Talk:Singapore Voyage Tips and guide

What's the argument for the need for dynamic maps in the "Districts" section? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

"During rush hours, get ready for a lot of pushing and shoving on the MRT (even just to alight) as everybody races for the empty seat. This is a common sight daily, despite signs asking people to be a little more courteous. Also try to gently push others when attempting to board trains in rush hours to minimise the risk of being left behind and waiting for the next MRT train. That said, the mad dash for seats that is common in China is considered to be uncivilised in Singapore."

The two highlighted excerpts are mutually contradictory. So which is correct? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@The dog2: any thoughts on this? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how you describe it, but while Singaporeans may not be as polite as say, the Japanese, it's still a lot better than in China. In China, people literally sprint for the seats while almost violently pushing people away. Look at this video for an example in the Shanghai Metro, but even what you see in this video is already relatively mild. In Singapore, rushing for seats in the way seen in the video is considered uncivilised. In fact, I don't feel that riding the MRT in Singapore particularly different from riding the Tube in London or the New York City Subway when it comes to civility of commuters. For that matter, I've actually seen more uncivilised behaviour (like people sitting with the soles of their feet on the seat with their shoes on) on the New York City Subway. The dog2 (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

So, in that case, would you say the first bolded bit either needs to be removed, or toned down? Because without actually knowing what the Chinese experience is like, it seems like the paragraphs message is 'there's a jostling rush for seats with pushing, but pushing and rushing would be uncivilised". If there's a way we can get the most accurate description without bringing in a comparison to an unrelated country, that would be best.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'll be happy to have both statements removed. In general, most Singaporeans will let you out of the train before boarding, just as most New Yorkers or Londoners would. But that said, it is possible that I could be biased as someone born and raised there, so it's probably best to get a second opinion from a European or American who has been to Singapore before making a final decision.

@Jpatokal, Drat70, Pashley: Could one of you please comment? The dog2 (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

From of a four day visit in 2013, I don't remember passengers being particularly pushy or rude in Singapore's MRT even during rush hour. Also the monorail station and the monorail to Sentosa were full of people like an outdoors rock festival but likewise I don't remember much pushing and shoving there. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK, it looks like I'm not the only one then. It may well be that my definition of civility and courtesy as a Singaporean is just different from an American's definition, but I have encountered what I consider to be rude or uncivilised behaviour more often on the New York City Subway and Chicago L than on the Singapore MRT. The dog2 (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@ThunderingTyphoons!: Looks like nobody has replied for a while. Based on your profile, it looks like you have been to Singapore, so would you agree with me that the pushing and shoving in the MRT is in general no worse than what you will experience in the Tube in London? If so, what do you think of just removing the paragraph? The dog2 (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I neither agree nor disagree, as I visited in 2002 when I was but a wee'un (about 8 or so) and really don't remember whether the MRT was even busy or not. I would prefer the situation be clarified, rather than removing the paragraph, but you're the Singapore expert around here. Whatever you think is best - other than leaving it as it is - I will go along with. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘To put thing in perspective, I will say that you will almost never see on the MRT some things that I have seen on the New York City Subway or Chicago L, such as people putting their feet on the seat, a single person occupying four seats, or people eating and making a mess with their food. And likewise, it's quite rare that you will encounter people talking loudly on their phone in an inconsiderate way, unlike what I encounter on a regular basis in New York City and Chicago. You will most certainly draw a lot of unwanted attention to yourself if you do any of these on the MRT, and there's a good chance someone will tell you off. Likewise, if you start wrestling and violently pushing people away while sprinting for the empty seat like what you see in the Shanghai Metro or Beijing Subway, it's quite likely that you will upset local people. In fact, this kind of behaviour by many mainland Chinese tourists is one of the reasons why many Singaporean Chinese bear some degree of resentment towards the mainland Chinese (tangential to this, many Taiwanese and Hongkongers resent the mainland Chinese tourists for the same reason). And personally, the first time I visited Shanghai and rode the Metro, experiencing how unruly (from a Singaporean perspective) the commuters were was a bit of a culture shock.

If you'd prefer, we can explicitly say that the situation is similar to most major Western cities. The dog2 (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: I vaguely recall you saying in a comment some time back that you've been to Singapore before. As a New Yorker, could you please provide a second opinion whether my comparative assessment of Singapore and New York City is accurate? The dog2 (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The most explicit thing is just to describe how things are. Comparisons are not necessary, because this article is about Singapore, and not everyone who reads it will have been on the Shanghai Metro or the NYC Subway. We don't all have the same frame of reference, so let's just state what the situation on the MRT is and leave it at that.

And for what it's worth, the MRT made the rickety old Tube look like a pile of crap to me back then, and when the Jubilee line extension opened with its steel stations and glass platform-edge doors, it seemed to me inspired by Singapore. But the crowds I don't remember. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm making comparisons here just to put things in perspective. I'm not suggesting we put all of it in the article. But I do think simply stating that there is a lot of pushing and shoving in the MRT can be misleading. The fact of the matter is, if you try to push and wrestle while sprinting for the seats like people do in Shanghai or Beijing, you are very likely to offend local people in Singapore, and people will think that you are uncivilised. At the very least, you will be drawing stares and whispers to yourself, and if you are unlucky, you might even get told off by a local. Therefore, I would say just don't do it. Likewise, not letting people off before you board will make you look rude and inconsiderate. So my advice if you don't want to stick out like a sore thumb is to behave just like how a normal local person would on the Tube or any other system in the Western world. The dog2 (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Since you pinged me: I spent like 2 days in Singapore in 1976 and don’t remember riding any trains there, so I have nothing to add to this discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK, the MRT wasn't built until 1987, so you wouldn't know then. The dog2 (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, to move forward on this, if nobody objects within 24 hours, I'll go ahead and delete the paragraph. The dog2 (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Deleted, but if anybody wants to protest the deletion, please feel free to ping me and reopen the debate. The dog2 (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Champion.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@The dog2: it looks like you added the formatting box indicating that the 12-hour clock should be used in Singapore articles. Looking through the discussions here, I see one from 2013 that decided that the 24-hour clock should be used. I haven't been to Singapore, so on have direct knowledge. What should we do, given the 2013 discussion? Ground Zero (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Local knowledge trumps the opinion of the 118 / Alice abuser (before your time, I believe) any day of the week and twice on Sundays. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Generally, we only use the 24-hour clock in the military. Outside of that, the 12-hour clock is more common. The dog2 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good to have that confirmation. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have seen a bit of back and forth about which title to use for Kim Jong Un and Xi Jinping. Why not just use "leader"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Kim is called "leader" and Xi is called "president", per their most common titles in English. Similarly, we don't call Trump "the American leader" or Yew "the late Singaporean leader". The various edit summaries given as arguments by the IP user(s) were irrelevant to Wikivoyage and didn't address or acknowledge comments made by me and others. As an unrelated aside, I note with a sense of irony that of the four politicians discussed, only Yew ever demonstrated any notable leadership qualities. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

During the Hu Jintao era, Hu was the leader but not the president. Calling Xi the "President" of China is a bit misleading. After all, the President of Germany isn't the one who decides policy, either. Also, the U.S. is (not yet, anyway) not a single party state where party and state positions are intermixed like you can see in China, North Korea or Bavaria... Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) This is a constant source of disagreement both here and on Wikipedia. For China, the issue as I understand it is that legally "president" is a ceremonial title and Xi's political power derives from other positions that he holds concurrently. Ultimately it doesn't matter much which term we use, because anyone who cares about the difference already knows the details. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I suppose from the traveller's perspective "leader" may be a bit clearer than "president". "President" tends to confuse travellers and their hosts in China, because its usual translation is 总统 zǒngtǒng, but in this case it means 主席 zhǔxí. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

W:President of the People's Republic of China. Legal and ceremonial titles and powers aside, Xi is most commonly described in English as President. The travellers in question are visiting Singapore, not China.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hu Jintao was the president of China. It was Deng Xiaoping who never formally assumed the position of president even though he was the de facto head of government. But anyway, Xi Jinping is indeed the president of China, and that's how he's most commonly described. Technicalities about which position actually holds power aren't important for a travel guide. And as ThunderingTyphoons! said, this article is about Singapore, not China, and we don't even cover details about Chinese politics in the China article. Therefore, let's just keep things simple and refer to Xi Jinping using the most common English description, and leave the details on where Xi derives his power from for political blogs or some other site more suited for that. Likewise, Ma Ying-jeou was technically the "President of the Republic of China", as is Tsai Ing-wen today. But we just use the term "Taiwanese president" because that is indeed the most common way they are described in English, regardless of what their official title. The dog2 (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Singapore to Introduce New Visa to Draw Top Global Tech Talent Pashley (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Volocopter sells out its first tourist eVTOL flights in Singapore Pashley (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Here's some news coming out of Singapore: [1]. I wonder if in the West, there are any laws that say that only female officers may restrain or arrest a woman. The dog2 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Definitely no such laws in any U.S. jurisdiction that I've ever heard of. Only same-sex officers are supposed to strip-search suspects or convicts in custody, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Would we be using British English here, or Singaporean English? There's a couple of words in en-SG and en-MY that rather follow US usage like underpass, to rent, pickup truck etc. While it's really not a big difference, unlike what we did with Irish English where there's little difference, en-SG actually has some differences with language and terms used. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Vocabulary often differs even within a country. English spelling tends to fall into two large buckets, US and UK, with minor differences in the Commonwealth countries. Specifying British English in the "Formatting and language conventions" formatbox dictates spelling alone, not choice of words. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps look at Talk:New Zealand. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is there a way to get rid of the grey markers on the dynamic map? I remember there was a discussion about those, but I can't remember when that was, but I propose to remove the MRT networks from the dynamic map – the grey markers are distracting and many districts are hidden from the dynamic map. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Some articles, e.g. Shanghai, have colour codes for metro lines mentioned in text, e.g.

Line  7  comes in from the north, crosses line  2  at Jing'an Temple, intersects line  1  at Changshu Road, ...

Would this be worth doing for Singapore, e.g. make mentions of NE line purple? The code an editor uses is fairly simple, e.g. {{rint|shanghai|7}}, but I do not know what would need to be done to make that work. Pashley (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I used my Mastercard debit card, issued by my Thai bank, for check-in and check-out with MRT rides. A few seconds after the check-out of my first ride, I got an SMS from my bank telling me that MRT had taken 2.74 baht (S$0.10) from my account. All later rides did not give these messages, and no money was taken from my account. At first I thought that after midnight the total of the day would be taken, but that did not happen. Then I thought when I have not used MRT for one or some days, the total of all rides will be taken, but also that did not happen. End of the month (Januari 2024) also did not function as time to take the money. Does anybody know when the money will be taken from my account? FredTC (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

On 7-2-2024 my bank account was charged 294,88 baht (S$11.13 at the exchange rate of an app I have) and the initial taken 2.74 baht were returned. I made a total of 8 local city rides and 1 long ride to the airport. On 7-2-2024 there were 7 days with no rides, since my departure on 30-1-2024.

Should this procedure be mentioned in the article? Maybe it is important to know that my bank account is a Thai bank account and Singapore and Thailand are both ASEAN countries.--FredTC (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This behavior (small deposit at first, full payment later) happens everywhere in the world if you use a credit/debit card to pay for public transport. How long it takes depends on your bank. Jpatokal (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article currently says "The cards are valid for five years so if you cards approaching their expiration date, you can exchange them for new cards at $3 (until 31st December 2023)." How should this be updated? What is the current policy on exchanging cards for new ones before they expire? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Based on this article I believe as long as it’s expiring in the current year it can be exchanged at the reduced fee. JamersonK (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Since these keep getting censored:

• The Sling is objectively "sickly sweet", it was designed for respectable English ladies with weak constitutions
• Slings exists only in hotel bars, you will never ever see one at a hawker centre or drinking holes frequented by locals

Also, Wikivoyage:Tone, we're not an encyclopedia. Jpatokal (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

As a local, I would agree that it's not something people immediately think of when they want to get a drink. The only time I've had a Singapore sling is when bringing foreign friends to Raffles Hotel to try it. The dog2 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Singapore#Customs requirements now says:

"The 9% goods and services tax (GST) is levied on all other imported goods (except those subject to excise and duty). There is a $500 GST relief for travellers who stayed 48 hours or longer outside Singapore, and a $100 relief for those who stayed shorter. In addition to on-the-spot declaration and payment at border checkpoints, you can declare goods and pay GST through Customs@SG Web Application and show the receipt to customs officers."

There is no mention in that section on what is meant by "import". Those who intend to import things by the everyday meaning of the word shouldn't use our advice. So what is this import about? Hardly your clothes or even your jewellery. For the latter, you might need to declare them and have them with you when leaving the country, but most of your luggage should neither need declaration nor paying.

Are there specific things, or items over some stated value, that you need to pay this tax on when bringing them into the country? Or is this for residents who bring things they bought abroad?

–LPfi (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It applies to everybody, but only matters for goods that will stay in Singapore. IRAS: "If you are a bona fide traveller (excluding holders of work permits, employment passes, student passes, dependent passes or long-term passes), you will be given GST relief on new articles, souvenirs, gifts and food preparations that you bring into Singapore which are for your personal use. The relief does not apply to intoxicating liquor and tobacco, as well as goods imported for commercial purposes."

FWIW, this is pretty much universal, I'm not sure we need to call out Singapore specifically. It's meant to catch people who are importing tons of products for resale. Jpatokal (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's more or less what I thought. It is covered in Travel basics and Border crossing, hopefully well enough. Those who are subject to the import tax should check it separately (both Singaporeans on shopping trips and those in the import business), our telling about it is confusing, making the impression that Singapore stands out in this regard. I'll remove the paragraph. –LPfi (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

One of the world's smallest countries by area has the longest country article in all of Wikivoyage. Does anyone think that this serves travellers? Or is it just here to serve editors who want to keep adding a line here or a line there, and excessive detail about everything they can think of? Travellers would be better served by going to their local library and getting a guide book on Singapore that has been edited to be concise, instead of wading through this mountain of text. Ground Zero (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is interesting that this article was upgraded to star status in 2006 when it was 83,000 bytes long. It now weighs in at 274,000 bytes. Ground Zero (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, unlike most countries Singapore is a city-statw that has no regions or cities, just a few districts.

I do agree the article should go on a bit of a diet and I've had my eye on some of the more excessive bits like the tables of every single bus to JB for a while now. Asamboi (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree it's absolutely absurd that this article is now even longer than the Japan article. I'm a bit sympathetic given that this is a city article as well, but it does need to be cut down. //shb (t | c | m) 12:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

8k down, 266k left to go... Asamboi (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Great start, Asamboi! //shb (t | c | m) 13:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for starting to cut thus down, Asamboi. As a large city, it does have district articles that can take sme of the content. Ground Zero (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I have moved a couple of large sections of text into standalone articles where the topics can continue to be expanded without providing excessive weight to them in the nation-level article. I know it will be tempt to continue to add stuff in -- just a few words here, an extra sentence there -- but the Singapore article is still longer than the China article. China has 233 times more people, and has an area 13,000 times bigger.

Don't tell me that Singapore is "special" and needs an article that is too big and unwieldy to be useful for travellers. It isn't and it doesn't. Please help write this article for travellers by making it a concise snapshot of what to expect in going to Singapore, instead of a massive, sprawling encyclopedic compendium of every thing there is to know about Singapore. Ground Zero (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's not special but as a city-state, the country article would need to include some information that is usually farmed off to the individual city articles for other larger countries. The dog2 (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just as information can be branched off to topic articles and district articles, as I've just proven. Ground Zero (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think it's better to branch off to topic articles than delete content outright. It's easy for people to click "main article" if they want more specific info, or scroll past and avoid the clutter if they don't. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 03:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

To me, it seems the most bloated section by far is "Eat". The other sections seem reasonable.

We already have an article on Cuisine of Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei but to me, this is where the problem lies: that article just lists food items and by its very title is of a broad scope. We need a travel topic along the lines of Food in Singapore not just discussing the cuisine itself, but also what other cuisines are popular within Singapore, local food vendors, and how food is served (in restaurants, street food, etc.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 03:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

These days the fine dining scene in Singapore is very international. Even African and Latin American restaurants, which were virtually non-existent in my childhood and teenage years, have begun to pop up. But we would typically not call these local food. That said, there is a local style of Western food that you won't find in Western countries. The dog2 (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes! I think that could be part of a new travel topic along these lines. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 04:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest starting with a section in the preexisting cuisine article and spinning it off if it get overwhelmingly long. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

That article exists already: Western food in Asia (and yes, there's a long section for Singapore). Asamboi (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm aware of that article. I'm referring to the one on Malaysian, etc. cuisine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

(unsent) I'm strongly opposed to splitting off information into sub-articles.

First, a top-level article like Singapore should stand on its own. If there's something important missing that you need to go root around in another article for, we've failed. You can't have an article about Singapore that doesn't cover laksa and hawker centers!

Second, as the Eat section demonstrates, people simply don't find sub-articles, meaning the main article just grows again to be a shoddy copy of the subarticle while the subarticle stagnates.

Finally, I'm also not convinced there's value in having a short article for the sake of shortness. Information is generally good, what we should be focusing on is sloppy writing, excessive detail and advice from Captain Obvious. Asamboi (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage is structured around having shorter articles for ease of navigation, and so that when you're using it on the go, it doesn't take forever to load the article. We don't load everything there us to know about Luxembourg or Andorra or Liechtenstein into a single article, and nor should we do that for Singapore. Why make all readers navigate around a lengthy section of driving in Singapore if few (or none) of the readers will drive in Singapore? Ground Zero (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Actually no, it's completely the opposite: per Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals, making it easy for people to access content offline and in printed form is an explicit goal.

Driving in Singapore is fine to extract, since as you correctly note the vast majority of visitors will never need that information. I'm more concerned about the suggestions that we should gut the Eat content, and I'm not a fan of separating out Shopping in Singapore either. Asamboi (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Per above, when the article was upgraded to star status (i.e., it was complete), it contained less than a third of the content it has now. So why do we need so much information here? What's so hard about clicking a link at the top of a section for additional detail? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

The only argument that I can see against forking off articles is it affects the ability to print articles – but a) we are not in 2005 and really need to move on past that; b) who is going to print an article for Singapore, where internet access is so readily available? //shb (t | c | m) 22:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't even affect the ability to print articles much. You can print the spinoff articles, too, if you want to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's also true, too. //shb (t | c | m) 01:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Beats me, but it clearly is hard, because the Cuisine article gets only a tiny fraction of the pageviews of the top-level Singapore and Malaysia articles. In June Singapore was viewed 60,000 times and Malaysia 35,000 times, while the "Cuisine of" article that's supposed to cover both received 2,000 views, meaning only 1 in 50 clicked through!! Asamboi (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

If readers aren't interested in reading a cuisine article, we shouldn't take up so much of the Singapore article with discussion of food. Ground Zero (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's completely absurd. Food and shopping are the national sports of Singapore for a reason. Asamboi (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

You're entitled to think that readers are wrong in what they are interested in, but the traveller comes first in Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't agree more, which is exactly why all key information (including food) belongs in the top-level country article, where they can find it.

Here's a challenge for you: find me any article on Wikivoyage where a "X in Y" subtopic article gets more than (say) 20% clickthrough. You won't find any, because — I'm sounding like a broken record here — people don't click on them. For starters, here's Finland vs Finnish cuisine, Italy vs Italian cuisine, Stockholm vs Public transport in Stockholm Country, Japan vs Rail travel in Japan. Even though everybody who goes to Italy eats Italian food and everybody who goes to Japan take a train!

I'm particularly invested in this because a large portion of my Wikivoyage edits are to food content, both sections in main articles and the standalone ones. If a standalone subtopic article exists, it's a neverending battle to stop people who have clearly not even noticed the subtopic exists from adding everything back into the main article. Asamboi (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

As an aside, it's real shame Wikinav is not available for Wikivoyage, it would show us exactly how users are navigating. Asamboi (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

But that's up to them. If they don't want to click on it, that means they're not interested in reading the additional detail. So why include that extra detail in the original article? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

The other possibility is that either they're too lazy to click on subpages, which is not our problem, or that the fact that they should if they're interested in reading more is not clear enough, which might be something we could work on if we could figure out whether that's a problem and, if so, what options we have. But I fear that the problem is more that people are lazy, so trying to counteract it could be a big waste of time. And surely, putting every possible detail in every destination article and getting rid of all subpages is not the solution! Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Agreed! Perhaps we could adjust the wording of the template, though. "See also" always sounds clunky to me. Maybe something like "For more information" would be better.

"Main article" ought to be clear enough when it is used. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would support changing the wording to «For more information» both because it sounds more natural and it distinguishes us from other sites better (both Wikipedia and Wikitravel). //shb (t | c | m) 03:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm finding this conversation extremely frustrating because I feel like I'm shouting in the wind here. Can we agree on a few basic principles here?

• Important information that every traveller should know should be at the top level.
• Subpages are fine for travel topic style information that's only relevant to limited audiences (eg. Driving in Singapore).
• Subpages are poorly discoverable and should not be used for important information that every traveller should know.

And if you disagree with that last point, I've provided stats to back up my view, please refute them with stats of your own. Remember, the traveller comes first, we have to engage with them the way they actually use the page (= ignoring subpages) and not how we think they should do it. Asamboi (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, and how do you account for users who will roll their eyes at articles with endless details? Doesn't there have to be an overview somewhere? How do you propose to achieve that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's some kind of difficult balance to be struck. Taking food as an example, it is fine to put restaurant listings in district articles & background material on the various styles of cuisine found in Singapore -- Malaysian, South Indian, Chinese, Western food in Asia, ... -- in separate articles. However it would be spectacularly dumb to have the top-level article omit discussion of things every visitor should know: there are many styles of food & some districts are best for each, & the food stalls are great. Pashley (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Has anyone proposed that the top-level article omit discussion of the styles of food, which districts are best for each, and the food stalls? I don't see that in the discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think those things are important to mention in the top-level article, though, but only as a brief (and truly brief) summary. My concern is not that the information is included here, but it's the length and detail of it. That's why I suggest we move that info out and write a brief summary in the Singapore article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's going to be complicated here because unlike in say, American and British cities, Singapore's government has policies that discourage the formation of ethnic enclaves. Public housing in Singapore has race quotas precisely to force everyone to have neighbours of different races, rather than ghettoizing the Malays and Indians. You do have Geylang Serai for the Malays and Little India for the Indians preserved for historical reasons, but often, the famous stalls for specific dishes are not all located in the same area. Let's say for roti prata, you can have one famous stall in the eastern end of Singapore and another one at the Western end, and they're often not located in specifically Indian neighbourhoods. The dog2 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply