Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Singapore/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:32, 29 December 2009.

Flag of Singapore

 * Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...after a year of work, I feel the article is ready for this again. The main issue last time around was over the sourcing of images. I have talked to the user and gave me some ideas on what can be done. I tried to get more information from the SG government, but not much luck there. All dead URLs have been either replaced or removed and just managed to get a PDF copy of the Main 2004 rules, which I am willing to upload to the Commons once I find out legislation is public domain in Singapore. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments --an odd name 06:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a mix of and  templates.  This causes inconsistency (compare refs 45 and 46), so I suggest you pick one type or manually write them.  There's also a few Day Month Year dates in the refs, when most use ISO style—change them to the dominant style.
 * No dab links or dead external links, which is good. (The link checker complains about two mindef.gov.sg sites—something about "Excessed redirect limit (8)"—but they work for me.)
 * Some images have alt text. Now add some for the blue Straits flag and the photos.
 * Templates fixed (not sure how to do an interview, but I gave it a shot. I did the dab link and url link check before I even came here tonight. I am fixing the alt text issues now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alt text finished. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Alt text clearance from Eubulides moved to talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that fixes all the alt text problems reported. Eubulides (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Current ref 4 (Foong..) needs a page number
 * Current ref 16 (Noor..) lacks a last access date.
 * Current refs 18 and 19 (Singapore Arms..) both lack publishers and last access dates.
 * Comment: See my comment about the citation of legislation below.
 * Current ref 48 (Leong..) lacks a publisher. This is a journal article and should be formatted as such, not as a website.
 * What makes http://www.singsingapore.org.sg/songs-lyric.asp?sid=27 a reliable source?
 * The above site is owned by the National Arts Council, a government entity. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes http://flagspot.net/flags/sg~war.html#const a reliable source? Note that FAC criteria have changed to needing high quality sources, so it needs to not only fulfill WP:SPS but be a "high quality" source.
 * That page cites the law that created the flag. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment List of Singaporean flags is very short and mostly redundant to the main article. I suggest merging it. Reywas92 Talk 01:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Reywas92. There's not much extra there. --an odd name 02:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. The other flags are not included due to lack of "image sourcing" as required by FAC. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment about citation of legislation. In a comment above, Ealdgyth mentioned that footnote 19, a reference to the, lacked the name of its publisher and the date when it was last accessed. Zscout370 therefore changed the footnote to "'Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act (Cap. 296, 1985 Rev. Ed.' (PDF). Government of Singapore. 1985. Retrieved 2009-11-19". This is not the correct way to cite a piece of legislation. I am of the view that it is unnecessary to indicate the publisher of a piece of legislation and the date of publication for the following reasons: In any case, I note that in past FAs such as "Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India" and "Roe v. Wade", pieces of legislation are rightly not cited in the same way as books. Finally, if it is felt that a statement regarding when the legislation was accessed should be added (e.g., "Retrieved on 19 November 2009"), I think this is acceptable. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 08:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see why the publisher of a statute must be indicated when a citation in the usual legal form as shown above provides all the information that is needed to locate the statute in question.
 * In particular, it is unnecessary to provide a separate date of publication, at least for Singapore statutes, because a properly cited statute will already contain a reference to the date when it was passed.

Doesn't anyone want to comment on this point? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 07:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - I'll make any straightforward changes as I read through (feel free to revert any inadvertent changes in meaning I make), and post queries below. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 *  Until 2004, the flag was used exclusively by government departments and educational institutions on a year round basis. - I find this sentence ambiguous.
 * That sentence used to be tied in with the second one, so I tried to break it up last night. However, this is how the flag was legally used. I will add a source mentioning that. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I massaged the prose a little, and cannot see any deal-breakers prose-wise left. It appears comprehensive. I am a little concerned by the size of the further reading section relative to the refs, which does make me wonder what other material is out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the further reading is part of the references, such as the National Symbols Kit of 2001. However, I am in the process of trying to get more books about this subject and hopefully be able to expand this more. Just last night, I added two flags to the list and I actually had to recreate User:Zscout370/List of Singaporean flags (I can move it back to the main space, if others agree). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...a bit off-topic, but if the list has a number of flags unable to be used on the FAC page then I am open to it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * List of Singaporean flags is the link. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There was only one, bicolor. Delinked, since relevant page was deleted due to a transwiki to Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review: No issues, but File:Commissioning Pennant of Singapore.svg probably ought to be moved to Commons (unless there is something prohibiting that) . NW ( Talk ) 02:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

''' Not happy with the images.  OK Tony'''   (talk)  02:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The flag used to represent the Settlement"—not "used to" in the sense of "did", but "that was used to". I had to reverse-disambiguate this on reading it.
 * Can you pipe just the first three words rather than the huge splotch of blue? "occupation of Singapore by the Japanese during the Second World War"
 * Does "Second World War", then, need a link? I don't think so—unless you can find a section or daughter article to link to: it's too general.
 * "British Empire" linked twice within 10 seconds? No.
 * Why is "national day" linked? Is it hard to work out?
 * The "Spectators" image is microscopic ... some modern work of art? Try 250px.
 * Caption: "Note the national flag behind him is defaced with the Lion Symbol numerous times." No, we can't see that, because the image is tiny. Please enlarge appropriately. MoS says not to say "Note that".
 * The Airlines image is hardly appropriate: the flag is a tiny red dot, which is the point of it ... and, well, so what. Too many images: why not enlarge the rather impressive one with helicopters and move it up a little, instead?
 * Warship pennent: the image looks kind of weird at that size. Tony   (talk)  13:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, snagged everything. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * "The crescent moon (an Islamic symbol) was originally intended to assure the island's Muslim Malay citizens that the island was not a Chinese state" here
 * Comment: This book has not provided a source for the assertion. I've not come across it elsewhere before. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I recall coming across that in the past somewhere too...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, I'd like to see a better source for it. I have not seen that statement in any of the descriptions of the flag's design until now. The official explanation is that the waxing crescent moon represents a young nation on the ascendant. This makes me wonder if the explanation in the book is nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, in which case (as I had heard it), some discussing and refuting would be good, if it can be found. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In 1986 Muslims burned it as a sign of protest here &bull; Ling.Nut 11:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will look at that information more once I get back from work. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * About the burning, flags get burned in protest a lot. In this case, it was outside of Singapore and it had nothing related to do with independence or territorial issues; just most anger against Israel. Now, about the crescent, the earliest reference I have seen is this 1998 but that has no source. This page just mentions the crescent is an important symbol of Islam and that does give a book reference at the bottom. I will add it in, but need to do it in pieces. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jackpot. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Brilliant. Let me know if you want the page reference to the actual book by Lee Kuan Yew mentioned in the article; I have the book at home. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 07:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "There had been much ado over the flag, for again racial sentiments had to be respected. The Chinese-speaking wanted red for good fortune, the Malays red and white, their traditional colours for courage and purity. But Indonesia already had red and white for their flag, and so had Poland. The Chinese, influenced by the five yellow stars on the flag of Communist China, wanted stars. The Malays wanted a crescent moon. We settled for a crescent moon with five white stars instead of the traditional one star for Islam. The five stars represented the five ideals of the country: democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality. Thus we reconciled different racial symbols and ideals.": — Cheers,  Jack Lee  –talk– 14:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: I have checked the prose and found it to be of high-quality; the article is also well-researched and provides sufficient context without straying into a distracting level of detail. I believe it meets all the criteria.  Skomorokh   21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments: The Rolling Stones once came to our country in 2002–03 and on their opening act had rubber-inflated whores with our flag gripped in their latex hands. The second night, the flags were gone and the Stones said this was insisted by the authorities. This is documented by a book that is co-authored by Chris Jagger and approved by his brother Mick (The Rolling Stones: Fruit of the Loom Tour ; Licks World Tour 2002/2003). Although the book's publisher is Print-on-Demand (vanity press?), it is written by a band member's brother and vouched for by the band. Furthermore, fan reports seems to confirm the incident,, and the newspaper links in those reports might be of use as well (to get more reliable sourcing or to vouch for the book's account). This information could help "spice" up the article in terms of international appeal and "pop-culture savviness". Jappalang (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I never heard about it before, but then, I am one of these guys. Anyways, Jappalang, if you want to add it to the article, given with the sourcing and all of that stuff, it would be perfect. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns: According to section "197 Provisions as to Government copyright" of the Copyright Act, the Government is "entitled to the copyright in every original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work first published in Singapore" or by its commission. The interpretation seems to imply all coats of arms and flags of Singapore are copyrighted (for 70 years since first publication/official unfurling or 1963 + 70 + 1 = 2034 for our national flag). Note that the Guidelines do not declare our flags to be in public domain, so why are they uploaded as "free images"? Jappalang (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Our flags would qualify for PD-ineligible since it comprises simple shapes (stripes, crescent, and stars). File:Flag of the British Straits Settlements (1874-1942).svg would be expired crown copyrights (British property).  This should be reflected in each image file's description.  They are not out of copyright simply because someone drew them but because it is likely they cannot be copyrighted (although still protected by law).  Flags with our coat of arms, however, would still be a no go (which luckily none are in this article).  Jappalang (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Flag of the British Straits Settlements (1874-1942).svg would also qualify for PD status due to age (50 years for works of the British Government). However, Jappalang, can you find out if Singaporean legislation is public domain? If so, I am going to upload the Flag rules so we do not have to play link hunt again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is probably not. According to the :
 * 197(2). The Government shall, subject to this Part, be entitled to the copyright in every original literary ... work first published in Singapore, ... if first published by or under the direction or control of the Government.
 * 197(3)(b). Copyright in a literary ... work, to which the Government is entitled ..., where the work is published, shall subsist ... until the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published, and shall then expire.
 * — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a first. Even the most copyright harsh copyrights even put their laws into the public domain. Oh well. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is there doesn't appear to be any exemption for laws in the Act. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 19:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding linkrot: Wherever possible, can archival URLs (from http://www.archive.org or http://www.webcitation.org) be added to citation templates using the parameters archiveurl and archivedate to avoid linkrot? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 14:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfectly acceptable. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I read this some time ago, but declined to review then since it seemed a little rough. Much better now  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  08:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.