Talk:Seletar

Seletar geographically defined
''Geographically. Seletar embraces the areas encompassing Yio Chu Kang, Jalan Kayu, Lower Seletar Reservoir and a portion of Upper Thomson. The entire area is defined by the Ponggol River to the east, the Seletar River to the west, Ang Mo Kio to the south and the Straits of Johore to the north.''

Quoted without modification. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you sure it is appropriate to consider this the most common interpretation? This given interpretation is only published in one source. I would say it would be unsure to call this interpretation "common". -- Mage  Lam  07:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking the same as well. There needs to be a better word than common - I actually mean the general connotation of the word Seletar but I am struggling to find a better way to express it. As for the book, although it is one book, it is still a secondary source, as opposed to the URA which is a primary source. Another secondary source would help here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a another secondary source to back up this interpretation, I believe the connotation, "common", should be removed for now. -- Mage  Lam  07:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to say "Seletar is defined by the Ponggol River to the east,..." because that kind of implies that there is only one definition. How about something like this in the lead. (I'll look at the body after this). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this edit. This is problematic because URA is a primary source it is giving preference the primary definition as opposed to a secondary definition (which should always have preference). More importantly, the definition is actually derived from the URA map while the secondary source states it umambiguously. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would still have to emphasize that the statement is only provided by a single secondary source. I am not too sure if that definition is appropriate for the lead. Plus, it is already mentioned in the geography section. -- Mage  Lam  08:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but my experience on Wikipedia has been that one secondary source is given much more weight than a primary source. In this case for example the current lead puts undue weight on the URA source (which is primary). The data is also interpreted from the Planning Area Map. (This could be equated with interpreting the Seletar area from the maps in the archive). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding regions
Region in general refers to the geographical regions. A specification is required when the URA's definition is used, not otherwise. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree. I have done the same with Jurong and Tanah Merah as the term "region" is often used to refer to the URA regions. "Region" in other words, is ambiguous in the context of Singapore. -- MageLam (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that the average reader is someone who doesn't know what region is in the context of Singapore. Even in Singapore, it would need to be shown that the world "region" has historically been used majorly to refer to the URA's concept of regions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Either way, it really doesn't matter. I'm not even changing the definition of the primary topic. Why do you even need to be so persistent on such a small matter? -- MageLam (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The term "region" by default means a geographical region. Even URA's region is a geographical region. It would be pointless to use "geographical region" if your intention is to differentiate from URA's region. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)