Talk:Tampines
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Pronunciation
[edit]Is it Tam-peens or Tam-pahyns —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whelanmk (talk • contribs) 13:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Locals pronounce it as tamp-per-nis. — Bluespots (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Bluespots
Population figures and area
[edit]There are discrepancies in population figures and area between the box info and the info in the paragraph. As stated in the paragraph, a population of 2 million people is misleading. Does it mean that 2/5 of the population of Singapore is crammed in this area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanbugay (talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a contradiction here: Either the Tampines is in Singapore proper or is outside it--which is it??
[edit]Singapore is a city-state, so there is no such thang like "Singapore Proper". Subdivisions of Singapore are based geographically; it is stated in the article that Tampines is in the East Region. Andreas (T) 13:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tampines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304145846/http://www10.hdb.gov.sg/ebook/ar2015/html5/index.html?opf=tablet%2FKey%20Statistics.xml to http://www10.hdb.gov.sg/ebook/ar2015/html5/index.html?opf=tablet%2FKey%20Statistics.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Possible AI use
[edit]Concerns were raised previously via tag about AI-generated content in this article, which is prohibited per WP:NOLLM. This is a procedural talk page section to discuss it. There is no need to ping me in response. Read WP:AISIGNS for more information for why this is tagged; however, note that fixing the issue requires more than just changing the superficial signs.
Rationale: 2024 edits here; note WP:AISIGNS in promotional tone, negative parallelisms, vocab distribution typical of 2024 LLM output, etc Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- I have restored the tag after a driveby removal: Special:Diff/1367391150. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- The irony of calling my edit a "driveby removal." This isn't my only edit on this article. If Gnomingstuff felt that strongly about the alleged AI edits on this article, they should've made the changes themselves instead of tagging and then explicitly stating that they refuse to engage in any follow-up discussion by not wanting to be pinged. This shows they are not interested in any actual discussion while expecting other editors to do the supposed cleanup work for them. Maybe it's just me, but when I come across AI usage on an article, I simply remove it. Is it really that difficult? Aleain (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- The reason given in the tag is quite clear, and a significant amount of the text in the linked edit remains in the article. Nobody is required to WP:SATISFY you, so please stop disruptively removing the tag. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- There are two possible solutions here. Either restore the tag, or we can revert the article pack to revision 1224232721, before the user started inserting AI-generated text. If you want to manually clean up all of their edits, you are of course welcome to do so. But just removing the tag without fixing the problem is not an option, and that isn't debatable. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Aleain: have you decided which option you want taken? Will you self-revert and restore Gnomingstuff's tag, or should we revert the article to the pre-AI version? ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- There are two possible solutions here. Either restore the tag, or we can revert the article pack to revision 1224232721, before the user started inserting AI-generated text. If you want to manually clean up all of their edits, you are of course welcome to do so. But just removing the tag without fixing the problem is not an option, and that isn't debatable. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- And "there is no need to ping me in response" does not mean "don't respond to me".. That clearly just means that this user does not wish for a ping notification, not that they "refuse to engage in any follow-up discussion". Words have an actual meaning.
Maybe it's just me, but when I come across AI usage on an article, I simply remove it. Is it really that difficult?
- Feel free to do that then, but you have just claimed that you can't "see it", so you might not be best positioned to do this cleanup. Reverting is easy when it is a recent edit, but it is a lot harder when it is found months or years later. If you were required to do the cleanup that you add a tag for, then you wouldn't get very far. Thankfully there is no requirement to do the cleanup if you tag something.
- There is very clearly AI-generated text in the article. Which means that the tag is accurate and should not be removed. So please restore the tag, and then stop removing it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe it's just me, but when I accuse people of "not doing the supposed work," I look at their contributions to see whether I am saying something true or being obstructive for no reason. Is it really that difficult? Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- In all seriousness, I spend hours of my day doing AI cleanup on Wikipedia. Please do not tell me that I don't. If you would like me to do even more you are welcome to pay me for it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- The reason given in the tag is quite clear, and a significant amount of the text in the linked edit remains in the article. Nobody is required to WP:SATISFY you, so please stop disruptively removing the tag. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- The irony of calling my edit a "driveby removal." This isn't my only edit on this article. If Gnomingstuff felt that strongly about the alleged AI edits on this article, they should've made the changes themselves instead of tagging and then explicitly stating that they refuse to engage in any follow-up discussion by not wanting to be pinged. This shows they are not interested in any actual discussion while expecting other editors to do the supposed cleanup work for them. Maybe it's just me, but when I come across AI usage on an article, I simply remove it. Is it really that difficult? Aleain (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)