being blue, WP being red, and then simply agree on a color for PSP, for example an orangish yellow. That wouldn't be so far from red, and is already used in the diagram in the map here. But changing PAP and WP colors from the blue and red we used before mean a lot of work that is simply not required and easy to avoid.--Aréat (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Oops, meant to say that I'd agree with consensus if they can make PAP/WP = red/blue work. But yes, the cleanup from switching the colours would be rather unnecessary. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should stick back to the colors based on the uniform colors, i.e. Light blue for WP, dark blue for PAP, light red for PSP etc., which is similar to the colors last used in the last election. Sculture65 (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I propose for PAP = blue, WP = red. Only the 2015 map went against this scheme for whatever reason. I can change it. The uniform colour thing won't work as if we introduce shades, it would be very hard to do percentage maps. Plus, PAP would be the odd one out from this scheme. Seloloving (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

For GE articles only; the other uniform colours should be reflected in the respective party articles. Sculture65 (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Would anyone have objections to reverting the results map back to PAP = blue, WP = red? Seloloving (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

No objections. Also having shades of the same colour (light blue/dark blue) might be bad for WP:ACCESSIBLE if they were put together side by side and are describing two different parties, so its best each party has its own distinct colour. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Just would like to chim in why we can't keep using red...even SDP's shirt colour is now red. PV and RDU's are both black. In any case, I will revert the 2020 maps and change the 2015 map. I will prefer to retain Yellow for PSP (less work for me) but I will leave that up to the community. Seloloving (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the percentage bars were all changed to blue? I feel like it made way more sense to use the distinctive color for each parties we use in the infobox, even more so when just below the detailled results use that same blue for PAP, but another color, red, for WP.--Aréat (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

A few reasons: (1) the many different colours don't convey any more information than a single coloured version so its better to keep the colour scheme simple; (2) the issue of WP:ACCESSIBILITY as mentioned above, H:Colorblind users may not be able to distinguish between specific set of colours so changing the colour scheme to one where they cannot read is going to defeat its purpose, and (3) the more varied the colour scheme, the more likely there will be people who will disagree with specific colours and this will invite a WP:COLOURWAR. I don't necessarily agree with the red/blue bars for the results (blue = ruling party/ red=opposition) because the reader can't use the colours to tell who won each constituency, but this was consistent with previous years' result boxes. Maybe it should be set as blue=win and red=lose. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I found a workable solution: we can use the colors at [1] for each party since they are all unique. They seem to fulfil contrast guidelines for readability and display too. However, white for PAP might be hard for the wikipedia maps, we could keep our current blue for PAP and light blue for the Barisan Sosialis on Wikipedia and change the rest to match the SG-election website. I did it for the other defunct parties since I doubt those would get contested. The colors are documented at Template:Singaporean_political_parties/doc#Color_templates. I can do the rest for the active parties if there are no objections. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I am alright with the changes, but I don't expect to factor it into future maps due to the parties all loving to use red as a identifying colour. In fact, the PSP red is now almost exactly the same shade of the red used as the WP's 50% red margin... Seloloving (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

On MP-elect pages

Can we not apply the MP titles on MP-elect pages, i.e. Jamus Lim, Louis Chua, He Ting Ru, Raeesah Khan, Nadia Ahmad Samdin, until they are sworn in? This is in line with the term start date as above? – robertsky (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It was mostly done by an IP user Special:Contributions/119.56.96.239. Also I don't really know if the honorific system applies to MPs in Singapore, there's no mention in the article it links to and I don't think I've heard the MPs being addressed as such in the media. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Never mind. I saw The Honourable#Singapore and the discussion at Talk:Parliament of Singapore#Regarding standing order 50(5) edit by_SMUconlaw. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Map legend

The legend of the map is misleading: >50% technically includes anything from 51-100%, and I understand the author's intention is not to include all these numbers. The same problem exists with >60%. It's better to change >50% to 50-59% and >60% to 60-69%. >70% can be kept as it is. Nguyenkhoi3010 (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I based it on this map, actually. Seloloving (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand. However, if you look at the legends on the maps on this Wikipedia page, I hope you can see why I am saying that the current legend is misleading. Nguyenkhoi3010 (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nguyenkhoi3010 I tried doing it, but realized Aljunied GRC's result of 59.93% was too close. The second tier of red would have to be used if I were to put 50-59% or even 50.0-59.9%, and that is not reflective of the actual result. But 50.00-59.99% is a little too much. Seloloving (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

PAP results in infobox

In the infobox, the PAP results are 'Seats before' 82, 'Seats won' 83, but 'Seat change' 0. Why is this? Has a new seat been created that PAP won or something?314WPlay (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Due to Singapore's political system where the boundaries of GRCs and SMCs are often shifted or the entire constituency subsumed into others, the PAP did not technically lose any seats which they had previously contested in 2015 and again in 2020, while the WP won 4 new seats from the new Sengkang GRC which did not exist before. So, the PAP did not lose 4 seats as the GRC did not exist then and retained all its existing seats, hence the 0. Seloloving (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this also has to do with the fact that then speaker Halimah Yacob vacated her seat but since it was part of a GRC no by election was called and the seat was vacant (hence 82), but since the PAP retained 83 seats the change was 0. Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 14:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Vote share with overseas vote tabulated

According to this article, which tabulated the overseas vote into the national average, the PAP's vote share dropped to 61.23%. How should we incorporate it into the infobox and article? The article also doesn't specify which party gained a 0.1%, so it could be the entire opposition share of overseas vote. Seloloving (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

ELD has released the finalised results. https://www.eld.gov.sg/gazette_2020.html. We can update the tables here based on these results. – robertsky (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you make a separate table or update a table with overseas votes separate in a different column. The GE2015 does not have overseas votes so this should also be updated if desired. Sculture65 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we would need to decide whether if we should use overseas votes or not to display result; if I remember there is no overseas votes disaplyed for the GE2015 but there is one in GE2011; so I think we should decide on the consistency check. Sculture65 (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)