Talk:Fall of Singapore

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overwhelming Japanese Air & Naval superiority[edit]

A choice had been made to defend Britain against the German airforce resulting in British victory at the Battle of Britain, but too many infantry forces were left to try and defend Singapore. Britain had six aircraft carriers, three operational and all stationed in the Atlantic. The Japanese Navy had 10 aircraft carriers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.174.111 (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill[edit]

Why does the article not mention that Churchill was largely to blame for the Fall of Singapore by diverting vital supplies including tanks to the Soviet Union? (Wuhdsh (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for this claim? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

@AustralianRupert: Er, I think I must have deleted that bit inadvertently, apols. Keith-264 (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, no worries, thanks for clarifying. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Alled to Commonwealth but perhaps that should be Commonwealth and Imperial? Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigos: The Dutch and US were not involved in the battle. Keith-264 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith-264: Sorry, must’ve been confused between which about that somewhere in the article, I’ll revert it Nigos (talk | contribs) 23:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigos: I had another look and it seems that where you changed Commonwealth, it was in the sections about the Pacific theatre where the term Allies is the right one. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith-264: I’ve restored that edit. Thanks, Nigos (talk | contribs) 23:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Total Defence Day[edit]

Added commemorative event in Singapore occurring on the relevant date each year (Total Defence Day). Point to note in relation to timing - while the main article mentions the surrender timing as "shortly after 17:15", the commemorative sirens are sounded at 18:20 each year. This is the official timing given by the Singapore government for this event; not sure how to explain the discrepancy. It may be noted that Singapore's official time zone shifted forward by 30 mins in 1981, but that doesnt fully explain the difference. Not sure how to reconcile this. Thekmt (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 December 2021[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Singapore → Fall of Singapore – Clear common name. See Google NGRAMS or Google Scholar results (5,770 results for "fall" vs 297 for "battle"). Results indicate that this topic the only one commonly referred to as "fall of Singapore". Regardless of "battle" or "fall", there is no consistent capitalization for either. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. That's what I'd always heard it as and its decidedly what happened. Wasn't that much of a battle than a chaotic collapse of control, akin to other "Falls". CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Nigos (talk | contribs) 05:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as clearer to what actually happened. For a contemporaneous count, Newspapers.com hits from March 1942 through end of the war use 'fall' terms over 'battle' terms by a wide margin (8,198 to 718). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have seen similar discussions of a similarly proposed move regarding the Battle of France. I am uncertain to support, because it is still a Battle, and not exactly the Fall itself. While a relatively short one compared to the Battle of France, there's still a series of campaigns during this Battle that led to its Fall. ZKang123 (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per most of the supports above. "Fall" aligns the article title with Wikipedia policy. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox edits[edit]

@BUZZLIGHTYEAR99: result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

@Keith-264 Which bit of: "Said criterion is not an absolute rule. The majority of the most popular conflict articles on this website utilize bullet points in their "result" sections." did you miss?
Here is just a sample of some massively popular military conflict articles (some of which are featured) that use bullets in their "result" section:
That should put this to rest. The criterion you are citing are not hard and fast rules. Stop being anal-retentive for no perceivable reason. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how many articles there are? Has it not occurred to you that other articles not conforming to the standard is no excuse for your edits? You really need to consider your position given that you have been warned about this so often by so many editors. Keith-264 (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and WP:civil. Keith-264 (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm discussing it with you here now. You have failed to provide adequate reason so far. I have also been perfectly civil with you, the irony is you are the one who initiated the confrontational nature of this dialogue. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that all of those articles are viewed and edited by a colossal number of people, it isn't some oversight that they all have bullet points; they're a useful tool for quickly imparting a reader with relevant knowledge. Furthermore, the excerpt you cited previously does even prohibit the use of bullets, explicitly or implicitly. You are being extremely pedantic. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"" QED Keith-264 (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet how many articles that get viewed by millions of people every day still use bullets in the result? QED
Here's an incomplete list for you again:
You haven't provided any reason why there shouldn't be bullets either, other than anal-retentive adherence to guidelines that have already been demonstrated to not be absolute. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to justify following a rule and I couldn't if I wanted to as I helped to make it, it's a conflict of interest. All you have to do is read this "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"" Keith-264 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you're being faced with numerous examples of said rule not being upheld, yes you do. All you have to do is read the countless major articles that don't. The logic you keep trying to recycle has been proven to be a fallacy. You're starting to sound like a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive" Keith-264 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. That logic has already been refuted. Come up with a legitimate reason to oppose the edit or you will continue to be ignored. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fall_of_Singapore&oldid=1212597441"