Talk:Cabinet of Singapore/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Cabinet of Singapore. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cabinet of Albania which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Minister Khaw Boon Wan.JPG Nominated for Deletion
|
An image used in this article, File:Minister Khaw Boon Wan.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
|
| A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC) |
Merge tag
There is a merge tag on the 2012 Singaporean ministerial paycuts to here. At first glance that article doesn't appear to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (events) guideline for a stand-alone article. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Interesting developments since the GA version
I see that huge chunk of the current article is dedicated to the remuneration issue, whereas none was in the GA version. The vagaries of Wikipedia's quality control, I suppose. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm the main contributor to this article, and just updated it to take into account recent developments on ministerial pay. Since "2012 Singaporean ministerial paycuts" is a very stubby stub, I think there is no problem with just redirecting it to this article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the suggestion for the redirect. The subject of the article does not seem to have a lasting effect to the point that justifies having a separate article. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)