Talk:Singaporean Mahjong scoring rules

House rules
The problem of house rules is that they are unsourced and are Original research. In that sense, I am already asking for help on sources and references and not having luck beside that one book that I found. This article is bloated as it is without any sources and adding unsourced, original research house rules. Thanks --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, please stop reverting the changes as they are not generally helpful. I noted your edit summary on house rules but I like to emphasize this again, they are unsourced and are deemed original research. Without a source, I can write any house rules with no sources and nobody is able to establish is this a house rule or not. This article should be a basic informative article on Singaporean Mahjong scoring rules and not every single variant, especially if it is unsourced. Thanks--Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, please note the above issues as well. Thanks --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit to the Missed Discard (过水牌) section
Hi Justanothersgwikieditor,

I would like to refer to your recent edit made at 03:32, 15 June 2021‎ on the section ‎Missed Discard (过水牌)

The summarized version does not convey the same. In particular, it is not obvious that tiles that a player cannot call win/pong on are not restricted to the missed discard only. i.e. There are additional tiles apart from the missed discard tile that the player is not allowed to call win/pong. Those elaborated cases with examples were necessary to explain the concepts. Neither was there a point in the summarized version to address the fact that it is commonly accepted to be allowed to skip win on the discard of a lower value hand and still claim win later on a discard of a higher value hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmahjongplayer888 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, thanks for bringing this to my talkpage. Per WP:NOTGUIDE, I removed the examples as it will be like an instruction manual which are against wikipedia rules. I reread the rules and examples and realise that the rules written are a simplified version of not allowing to pong/win on the missed discard while the examples are an advanced form of missed discards (aka the 2 sides of a waiting Chow). I will add on to the rules and not list any examples later. Thanks. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Moving the above from Justanothersgwikieditor's talk page to this article talk page.

There is still no mention on this particular rule. Here is the previous version before your summarised version.

Example:中中4bamboo4bamboo
 * 1) You skipped win on lower/opposite leg player's discard tile, you are temporary prohibited to claim win when opposite/upper leg discards a different tile that also completes your hand.

Claiming a win on 中 will yield a higher point (by 1) hand. Therefore, skipping win of a discard of 4bamboo and then claiming 中 is generally accepted. However it is best to clarify such scenario with all players beforehand.

I highly suggest to keep the previous version. It is not meant to be a guide but it is a necessary elaboration.
 * The line However it is best to clarify such scenario with all players beforehand. strongly suggest this is a house rule. Until a source is available, I prefer to remove this. Thanks. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Singapore Mahjong is played by many and there is no one single set of fixed rule. If you read through the whole article, you can find places where it stats clarification may be needed. What we can do is list down a list of rules that are more commonly played. Also, what is counted as a source? If one were to go ahead and create a website and list it down and hyperlink to it, is it counted? How is that more reliable? To be very honest, this page has become so chaotic due to all the bureaucracy enforced which is pretty ironic to me given that Wikipedia is supposed to be open (or so I thought). Now the page is semi locked and only more reputable users can edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmahjongplayer888 (talk • contribs)
 * butting in here. what is counted as a source? If one were to go ahead and create a website and list it down and hyperlink to it, is it counted? no. and there are ways to find out if the source is a reliable one (not foolproof, but usually effective). this page has become so chaotic precisely because people keep making unsourced edits, this page is locked for reputable and interested editors to sort out the mess. How's one's version a 'house version' when another edits to claim theirs' is with backing? You say, I say, who confirm? By the way if it was me, I would have advocated for an deletion discussion with WP:TNT as one of the rationales, so beyond this, I am staying out of this. – robertsky (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As per robertsky had mentioned, this article has a long term problem and I am actually waiting for an opportunity to find the only single source which is a book at the NLB. As per the maintenance tags which I placed on the article, it requires more sources (beside the book reference in the bottom), possible original research (which I am referring to the house rules). Wikipedia is based on sources, what sources are good, bad, reliable or unreliable is collectively decided by the community, the policy is over at WP:RS and the reliability of any source can be discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. Again, as I said on the section above this, Wikipedia article requires sources. No sources means it is unsourced and likely original research and also means content is subjected to be deleted without prejudice. You can always restore content with a reliable source. Even though Wikipedia is open for all, but it is also not a forum, not an instruction manual, etc.
 * As said, this article has a long term problem, I am resolving it bit by bit as I do not have the bandwidth to do such a wholesale revamp of the article at the moment. In fact that has been zero bureaucracy enforced on it until the likely same IP editor (using a fixed broadband and mobile data) to insist on his/her version without discussion and attracted administrator's attention. I will say it is already fortunate the article has not been nominated for deletion as it does not passed being an article on Wikipedia in this current form.--Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hanyu Pinyin
Please add back hanyu pinyin. The edits by Justanothersgwikieditor is his own opinion and not helpful when showing chinese characters on helping people read them on an english wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2003:2054:393D:E4D7:C46A:2EE (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

total lack of detail
it is actually actively unhelpful to turn the whole wiki page into a 3 line paragraph that doesn’t go into any detail about scoring. sg mahjong has always been house rule heavy. but the ones posted in the wiki before can be said to be commonly accepted. it’s seriously a bad decision to remove completely. there’s a reason there are people reverting it often, it just is not helpful to anyone trying to find sg mahjong scoring. when i look it up in the wiki i’m not trying to find some 3 liner about how it is boosted by animals and flowers. 119.56.16.164 (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)