Talk:Orchard Road

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Orchard Road is part of SGpedians' Resources An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore. To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

from VfD:

About Orchard Road article. This is somehow a common name. It should not be used for specific informations. The article except of mentioning it is a shopping street in Singapore has non notable information. This article is linked by many others, a good few of them are empty ( one month after creation) or give non notable information.

About shoal of articles around Singapore and Malaysia. There is a problem there I feel. And I don't know how to address it. Many (for example here) articles are ultra local information, or non notable, or plainly empty. They could be merged, condensed, deleted. I vfd'ed previously some articles. Many comments arrived on vfd confirming that indeed there could/should be an other way. But there are just too many articles now ! I can't vfd ten's of articles. I talked to a given user and it took quite a deal to have just a cool down. But I won't be able to talk the same patient way to 3 of 4 users. In my opinion there is a flooding of misplaced articles. There is a misunderstanding of what is interesting or general interest. It costs an important time to the community to build interesting bits upon this noise. What should I/we do ? Should I/we do anything ?

--Gtabary 10:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • Comment: Just for the record, not a single one of those links to that article has anything to do with Malaysia, all are in Singapore. --Andylkl 20:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Orchard Road seems notable enough, being the primary shopping district of Singapore... as for the other stuff... could be merged. Although, we do have small town USA articles all over the place, as if Wikipedia were a US census report or something. 132.205.15.43 17:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the user might have gone a bit overboard with wikification, I say keep. Already it is a viable stub, and it could be extended a lot more... There is absurd amounts of information available on geographic locations, just see Dundas square, and there is certainly a N-America bias to the geographical articles as is. Houshuang 18:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

About the name, I don't think it is a problem. It could be moved to Orchard Road, Singapore ; or we could wait until someone else with an Orchard Road comes around. Houshuang 18:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment. That is my point precisely. Should we accept absurd content because some absurd content exists already somewhere else? Helloooo ! Is it not absurdly absurd ?  :-) Gtabary 20:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I rather fail to see your point, I don't think this article has absurd content at all. I was rather referring to the name, and how any possible future confusion could be abated by giving it a more specific name... Houshuang 07:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: I think it's far too detailed about a subdivision of a city. It could be merged, but there is another subject here. I know the general practice is first-come-first-grab on names, but we should also show some common sense here. "Abbey Road" is a road in a lot of cities, but it would be nuts to not realize that one is extremely famous and the others less so. It's also not wise to go grabbing "Mountain Side" or "Lakeview." There are just going to be too darned many of them. The disambiguation page would run to 32 kb, especially if we are writing and keeping isolated articles on parts of cities that are not notable as parts. Midtown Manhattan has fame internationally. Soho, NYC has fame internationally. The Loop in Chicago has at least national fame. I'm not sure that Bienville in New Orleans does. Common sense means prevention rather than cure. Geogre 19:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment. You say it much better than I can. Are we gonna spend months cleaning un-significant but not-nonsens articles ? Somewho I feel there is a bit of vanity in creating almost empty pages on common names. I could create the "Henry Street" article (Dublin, Ireland) as a shopping street. But... there is no-thing specific or interesting about it. An other way to look at it, is if you type "Henry Street (Dublin)" in WP search field, you obviously know all what you are gonna read. No need of an article. Gtabary 20:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. The accuracy doesn't seem to be in question, and if it's the main shopping street of Singapore that's quite significant. Compare to Bond Street, which is also a definite keeper IMO, and King Street Wharf which was kept despite my protests. Andrewa 19:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment. Fully agree with you about King Street Wharf. I guess tonight on this vfd page I have learned what not to vfd. I will not vfd Central Region. (Insane!) Gtabary 20:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Agree that Central Region needed work. It is now a disambig, still needs some tidying up. Insane is a bit over the top IMO, we need to concentrate more on collaboration and less on conflict. Andrewa 18:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. The road itself is very notable in Singapore, and it also passes the google test with flying colours - 376,000 results. --Andylkl 20:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Is it just me or is there an incredible bias against articles about Asian subjects. I don't recall ever seeing a vfd for an article about a main shopping area in a place like San Diego, Amsterdam or Sydney, Australia, but I've seen this a few times recently for places in Asia. --LeeHunter 22:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for others, but nominate an article on a non-unique street name for the shopping road in San Antonio or Brownsville, and I'll vote delete. Indeed, I voted delete on Capital Boulevard (Raleigh, NC), have done most malls, will do most subdivisions of cities that aren't really well known outside of their own towns. It's not about whether the place is important there, but whether anyone not there will encounter a reference and need an explanation. Even then, articles should have more than "You can shop here." It should provide some sense of development, types of industry, etc. Geogre 23:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Singapore is one of the most important commercial centres in Asia, more on the level of New York, LA or London. Surely it's a little bit unfair to compare the main shopping area in one of the great hubs of the Asian continent (population 4.6 million) to a strip mall in Brownsville (population 140,000). --LeeHunter 04:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I wasn't trying to compare the cities, but the level of granularity. Is this really the name for the whole downtown shopping district, or is this one street that's part of the district? I think this map is set on too high a level of zoom. Secondly, though, while I think we ought to cover the world, as we hope to be of use to the world, I also think that there is a reason for an Anglophone encyclopedia to be Anglocentric, just as there would be a need for the .de -pedia to be Germanic. The obvious use of Peachtree Street to an American or the various tube station articles to a Brit wouldn't be apparent on the .de -pedia, and I hope no one would accuse the German folks of being chauvinistic for knowing their audience and having a differential standard of fame. Geogre 05:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you are unaware that Singapore is anglophone!Dr Zen 05:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • If this (en.wikiedia) is supposed to be an Anglophone-country-centric encyclopedia, we need a new one with equal coverage. English is the global language, many citizens of coutry A looking for information on country B will come here even if neither are English-speaking. Kappa 14:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I think you are being misled by the name Orchard Road. Voting delete on this, in our view, is akin to voting to delete Broadway or Oxford Street, as Dr Zen mentioned. --JuntungWu 13:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 22:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly move to less ambiguous title. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:03, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep—to go at least partway towards countering the strong US bias. Suggest disambiguating when the need arises. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\^talk ]] 02:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. It beggars belief this was listed. I cannot imagine we would be asked to consider the inclusion of Oxford Street (a very common name in the UK at least), Broadway, Kurfürstendamm or Rue de Rivoli. Orchard Road is one of Asia's most famous streets. Dr Zen 03:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This is Singapore's main shopping street. --JuntungWu 03:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• KeepOrchard Rd is pretty well known even in New Zealand. It had too many expensive clothes shops and no tool shops when I was there. ping 07:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Orchard Road is notable by any measure as Singapore's most famous street. It is well known in Australia.
  • In response, to Gtabary's concerns, perhaaps the best thing would be a Singapore and Malaysia Wikiproject to improve the articles relating to those countries if they are considered to be inadequate currently.
  • In response to Geogre's points about the special focus of the English encyclopedia, we should have an extra special emphasis on the countries where English is most widely spoken eg the Commonwealth and US. Singapore and Malaysia are both in the Commonwealth and were important parts of the British empire so our special focus, if we have one, should include them. In addition, as English is becoming the world language, we should have a comprehensive coverage of all topics of encyclopedic interest. Capitalistroadster 10:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • My main focus was and is granularity and ambiguity. "Broadway" is not just a street, but "7th Avenue" is. 7th Avenue is very important -- fashion district, etc. -- but it's probably not appropriate as a break out. The question I had and have is whether it is appropriate to take one street in a city and make that an article, especially if this is part of a district. Singapore is Anglophone and it isn't. Yes, it was part of the Commonwealth. Yes, English is one of its main languages. It is still, however, more isolated, for reasons of geography or racism or colonialism, than Copenhagen or Dublin. The question is granularity and granularity aggravated by this being an Anglophone encyclopedia. Geogre 14:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • • "It is still, however, more isolated, for reasons of geography or racism or colonialism, than Copenhagen or Dublin." Perhaps you are unaware that Asians outnumber Americans and Europeans combined. Orchard Road would be far better known in Asia than Oxford Street. Singapore is an Asian crossroads, an immensely important transhipment point for goods into and out of the continent and a centre for financial and other services. "Singapore is Anglophone and it isn't." Unless anglophone is a codeword for "white" or "has an anglo culture", I can't imagine what on earth this could mean. While it's true that most Singaporeans do not speak it as a first language, it's very much part of the English-speaking world (not least because English is an official language). If you want to tackle "granularity", why not begin with the masses of American villages that are of no interest even to Americans, let alone the rest of the world, that infest this encyclopaedia?Dr Zen 00:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I really disagree with the fact that Wikipedia should focus mainly on English speaking countries and cultures! I am a Norwegian, and I focus mainly on the English language Wikipedia, not the Norwegian one, because everyone in Norway speaks English (fact) and because the English one is so far ahead... For some of the bigger languages, like German, French etc, it is probable that they might slowly become very comprehensive as well, but if you think about smaller languages (Norwegian), African languages, etc - this is just not going to happen anytime soon (I myself am very sceptical to English being used everywhere, but I am also realistic - and so are many Norwegians - many significant articles about Norwegian people are longer in the English wikipedia than in the Norwegian one)... And finally; why should people in the anglophone countries be more interested in finding out about Oxford street than about Orchard road? I'd hope it would be the other way around. At least that is an ideal. Sorry for this rather long rant at perhaps the wrong location, but I really felt the need to express my belief that Wikipedia en., and hopefully all of the language versions, will be truly global and universal works of reference. THanks. Houshuang 18:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • Apart from the fact that Singapore is definitely part of the area that I see as the target for the English encyclopedia, namely the US, UK, Eire and the Commonwealth countries, Singapore is much closer to me as an Australian than the localities of Copenhagen or Dublin that Geogre mentioned. Indeed, a resident of Darwin is within a three hour flight of Singapore and Singapore is as close to Perth as Sydney is. Houshang's point about the English encyclopedia being a reference book for people from all cultures not only the Anglophone one is also well made. Capitalistroadster 11:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comments from the vfd notice author (me).
  • No bias against or toward Asian subjects. I happen to have browsed a good bit, recently, through some Malaysian / Singaporean subject recently. It's by chance. This was triggered by a contrib which looked very strange to me. I browsed through user contribs and realised many are of a too fine granularity : describing supermarkets, housing estates, giving no interesting informations, and so on. My point here is: I have nothing against Malaysian, Asian subjects, or any subject. It's by chance.
  • Common names. I do think that if some other commonish names exists in WP (be it in US, in France or wherever) well, I would vote delete.
  • Common sense. I don't accept the point that because some bad (IMO) articles exists in WP, some one should be "allowed" to create some more bad articles. There is a lack of common sense here. I take again my example about Central Region : there should be no disambuig page for that because this page would be of no use with hundreds of entries. There should not have been an article created at this entry: this is plain. And IMO, there should not be any talk about such a plain goof. ( But hey : I do talk ! ) Now, don't focus on "central Region", this is an example only. I spotted 10s of article of the same calibre.
  • You can != you should. Again, Geogre 19:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) said it: it is only a question of first-come-first-grab on names. Because a common name is not yet used, does not mean you can associate it to your little subject. "Common sense means prevention rather than cure."
  • WP scope. Now a bit of science fiction :-). I believe English WP is for all subjects, all countries. It goes far beyond US, UK, Commonwealth. I believe, other WP in other languages will disappear because it is a waist to duplicate efforts in so many languages ( Watch out : I am not a native English speaker. I have my own language: French. So no bias toward English.  :-) ) So, I don't see any problem to have some Asian subjects, or moon subjects , or...
  • Importance of a subject != good article. There is no question about how important Singapore is. (it is obviously) Why are those question coming up ? But is it the importance or the interest of a subject which lead to a WP article? If a shit article is written about Paris, with no interesting material at all, I'll vote delete not enhance. An article, IMO, should have at least one line of interesting material even as a sub-sub-sub...-stub. It's not enough to just exist. :-)
  • My position is delete or merge into Singapore.

Gtabary 12:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• It remains the case that "shit article" is not a criterion for deletion but a recommendation for improvement. I look forward to your listing Oxford Street or Broadway and voting for their deletion. Dr Zen 23:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep The Steve 06:36, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

I'm just shocked at the ignorance there...:/ -- Natalinasmpf 17:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] urban planning division

It seems that the vicinity of Orchard Road is also an urban planning division specified by the Urban Redevelopment Authority - should we create a separate article for such a division, or information on it (as it also contains several other roads) in the article itself? -- Natalinasmpf 04:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)