Talk:Sylvia Lim

Unsatisfactory

This is a very unsatisfactory article. Where did she go to secondary school? Which college of the University of London did she study at? etc etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.55.53.184 (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sylvia1.jpg

Image:Sylvia1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Length

Article on Sylvia is FAR TOO LONG!! OppieSG (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

We don’t need to report on speeches.OppieSG (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Especially with the recent additions. May need to summarize and clean up after the energy has settled down. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of electoral history section

Seloloving, is the content you just reverted necessarily WP:INDISCRIMINATE? There are a number of politicians articles, including GAs (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) and FAs (Hillary Clinton) with electoral history sections. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Per the policy "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context."

At present, none of the tables Garfield has added provide for any context as to what the results imply and their significance to the biography, and I see it as a trend of Garfield's to gradually add them to every single politicians' bio page with little to no reasoning for their addition beyond decorative purposes. Per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, what exist on another page does not necessarily mean it is justified on this one. If the politician in question lost or won by a margin which is notable and independently reported, then I would agree it is justified for inclusion, but seeing as it is linked already to the specific page, I disagree on its necessity to the biography. Seloloving (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Seloloving: I'm not persuaded, but if you're dealing with a problematic editor, then I'll leave it at that. All these pages are in abysmal shape anyway (this one especially) and the inclusion or exclusion of an electoral history section won't make or break them. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kohlrabi Pickle: I agree the pages are abysmal at the moment, and I feel it's only right to prevent them from being degenerating even further. For example, take a look at my revert on Chiam See Tong's page, where the tables added almost took up half the page itself. My opinion is that if we allow the indiscriminate adding of lists to continue unabated, future pages will just add on and on and so fourth. I also wish to express my concerns at the page of the People's Action Party which Garfield has added a huge list to recently, and wish to request for your comment. Seloloving (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Seloloving: I don't necessarily disagree with you. My sentiment is just that what these pages really need is the attention of a dedicated content creator and/or copyeditor. Someone like that can not only improve the articles, but also find a way to organise Garfield's edits into something useful. In any event, I share your view in relation to the PAP article and I trust your judgment in relation to Garfield. An editor's attitude is important on Wikipedia, and I've made the mistake of shielding new editors from more experienced editors multiple times, only to be proven wrong later after some disruption. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

And, to add, until a dedicated content creator is available, I appreciate the importance of preventing the articles from degenerating further. I'm tied up with exams at the moment, but I'll work on these in a few weeks if I can. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kohlrabi Pickle: I have done my level best to assume good faith with Garfield, whom I do wish to have a productive editing relationship with. Even as I swore to disengage from Garfield's edits, I can only express my increasing concern at their wantonness of adding increasing unnecessary fluff sections to the bio and constituency pages. Like you, I lack the time to devote to improving many of the articles, but I have at the very least tried to keep the pages of the two main people - Lee Hsien Loong and Pritam Singh - to a certain standard. Seloloving (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Photographs

The following photographs of Sylvia Lim have been uploaded to Commons: [1] (Sylvia Lim 1.jpg), [2], (Sylvia Lim 2.jpg), [3] (Sylvia Lim 3.jpg), [4] (Sylvia Lim 4.jpg) Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)