Talk:Singaporean mahjong

Deletion of Singaporean mahjong
I am trying to seek an understanding from User:Justanothersgwikieditor and User:John B123 about the wholesale deletion of the Singaporean mahjong article. Both of you seem extremely senior in this space yet I cannot appreciate what you are trying to accomplish by outright removal of the article and a redirect that does absolutely nothing for people seeking information on Singaporean mahjong scoring.

It seems that both of you have a problem with the lack of references with the article (although this was only mentioned when I began reverting --- earlier edits did not mention this). I would like to urge that means that the article itself needs improving rather than its entire destruction.

There are several distinct differences of Singaporean mahjong and Cantonese mahjong. These differences are not mentioned anywhere else in Wikipedia but this article. Briefly, they are the scoring, animal tiles, immediate payouts, penalties and Greater sequence hand/All chow hand/Safe win/平胡. These concepts are covered in this article and I do wish to repeat that removal of this article means that one can no longer find information on this on Wikipedia.

Singaporean mahjong does not have a central governing body to regulate its rules. This unfortunately means that "official" or "reliable" sources, in the strictest sense, do not exist. Yet if you ask any Singaporean mahjong player, they would more or less agree on the rules set out in this article. This is exactly the same as Cantonese mahjong. If you would follow the redirects to the Cantonese/Hong Kong mahjong scoring rules, you would find that the article needs verification as well. Will you then delete that entire article as well?

I would like the senior users to appreciate that this uniquely Singaporean mahjong is culturally and traditionally significant, similar to other styles found in different parts of the world. Just like how its rule set is shaped by consensus household to household, I would like the improvement of this article to move forward the same way. Mahjongbun (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi . Wikipedia has some basic requirements, one of which is WP:GNG, which defines whether a particular subject should have an article on WP: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Another basic requirement is WP:VERIFY, part of which is All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. These requirement have evolved over time to ensure WP remains an encyclopedia rather than a collection of essays by people who think they know about a subject but may not be 100% accurate.


 * All new pages are 'patrolled' to ensure they meet the current requirements of WP. There are many older articles that don't meet the current requirements, for example Scoring in Mahjong which was first written in 2004. It would be unreasonable to delete articles that complied with the requirements when written but no longer compiled when the requirements are changed. All we can do is tag the article and hope somebody improves it to meet the current requirements.


 * Moving forward, you need to add inline citations to comply with the verification requirements. If you intend to do this over a few days then you can add the template under construction to the top of the article which will show other editors that you are still working it. If this is too short a time period then I would suggest the article is moved to WP:DRAFTSPACE where you can work on it at leisure. When ready it can be moved back to mainspace. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mahjongbun, as what John had said above. The article suffered from zero references since its creation as much as I can recalled. I was only able to scour out a single non-online source over a long period of searching both online and offline sources. As per WP:GNG, Wikipedia articles required typically 2-3 non-primary sources (rule of thumb is usually three) to establish notability (note that it is not about how prominent the topic it seems to be but we do need published materials, either online or offline, to indicate it is prominent that the topic is written about by others) and the article failed to do so.
 * Also this article suffered from long-term vandalism due to Singaporeans arguing about their respective house rules and routinely vandalised and abused the article and not providing sources, which ultimately led to the article's "demise" (aka being converted into a redirect).
 * Since John has suggested to either tag the article as under construction (which I ask that you spend some efforts in searching for more sources) or moved into draftspace for an extended period of updating the article (hidden from general view) and reverted into a redirect in the mean time, I am alright with his suggestions and suggest the same.
 * Note: Please do not use a local University's club Mahjong competition's rules as a source (it is totally copied from Wikipedia and hence not valid as a source) &#126; JASWE (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Justanothersgwikieditor
 * In your view, are the references I have added enough to establish notability? I have not yet added them directly inline because I indeed plan to set it under construction and work on streamlining the rest of the article.
 * However, if these references (or at least 3) are not up to standard in the first place...then just stop me now. Still, in my curiosity, I would like to know about your single non-online source.
 * Note: Please do not use a local University's club Mahjong competition's rules as a source (it is totally copied from Wikipedia and hence not valid as a source)
 * Can you be more direct about this? The closest I feel this could refer to is about Edwin Phua's blog which has a rule set used to run tournaments at community centres. I was not trying to reference his blog per se but to reference the rule set of Singaporean mahjong. Mahjongbun (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mahjongbun this is a nice set of references but unfortunately none of them can be used.
 * This is a gaming site and the rules are for the game. The interpretation is based on the developer(s) and can be subjective. I doubt it can be accepted as a reliable source for establishing notability.
 * The smartlocal is not exactly the best source to be used. Their content is generated by guest writers, contributors' submissions and their staff. A non stable writing team with contributers usually does not make the site reliable enough. This particular author who should be employed by the smartlocal has around 90 articles in the space of around one year (aka 1 article per 4 days) and are mostly list articles so I think it is a bit hard to accept her article as a reliable source for establishing notability.
 * Seedly is a financial website which is almost similar to smartlocal. Author is established with good articles etc. I put it as maybe. Content wise, the article does not provide more than the basics. It might counts towards establishing notability.
 * Basically a blogshop/ecommerce site now. It will not be accepted as a reliable source for almost anything.
 * Blog post so automatically rejected as a reliable source, even more for establishing notability. Please do see WP:SPS as Wikipedia has a firm guideline on not using it. There are exceptions but this blog site will definitely not meet the narrow definition.
 * Unfortunately this is a self published book so this will be under WP:SPS. The publisher is the author...
 * Unfortunately this is another self published book so this will be under WP:SPS.
 * Unfortunately this is another self published book so this will be under WP:SPS.
 * I just realised my single non online reliable source is not so reliable, aka the book by Celia Ching. I guessed I was still inexperienced in assessing reliable sources then.
 * I had previously came across a local university's CCA club organising a mahjong competition and listed the rules for it. It basically a copy and paste from the then Wikipedia article then. As the sources are pretty little, I assumed you will likely find it but apparently I can't find it myself now which is a good thing.
 * In all, you have 1 maybe article which will not pass the usual threshold of 2~3 reliable articles to establish notability. I had spent a fair bit of effort previously to find reliable sources for the original article here (check the page history) but there are currently no good reliable sources which nobody is publishing with a publisher willing to back the author. I appreciate the effort you put in here and hope you can find new reliable sources. &#126; JASWE (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On closer inspection, I realised the most relevant part of the Seedly article is directly copied from Singapore Sparrows, the Edwin Phua blog, so that is not a good source anymore as well. In this regard, the smartlocal article was actually more original and concise. I don't think we can also judge quality from quantity. Just because the author has a lot of quantity doesn't preclude this particular article from lacking quality. I believe some of the numbers are from updates as well? The article was published back in 2023 and updated recently.
 * Anyway, this seems like an unfortunate set of events. Truthfully, it is a bit difficult to accept something as culturally prevalent as this cannot be on wiki because circumstances doesn't lend itself to be written about. Largely passed down via word of mouth, no central mahjong body, Singapore government issues with social gambling...
 * The final irony is that since we have decided these sources are unreliable and the Singaporean mahjong wiki should be reverted to the redirect...people seeking information on the subject will only find these unreliable sources. Mahjongbun (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mahjongbun Yes, the large quantity should not preclude the author from lacking quality in the article. The number I quoted is based on number of articles attributed to the author, not updates. Cursory glance has the usual clickbait / listicles headings, "9 things... You should... Best (sub in your interest) in Singapore...." over majority of articles. It can be used as a reference but not to establish notability. It is an unfortunate series of events and the general docile populace will rather keep within the OB markers leading to the lack of materials we can use but this topic will be digressing from Wikipedia policies.
 * We can only hope someone will finally address the issues, form an association/society, write a few books etc, else Singaporean rules will only pass down via word of mouth or some obscure blog or websites. Personal experience is regardless what it is, house rules are always changed and adapted to suit the venue/host and Wikipedia should not be treated as an authoritative source. As mentioned earlier, people will vandalise Wikipedia just to win their arguments or set to their advantage. While it is sad that knowledge is not preserved for this, we can still try to preserve other knowledge as well.
 * If you like, please do continue to contribute to other parts of Wikipedia, especially Singapore related articles. We have a Wikiproject dedicated to Singapore related articles. While the project is not particular active, we are trying to change this and we love to have more editors. I hope to see you more in Wikipedia. &#126; JASWE (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Blog post so automatically rejected as a reliable source, even more for establishing notability. Please do see WP:SPS as Wikipedia has a firm guideline on not using it. There are exceptions but this blog site will definitely not meet the narrow definition.
 * Unfortunately this is a self published book so this will be under WP:SPS. The publisher is the author...
 * Unfortunately this is another self published book so this will be under WP:SPS.
 * Unfortunately this is another self published book so this will be under WP:SPS.
 * I just realised my single non online reliable source is not so reliable, aka the book by Celia Ching. I guessed I was still inexperienced in assessing reliable sources then.
 * I had previously came across a local university's CCA club organising a mahjong competition and listed the rules for it. It basically a copy and paste from the then Wikipedia article then. As the sources are pretty little, I assumed you will likely find it but apparently I can't find it myself now which is a good thing.
 * In all, you have 1 maybe article which will not pass the usual threshold of 2~3 reliable articles to establish notability. I had spent a fair bit of effort previously to find reliable sources for the original article here (check the page history) but there are currently no good reliable sources which nobody is publishing with a publisher willing to back the author. I appreciate the effort you put in here and hope you can find new reliable sources. &#126; JASWE (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On closer inspection, I realised the most relevant part of the Seedly article is directly copied from Singapore Sparrows, the Edwin Phua blog, so that is not a good source anymore as well. In this regard, the smartlocal article was actually more original and concise. I don't think we can also judge quality from quantity. Just because the author has a lot of quantity doesn't preclude this particular article from lacking quality. I believe some of the numbers are from updates as well? The article was published back in 2023 and updated recently.
 * Anyway, this seems like an unfortunate set of events. Truthfully, it is a bit difficult to accept something as culturally prevalent as this cannot be on wiki because circumstances doesn't lend itself to be written about. Largely passed down via word of mouth, no central mahjong body, Singapore government issues with social gambling...
 * The final irony is that since we have decided these sources are unreliable and the Singaporean mahjong wiki should be reverted to the redirect...people seeking information on the subject will only find these unreliable sources. Mahjongbun (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mahjongbun Yes, the large quantity should not preclude the author from lacking quality in the article. The number I quoted is based on number of articles attributed to the author, not updates. Cursory glance has the usual clickbait / listicles headings, "9 things... You should... Best (sub in your interest) in Singapore...." over majority of articles. It can be used as a reference but not to establish notability. It is an unfortunate series of events and the general docile populace will rather keep within the OB markers leading to the lack of materials we can use but this topic will be digressing from Wikipedia policies.
 * We can only hope someone will finally address the issues, form an association/society, write a few books etc, else Singaporean rules will only pass down via word of mouth or some obscure blog or websites. Personal experience is regardless what it is, house rules are always changed and adapted to suit the venue/host and Wikipedia should not be treated as an authoritative source. As mentioned earlier, people will vandalise Wikipedia just to win their arguments or set to their advantage. While it is sad that knowledge is not preserved for this, we can still try to preserve other knowledge as well.
 * If you like, please do continue to contribute to other parts of Wikipedia, especially Singapore related articles. We have a Wikiproject dedicated to Singapore related articles. While the project is not particular active, we are trying to change this and we love to have more editors. I hope to see you more in Wikipedia. &#126; JASWE (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mahjongbun Yes, the large quantity should not preclude the author from lacking quality in the article. The number I quoted is based on number of articles attributed to the author, not updates. Cursory glance has the usual clickbait / listicles headings, "9 things... You should... Best (sub in your interest) in Singapore...." over majority of articles. It can be used as a reference but not to establish notability. It is an unfortunate series of events and the general docile populace will rather keep within the OB markers leading to the lack of materials we can use but this topic will be digressing from Wikipedia policies.
 * We can only hope someone will finally address the issues, form an association/society, write a few books etc, else Singaporean rules will only pass down via word of mouth or some obscure blog or websites. Personal experience is regardless what it is, house rules are always changed and adapted to suit the venue/host and Wikipedia should not be treated as an authoritative source. As mentioned earlier, people will vandalise Wikipedia just to win their arguments or set to their advantage. While it is sad that knowledge is not preserved for this, we can still try to preserve other knowledge as well.
 * If you like, please do continue to contribute to other parts of Wikipedia, especially Singapore related articles. We have a Wikiproject dedicated to Singapore related articles. While the project is not particular active, we are trying to change this and we love to have more editors. I hope to see you more in Wikipedia. &#126; JASWE (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)