Talk:1962 Singaporean integration referendum

Requested move 10 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Listed over a month and relisted twice without further discussion. There's no indication an additional relist would produce a clearer consensus, so I am closing the move as no consensus. This defaults to the page staying at its stable title. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Singaporean integration referendum, 1962 → Singapore national referendum, 1962 – The WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISEname of this referendum is "Singapore National Referendum" (which is in turn derived from the Singapore National Referendum Bill (See the link for a background).

• A search in Google Scholar shows 87 results for(Singapore national referendum), 1 result for (Singaporean national referendum) and 0 results for (Singaporean integration referendum)
• The term "integration" has not been used in any reliable sources. In fact a Google search of "Singaporean integration referendum" shows only Wikipedia mirrors or derived sources
• Using "Singaporean" here instead of "Singapore" is against the common usage (and also incorrect because Singaporean is not exactly a demonym for people of Singapore, is usually a noun used for citizenship). The adjective for Singapore is "Singapore". Almost every single source mentioning the referendum calls it "Singapore national referendum". The One source which uses Singaporean actually does so because of the former title of this Wikipedia article].

It should be noted that long back this article was originally at Singapore national referendum, 1962, so I am simply trying to move it back to the original title. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — JFG ^talk 05:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Mostly because I strongly oppose the change from "Singaporean" to "Singapore" as this clearly violates WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums, which states the demonym rather than the country name should be used (as can be seen from the naming of all the election articles in Category:Elections in Singapore, Singaporean is the correct term to use; changing this would create inconsistency in that topic area). I am also not convinced that "national" is preferable to "integration" seeing as this was a referendum on the integration of Singapore into Malaysia; every referendum held at the national level is technically a national referendum, so I don't believe this is a terribly helpful title (Google scholar search results are irrelevant here because Wikipedia has a specific naming format for election and referendum articles that would not be used in papers or books). I would be open to changing the title to Singaporean merger referendum, 1962 as this is a term used in articles like this, but it's probably worth noting that it is described as a referendum on integration by sources, such as this. Number 57 13:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

copyvio in lede paragraph

I've removed copyvio from [1] in the lede. It's a weird case of some reverse copying, but the lede addition actually was added later than the blog creation. retsacennS (Talk) (Pain and Suffering) 15:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Sennecaster, nah... the blog is also a copyvio. The original text came from [2], which is published in 2013. Will you be requesting for revdel? – robertsky (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

robertsky Yup. if you check the terms of use on the original website, it actually says No part or parts hereof may be reproduced, distributed, adapted, modified, republished, displayed, broadcast, hyperlinked, framed or transmitted in any manner or by any means or stored in an information retrieval system without the prior written permission of NLB DIGITAL LIBRARY. So therefore we can't actually use it. retsacennS (Talk) (Pain and Suffering) 16:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: I decided against revdel since it is quite minor. I forgot to clarify that. It's still CV though. 16:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)