Jump to content

Talk:2013 Southeast Asian haze

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

Update needed

[edit]

Please help to update this page Orangewarning (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a script to automatically download the values from NEA's website and stick it in a spreadsheet, the graph and spreadsheet can be found here :) Zhongfuli (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other things that should be added to the article:
- death toll. Clearly, air this bad is going to cause some deaths -- usually, elderly, frail people with lung problems. If there are no official government reports yet (and I can see that the government might be reluctant to give any, given the political connections of those doing the burning), at least there should be a statement like "No official government report of the death toll has yet been released."
- future path of this haze. Where is it going to go next? This area is normally a pacific doldrums area, but I believe now is currently the southwest monsoon season, so that haze would mostly move toward the empty area of the Indian ocean and eventually Madagascar. Or if it goes higher in the atmosphere, I think the prevailing winds will take it northwesterly, toward the middle east & horn of Africa. Will the ash, smoke, etc, in the air precipitate out over the ocean, or wait till it reaches rain over land? And will that be largely harmless, or will it have effects on crops & climate?
These seem like important issues to be discussed in the article. T-bonham (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...when the wind blows from the southwest, it does not blow towards India or Africa, instead it blows towards Singapore, Malaysia, Borneo etc. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 11:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not adding haze at Northern Thailand and surrounding areas in March 2013? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maracana09 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found a source from Thailand news that says.....
"Thailand are not affected by the haze from Indonesian wildfires". — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 12:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Does anyone will help adding The Thailand section? South Thailand had haze for today, and, in the unhealthy range. Thelegoers (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as I see the haze now has across to Southern Thailand, I will help you to update it. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 15:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the video is true that state the situation of the haze http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=g-high-u&v=EDgW5ujQy3A 183.90.41.24 (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found it too tedious to manually add the formatting for all of the Singapore 24-hour PSI readings, so I made a simple batch file to do it. I will be updating the Singapore PSI readings when I have time. Is haze.gov.sg down for anyone else? The NEA website says to clear my cache, but I have already done so and it still does not load :o Squc (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the website is working again.. Squc (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the government are doing some improvements on the website. Sorry, I didn't see your message. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 09:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, immediately after I submitted the first message I tried the website and it worked already, so even if you saw my message earlier you probably wouldn't have been able to see it anyway. Squc (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the citation for the first death be this instead of this? Can another citation for the second death be this The Sun (daily) article (should this website be used, is it a good source to use?) I am not very sure.. Squc (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the sundaily could be use to as it also appears as a news site. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 15:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be alert that another haze of the same year is coming. I suggest that this "2nd haze" should be written on this page in another section. Meanwhile, do update the page! Thelegoers (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

I think it's better if someone could put a "free map" to show the most affected area by the haze here. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 13:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But what's stopping us is that there are very unclear copyright status of the maps. Currently National Environment Agency and Meteorological Services Singapore own the images and according to their Website Terms of Use, all images and media content published are copyrighted to the agencies. This means that we cannot use it freely on Wikipedia or other websites. Hopefully we can obtain permission from the respective agencies before putting it up on this page. Hellclanner (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I replied on User talk:Oliverlyc. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 14:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a chart instead of a map. hopefully that helps better. Hellclanner (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They both serve different purposes. The map shows wind directions, location of hotspots etc. The chart is only good for showing the hourly PSI readings, and you may want to add another bar for the 12am readings. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right now there are maps from NASA and from the community, accompanied with tables and better charts. Good job everyone for contributing to this article Hellclanner (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To merge or not to merge?

[edit]

Discussion closed. Results are obvious, but will be offically released soon. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 16:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about this issue may take place again in the near future, depending on the length of the Singapore section. But if it happens, please start another section. Thank you to all for your participation in this discussion. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 16:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Official results
Final result: 8 / 3 / 0
Final decision: Merge

The following discussion 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.

I am currently discussing with Reywas92 over the merger of 2013 Singapore haze into this article. Here is our conversation on Reywas92's talk page:

Hi Reywas92, regarding the 2 haze articles, perhaps I will try to shorten the one on the S.E.A article then restore the Singapore article. This haze is the worst in Singapore so far, so I think it really deserves an article. Yienshawn would also not have created the article for nothing. Cheers.
Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 08:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arctic Kangaroo: I think it's quite likely that Yienshawn did not know that the SEA article already existed. What is the purpose of having a short article on the SEA haze and a separate article on the subset of that same haze in Singapore, when a single article can still perfectly cover the entire topic? The haze has set a record and does deserve an article, but the particulate matter in SG is no different than that in JB or Riau across the straits so it should all be covered in the same article. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 08:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, anyone who wants to discuss this or voice their opinions? Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 09:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is unnecessary to call for a Singapore article. While I understand that things are quite bad in the country, we do not usually have separate articles for each and every country unaffected. And info would have to be updated on both the Singapore and the SEA article. It is not a very large article (the SG one), so content has not been swamped. This time, I concur with Reywas. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would only be right to have a SG article should, and only if, Singapore was the only country involved in the event. This issue concerns Malaysian and our good ol pal Eendonehsia. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remain neutral on this discussion, but I think I agree with Reywas92 and Bonkers The Clown. Having one article is already enough to explain the situation that affect Malaysia and Singapore. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 10:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait for Yienshawn's comment before closing this discussion, since he was the one who started the page. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page is now a redirect that just links to THIS page. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I purposely did not revert it a 2nd time, as I did not want an edit war. But considering Yienshawn is the creator of the Singapore page, we will see how his opinion/reasons is. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, thanks for opening a discussion for this. I was aware of the 2013 Southeast Asian haze article yesterday when I opened the 2013 Singapore haze at midnight. I started the 2013 Singapore haze page because the situation was really bad and it hit the record-breaking reading in Singapore, also, the current 2013 Southeast Asian haze as of yesterday was lacking quite a bit of information in the Singapore section; hence I thought of just opening a new page specially for Singapore haze and at the same time, better update the page with latest data, news and developments as well as preventive measures taken. However, I wouldn't mind merging the page with this since they are of quite the same information. Either that or we can simplify the data of the Singapore section at the 2013 Southeast Asian haze page. Both works for me. Also, I would wish to thank User:Arctic Kangaroo for helping me to update the Singapore page this morning! Yienshawn (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have a Singapore wiki page instead than having all facts lump on this Southeast Asian article. Don't people want to see just about singapore rather than the whole of SEA?58.146.156.20 (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. They both refer to the exact same incident. It's not even a incident that derived from the haze (like how the Fukushima nuclear reactors failed after the tsunami). Singapore seems the hardest hit, but remember, the haze map (on June 19) shows that the densest haze is at Malaysia. We can intentionally place more emphasis on Singapore, but I emphasize again that Malaysia cannot be left out. Maybe we should get Wikiproject Malaysia more involved. Oliverlyc 00:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Oliver: Singapore's haze is dense in the newest-available map released yesterday. Today's map will have to wait till evening. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 01:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 3 supports, 2 opposes, 1 neutral.
If that's the case now, we will wait for Oliver, RectorRocks and/or Hellclanner to respond. If no response, will proceed to close within the next few days. Hope you guys don't mind the wait. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to highlight, what Yienshawn said and suggested was about the same as me. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to highlight that when I started the 2013 Singapore haze page, there wasn't the "preventive measures taken" section on this 2013 Southeast Asian haze page. So, if we decided to have two separate issues, I would suggest having a lesser or more general information on this page and then on the Singapore page, we can have all these details. As the haze situation will probably remain for another few weeks, definitely we will have much more news to cover on the Singapore page as well. Just today, we can even add in news that PM Lee said in a press conference. For e.g: *masks will be restocked, *Under 18 and senior citizens can just pay $10 to their GP for medical and MOH will pay the rest, etc.Yienshawn (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 4 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 01:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current results are hard for conclusion, so perhaps you guys want to find some reasons to support/oppose Yienshawn's comment at 1:59am, 21 June 2013 (GMT+8)? Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 01:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yienshawn himself conceded that the SG article (as it was before becoming a redirect) was just a slight copy of the SEA article. The SEA article itself is not so long that it needs to be split into other articles. Similarly, content from the SG article was not very long and merging will not swamp any useful information. The IP's comment is not based on consensus... It's just based on his/her POV. We do not do things based on our own mindset, but what is set out by consensus and similar articles. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 01:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect serves us well, it directs readers to this article. I opine that one sole article will do. Let's be bold and close this discussion. 'Nuff said. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 01:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I understand your concerns, but probably you should read his 2nd post again. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 02:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think the article is long enough to need a split, nor will it be. It's the same topic, so either the SEA article will be incomplete or the SG article will be redundant (or both); no need to update the same readings table on two articles, nor should readers of SEA have to go to SG to see it. The details such as measures should not be shoved away into a subarticle: they're still relevant to Southeast Asia. Keep it concise and together. Cheers, Reywas92Talk 03:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would still think that having a SG page will work better, simply because the Malaysia section here are not even updated that much compared to the Singapore section on this page. Also, why are measures taken from the Malaysia authority being written under Singapore's measures taken? Then again, of course, I understand all your concerns that the article was not too long enough to open a new wiki page. So, let's see how things go. With the current situation and news developing each day and SG government meeting the Indo government now to discuss, I would still vote for support! While we wait and see what others think :) Yienshawn (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I already fix that. An IP has put it on the wrong section. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 06:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks иz нίpнόp! Also to note, I have added a "Government response" section to name out some of the responses our ministers have responding to the Indonesia's minister comment. Do help to edit and expand, especially with PM Lee Hsien Loong response yesterday.Yienshawn (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 4 / 3 / 0 --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 08:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good stat to close, will see how it goes. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 11:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least the difference between support and oppose should be at least 2. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 11:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Arctic Kangaroo for inviting to this discussion. I'm rooting the merge based on the reasons and discussions made valid by all of you. It is indeed better to have it elaborated in the Singapore section and perform a redirect from 2013 Singapore haze to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellclanner (talk • contribs) 12:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 5 / 3 / 0 --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 12:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a while to confirm if all invitees have used/wasted their chance to vote before I close... Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 12:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I invite more people? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. You asked just in time as I was about to close the discussion. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 12:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge: although bad in Singapore now, it's reached through much of the area and there doesn't seem to be any indication that the haze in a particular area is more notable than in others. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 6/3/0 ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC) I wanted to make the result more convincing, actually. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 6 / 3 / 0
Bonkers, wrong stats. --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 12:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would still think a singapore page will work. Furthermore, each and every single day the government has been implementing measures. Just today, government will be giving free masks to poor household, also closure of restaurants, and the running out of masks. Definitely much news than just what listed here on this page. 58.146.156.20 (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 6 / 3 / 0 --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last call for opinions or comments. Gate closes at 12:15am tonight (GMT+8). Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am more inclined to think that the SEA page can stay as it is until it comes a time when the Singapore section begins to overwhelm the page, where a separate section then becomes more justifiable. And looking at the way things are going, it is quite likely that this will happen soon. But meanwhile, I think we need to consider how to improve on the Singapore section so that it can stand on its own as a full-length article. There are actually plenty of details which have yet to be fully discussed, especially in terms of international diplomacy and economic impact, the later of which is still..erm...hazy at this stage.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 8 / 3 / 0 --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last call for opinions or comments. Gate closes at 12:15am tonight (GMT+8). Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:04, 21 June 2013 (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.

Picture

[edit]

Does anyone have a picture of the haze that can be included in the article?

ihatefile007 (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Took one, added. ;) Oliverlyc 00:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poor writing quality

[edit]

The quality of writing especially in the 'international reactions' portion is quite substandard, with bad grammar, odd sentence structure, awkward word choice and incorrect use of tenses, conjugation and articles. This has the chronic effects of making things difficult to understand. For instance:

Agung Laksono, the Indonesian Minister for People's Welfare, called for Singapore to cease "making all these noise" and "behaving like a child", insisting that that Singapore companies that own plantations on Sumatra must be shared the blame

MJXcess (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be pedantic/not do it myself, I just find that on some articles (especially ones involving international subjects) a lot of non-English speakers or people who overestimate their abilities with English tend to make a lot of additions or changes, so I decided a general note about it in the edit page was probably more useful that trying to fix all present and future items one-by-one. MJXcess (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of all the Singaporean and Malaysian editors here, I request you to stop insulting us about our English abilities. Our English is generally not bad (other than Singlish), but as humans, we all make errors. Also please take into consideration that Singapore is a cosmopolitan city and that Malaysia mainly speaks Malay. All of us are only here to contribute and make the article better, so please assume good faith. Thank you. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 16:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about and where did I do this exactly? You know that spurious allegations are tantamount to libel, right? I would also say that because this is irrelevant to this article, this is the incorrect venue and this should have been posted on my user talk page. MJXcess (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that sometimes poorly written articles irk me a lot... But when I realise that the contributor is, say, a Bangaldeshi, I forgive him. While it may sound like an insult, it is somewhat true... Non-English speakers should better stick to non-English articles. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Arctic Kangaroo & @MJXcess, please stop.

MJXcess, I understand you have picked out several grammatical errors and pointed it out to us, and I thank you for that. :) However, you put it in a way that seems to "insult", for lack of a better word, our capabilities in English. I hope you can exercise a reasonable degree of caution so as to avoid offending any editors (to be honest, I felt a little offended and uncomfortable too).

As for Arctic Kangaroo, you should have put your words in a less confrontational manner. As you have pointed out, we should assume good faith. The problem here is that you seemed to assume bad faith here, and jumped to the conclusion that MJXcess is insulting our abilities in English. I trust that MJXcess here is also trying to contribute, though unfortunately he/she just put it in a manner that is a little blunt for us accept. MJXcess has just created his/her account, and is new to the community here. We should put that in mind before making any accusations. I hope you will exercise a degree of caution in the future.

Anyway, I hope both of you will be able to contribute positively to Wikipedia in the future. MJXcess, I look forward to your future contributions! ;) Oliverlyc 04:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Will be more cautious in future. I understand that MJXcess is trying to contribute positively to the project, but even though I was uninvolved with the errors, I was rather offended after reading MJXcess's post. But anyway, that's the past and no point bickering. We both have better things to do, so let's just move on. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 05:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia

[edit]

While Indonesia is the culprit for this one, it cannot be denied that they are actually the ones affected the most. PSI readings in the country have reached close to 500. We should most probably have a subsection devoted to Indonesia in the mother section, "Countries affected". Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually wondering why nobody created an Indonesia section in "Countries affected". Too bad I didn't have time to do it, since I was busy with Singapore and Malaysia. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 11:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While searching a source in Indonesian language, I found some Indonesian media that blame this problem to Malaysia and Singapore. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 12:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bodohs. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 12:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hate that too, plus when you read some comments on their news. Really makes you heat. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 12:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read that, but I will read it ASAP after I close the above discussion. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 12:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plus this, some of the bad comments you can read here. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 12:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The news articles were not infuriating, but some of the comments definitely were. Do you have email enabled? Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 12:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like "stop behaving like a child" (Agung Laksono) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Artic Kangaroo: Yep, but I doesn't always open my email..
Bonkers The Clown: Nope, but some of them really like it when Malaysia and Singapore faced this problem . — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 12:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well...never mind, not sure if it will offend you. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 12:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco: Singapore is enjoying 99% clear blue sky now. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 08:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 08:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I try to provide the data from Indonesian side. This is a PR disaster for Indonesian Govt. Causing fires and haze pollutions is totally wrong in all level, and the culprit plantations should be held responsible and brought to justice. My deepest sympathy for affected people in Singapore, Malaysia, and Riau.Gunkarta (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gunkarta, we also hope that the condition on Sumatra would going fine soon. Anyway, did you have the API readings for Indonesia? I try to find it on your government site yesterday but didn't found anything. It would be great if you have one. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 21:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indonesia do have Air Quality Monitoring System installed in 10 cities; Medan, Jambi, Jakarta, Bandung, Semarang, Surabaya, Denpasar, Palangkaraya, Pontianak, including Pekanbaru, Riau. However unfortunately it is not well-connected to the internet, so it can not provides API updates in the net in daily, let alone hourly basis such as those in Singapore. They have two public display of air quality of course, installed in Pekanbaru's main street, however I'm not there, so it is hard to get this kind of data except quotations from local news.Gunkarta (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source?

[edit]

The statement that Indonesia is the source of the haze should (must) have citation, or else, it's just a blatant accusation. sentausa (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But everyone in Singapore and Malaysia knows that Indonesia is the culprit. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 11:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But of course, I'm not denying that no source is needed. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 11:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paiseh. :P Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 12:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sentausa, Use common sense. Similarly, we do not cite the colour of the sky. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But wait... It is common sense to say that Indonesia IS the culprit. But whether it is Rumai who started it... THAT needs a citation. So the statement isn't stating that just Indonesia is the cause. It's stating that a specific part of Indonesia is the cause. And a detailed factoid needs a citation. Better wording next time, Sentausa. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was really complaining about the mentioning of Indonesia as the source of the haze. It might be common sense for Singaporeans and Malaysians to say so, but even the picture shows that there are hot spots in Sarawak, which is in Malaysia, and the satellite picture shows that the haze stretches from Sarawak to Sumatra. So, how can we conclude that saying Indonesia as the source of the haze is common sense? I still strongly believe that this needs citation, or at least, further explanation. sentausa (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, how can be the burning in Sarawak could go to Singapore, it never happens. Based on the map, you can see also where the wind direction goes too isn't it?. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 13:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, my bad; I didn't notice that the picture contains wind direction indication. So in this case, the picture should have citations so that it's not considered as original research. About burning in Sarawak can go to Singapore, I do not know; that's why we need citation. sentausa (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And while looking for the original source of the satellite picture, I found this at NASA's website, which stated explicitly that the haze came from Sumatra to Singapore and Malaysia. I will add this as a citation in the opening paragraph of the article. sentausa (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will put a source on that picture. But about the burning from what I saw on the wind direction, if the burning first start on Sarawak, it would affect Brunei, Northern Kalimantan, Sabah and even the Philippines will faced it. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 13:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There will always be bias no matter what... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA status, or even FA status?

[edit]

Hey guys, I see that everyone is eagerly contributing to this article, trying to make it better and so on. After a reassessment this morning, the article moved from Start-class to C-class. I just reassessed it minutes ago for B-class status, but unfortunately, it still does not meet the criteria. I see that this article is being improved steadily, getting better every moment, and it sparkles with the potential of a GA or even FA. So, should we just work harder, pour in whatever content or knowledge that we find/know, and work towards that goal? Cheers. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think we can talk about an upgrade when critical sections are missing. In particular...a "Background" or "Causes" section. Try referring to other natural disaster articles for inspiration. ;) --Huaiwei (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
??? But based on voting, you guys opposed letting Singapore stand alone...so how are we going to shorten that? As you know, a good article more detailed, the better. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 08:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you seriously not see how this can be shortened? Look at that list. You could summarize it with "Over the first four days the government and institutions implemented a series of of measures meant to reduce exposure to the haze. Most were focused on restricting outdoor activities." That's it. A lot of this is minutiae with no measurable impact on the overall situation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your summary sentence is best suited for the introductory paragraph or as an introduction to the section. You consider these too detailed because you do not consider them important enough coming from a small country, but to Singaporeans, closing one civil airport out of only two in this country is major. That hospitals are providing air-conditioning and public places being offered as "haze shelters" are unprecedented and major in Singaporean context, just to cite some examples. The list of items generally detail what some segments or sectors of society are responding to the haze, and one cannot assume some sectors are more worthy than others to be mentioned based on personal bias.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was an example; you could do a more detailed summary (key word here, summary), particularly as you are more familiar with the details. You see the pile of listcruft there, right? In ten years, will people really need to know that McDonald's stopped delivering for x number of days? This articles editors were talking about GA and FA; this is nowhere near it, and if you don't want to hear my suggestions then so be it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should have a causes section. Greenpeace recently claimed that Malaysia and Singapore-based organisations are responsible too, based on NASA readings. The blame game starts. Crisco has written an array of good and featured articles, so we should listen to his words of wisdom. Sometimes, less is more. (Regarding details) But I love my McDonald's delivered to my doorstep! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 22:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely. And if the nationalistic debate or blame game (God forbid) is actually widespread throughout the sources, it would be worth a mention. I actually prefer Wendy's, although the delivery is slower. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the three-hour chart could almost certainly be removed, as could the "list of PSI readings since June 17 that fall within the "Hazardous" range (ie. above 300)"; the information is readily available from the table. If one is available for Malaysia, so much the better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 3-hour chart provides current readings hour by hour, so I see know reason why it should be removed. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about Malaysia, that's not possible. Malaysia does not publish 3-hour API readings, only the 24-hour ones at 7am, 11am and 5pm daily. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current readings. What is important historically? That's what you want to focus on if you really want to reach GA. In the shape this article is in, it would be a fairly quick fail at the GA level. Give an overview, not a play-by-play. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is yet to be any historical significance as this is a current affair. Agreed that GAs must be stable and not an ongoing flow of information everyday. On the other hand, I think we can drop some of the readings and give the most significant ones, e.g. 401. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 22:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article needs a good cleanup. I might copyediting it when I return to the hotel. Actually typing this while waiting for a roller coaster ride. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 02:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco: If you shorten it, then the article will become botak. Then, why is a botak article a GA? And, people will become curious, want to find out the details. If you go and read the article assessment criteria (which you definitely have done so), some of the lower classes focus on saying that the readers are left curious and still wanting more content. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a difference between botak, berambut, and Cousin Itt. Compare, for instance, the section at Sudirman regarding his guerrilla campaign. The sources have every village he visited, but we certainly don't need that; we need a general overview. As I said to Bonkers, wait until information is settled and you can take a historical perspective. If you try to nominate for GA with lists like you have now, I won't be surprised if it fails quickly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind then. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or let me think about it. Is there any way that we can include many details and make it a GA/FA? Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I think Crisco 1492 was right. We should stop update the API/PSI readings if the haze are not affected these countries anymore. I already stop the Brunei one since the haze didn't affect the country anymore. :) — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...makes sense. I will go settle the Singapore part now. Perhaps you want to help with the Malaysia part? I'm getting a little irritated as well, keep on can't concentrate on adding content to the article with the hourly PSI updates. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I think based on the above concept, we should remove Brunei's table totally. Brunei didn't get hit hard at all. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree with that. But you should settle the Singapore first because if we do it at the same time, I'm worried if there could be an edit conflict. :) — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 15:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Talking about edit conflicts, I give you (edit conflict). Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we can click the [edit] link beside each section/subsection's header to edit, then there will be no edit conflict. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, by the way, could we make the Singapore table larger like the Malaysia one? I think it's too *slim*. :P — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 15:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Malaysia's table is fat because there are many columns. But if you are saying that the individual Singapore columns are too slim, I think it is actually that the Malaysia columns are too fat. BTW, is there any way to bold the numbers in Singapore's 24-hour PSI? Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, maybe. Eat to much ah. Mmm, I think you can bold it one by one. :P — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 15:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bolding part is actually not done individually (in fact, I am not sure whether it was done on purpose), so it is quite easy to make it all bold. I have made the first table (24-hour) format similar to the second one (3-hour), so they are all the same format and all bold now :) The only reason why it's fatter is because I added the legend below, similar to the 3-hour table. If it is too fat the legend can be split into two lines or removed completely. Does it look good this way or should it not be bold? Squc (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Squc for your help on that. Bold is nicer. And following what you did, I wanted to do the same thing for the Malaysia API table as well as the Brunei PSI table. But, heck, it didn't work out. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 16:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, the extra space on the right for the Brunei table is because the title is too long.. Squc (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No more extra space now because I made the column widths the same for all the data, resulting in a wider table. Squc (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the Singapore 24-hour PSI reading table collapsed, does it look better this way? Should any other table be collapsed too? Squc (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco, if I don't remember wrongly, all the issues you highlighted seem to have been resolved. Do you have any other suggestions at the moment? I will probably try going for GA/FA status after the whole thing has ended, which will probably be in a few months' time. Cheers. --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 13:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have things to say: The section on Singapore is still not concise enough and we still have day-to-day sentences, including unreferenced ones ("The good air remained on 1 July, with the 3-hour PSI readings, 24-hour PSI readings . . ."). Have you addressed the paraphrasing yet, Arctic? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the "See also" section is useless and redundant. The links it currently provides are already linked in the body. I'm going to remove those and just leave the portals if nobody objects. "See also" is for links that mention this article but are not linked in the article's other sections. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the See also section should just include links to the 1997, 2005 and 2006 haze. The rest can be removed. As for the paraphrasing, everything there is the best I can do already (which I did when adding them). That unreferenced paragraph of mine, it's hard to find a reference. I would love to include those tables from www.haze.gov.sg as refs, but too bad, they keep changing everyday. If you want to do the same for Malaysia with those daily updates, then it's possible. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reassessed the article and it looks more like B-class now. Feel free to revert it back to C-class if you feel that it is still not up to standard. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 07:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bedok picture

[edit]

Hey guys, I have noted that the Bedok South pictures for comparison on Singapore's section were taken of different timing. Though it works really good as a tool for comparison, one picture is taken during sunset at 7+p.m in 2010 and another one is 11.03a.m during the haze situation, I guess it doesn't make such a fair comparison after all. Also, the first picture kinda show the silhouette of the buildings rather than a full clear scenery. What do you guys think? ~Yienshawn (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should revert to the previous set (of which one of them was the bird of prey picture). Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 05:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't satisfied with the orignal comparison as nearly half of my photo is covered by the balcony. My focus was on the bird anyway and I didn't expect to reuse it for this article. I've uploaded a new version looking down Marine Parade Road. Hope this one is better. Cheers. Wolcott (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. It definitely is. Thanks Wolcott. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 05:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The {{current}} template

[edit]

Yellowdesk says it should be used only on articles edited by many in an hour. This article has been edited many times every hour (perhaps except when Singapore sleeps), and most hours, it is edited by a few editors, consisting of both registered users, newbies, and IPs. So I don't understand why he keeps removing it. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 03:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • My edit summary was intended to be understood as "many editors in an hour." At the time of my edit in the prior three hours, there were only five editors, and about three quarters of those edits were by one editor, you. Basically, at that moment it was an actively edited article, apparently without the edit conflicts and confusions that an article that draws dozens and dozens of editors at the same time, that typically make the use of use of {{current}} desirable.
    Yellowdesk (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Even though it has subsided in Singapore, fires are still raging in Indonesia and Malaysia is still hazy. It's only because not many Singaporeans/Malaysians/Indonesians edit Wikipedia. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 03:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have reiterated my previous point. The template is not intended for all ongoing events that are occurring in the world in the present, but rather, for those exceedingly rare occasions in which so many editors are participating that editors are conflicting with each other when attempting to place new or changing information on the article, and clearly that is not an issue for this article, at this time, as you indicate. Hence the template is superfluous and not needed on the article. Take a look at the guide for suggested use: Template:Current
    Yellowdesk (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Per WP:LEADCITE, statements in the lead need no citations unless deemed as controversial. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 02:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up needed

[edit]

The article is quite a mess. I'm seeing very close paraphrasing from sources and useless bare URLs as references (I.e. channelnewsasia.com). Also, please try not to use present perfect tenses. Just past will do. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing. Bonkers, if any of my stuff look a little similar to sources, sorry about it. I have tried to rephrase, reorder, or rojak everything as best as I can already. And, there are some stuff which you can't rephrase much/at all, if not the meaning will be different from the actual meaning (even a little counts!). --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check who closely paraphrased. For example, the sentence about Indoensia being "irate" at Singapore's demands. It's a close paraphrasing of the source (which isn't even listed correctly!) We could always use another term, like choleric. It's always possible to rephrase. Rule of thumb: Use your own words. If you really must lift from the source, at lease "quote". I'm not saying it's you, Arctic, don't get me wrong. This is to everyone who wishes to edit this article. IPs especially. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just find that some of mine may be a little close to the source. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then a good idea would be to rephrase it now. :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the ones that I'm saying "can't rephrase much/at all, if not the meaning will be different from the actual meaning (even a little counts!)". :P Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the sentences in question and I can help you. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too much?

[edit]

Just wondering, does anyone think that Section 1.4.1 (Measures Taken) is kind of too detailed? Hz. tiang 06:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 07:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ermmm, what's your opinion, AK? Hz. tiang 07:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a conflicting one. Personally, I also agree that excessive details are not good. Less is more. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hz.tiang, everything (including my opinion) are mentioned above. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 07:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do however also felt that it is way too much, but they are important measures which were taken by various workforces in Singapore. Since, we have reached a stand earlier on that we should merge Singapore Haze with this page, we should know that there will definitely be more details, etc. (Since this is the first time that such worst haze situation happened in Singapore). There are however much more measures taken which could be added in... So i don't know if I should continue updating the measures taken section, or just update it with really important news... Yienshawn (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It takes up too much space. Perhaps we take the most prominent measures, ala canceling all school activities in June, and re-write it in prose form. Should not be that hard. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and boldly edited it. I think the readability is much better now. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has it ended?

[edit]

When exactly will the haze be considered to have ended? I think it's pointless to post daily PSI readings if they are healthy only. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You stop updating the PSI readings when the readings are healthy and only continue updating IF the haze returns and increases the PSI enough to reach the unhealthy range.

RectorRocks (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Moderate is still alright. When I cleaned up the tables, I left behind one of the healthy readings, just to show that the haze has subsided. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering where are all the PSI and API readings, lately? The event was continuing and I had tried adding it, but later, it disappeared. I wonder if we agree to add them in. The Pollutant Standards Index, which isn't that link to the haze, however, had the readings and tables. 183.90.41.20 (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no point updating the PSI readings when it is in the Good range because there is nothing much to see and it's nothing interesting. Updating the PSI readings on the Pollutant Standards Index page is somehow not appropriate, because this year's haze isn't the only haze that happened in Singapore. RectorRocks (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continue here or have the June/July section?

[edit]

Should the haze comes back, would we continue on this page or split into two sections of June and July haze? (Yenwei (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Also, a reader suggested that we should add a before/after meteorogical graph for this topic. (Yenwei (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hee, the haze is back in Malacca, may blanket Singapore over next two days. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 13:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Arctic Kangaroo: Then can someone update Malaysia's one. Because I'm not quite familiar. (Yenwei (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

@YW: I updated MY's one yesterday, and will continue updating. Anyway, no worries even if MY goes unupdated for several days. The records can be retrieved, unlike Singapore. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Singapore can be retrieved, just that it is the PM 2.5 and PSI 24 hr, not the 3 hr PSI. Meanwhile, I think it is better to split the article into two different part on the same web, 1 (June haze incident) and 2 (July haze incident) 183.90.41.21 (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section for first wave and second wave...hmm...seems like a good idea. And BTW, our 3h readings are very precious! The 401 is not the 24h reading! ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M'sia API readings

[edit]

Is someone able to help me with this? I'm no expert in tables...and I'm very busy now. Thanks a lot. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And oh, it would be good to just update from 21 July onwards. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone from West Malaysia can update the table and also the other part as I'm also become busy start from this week. Plus I didn't always in touch with the news on Peninsular. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 16:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will stop updating API readings from Sunday, if API levels did not hit the unhealthy levels over the next two days. (Yenwei (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Latest update on API reading (5pm) was by me, because I was not logged in. As the API readings did not reach unhealthy levels and have improved, the July readings will end here.(Yenwei (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Just stand by for a while, Cheras in Kuala Lumpur reported unhealthy reading as of 4PM.(Yenwei (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Will update API readings again for the next three days, because Cheras, KL reported unhealthy reading as of 5PM today. (Yenwei (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, thanks Yenwei. Sorry because I can't help, too many works need to be done this month. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 12:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@иz нίpнόp: No problem! (Yenwei (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Will stop updating API readings from now. (Yenwei (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Will update again, should API readings hit unhealthy levels. (Yenwei (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

False: Singapore PSI readings cannot be retrieved.

[edit]

Woohoo! [1] ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks...I didn't notice at first that NEA still hid our precious 3-hour reading!!! ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er... I think your facts are wrong. But they hid the PM 2.5 readings and 24 hour PSI readings since they started calculating daily in 2009. 183.90.41.24 (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the readings during the recent haze in Singapore. :) ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updating PSI readings

[edit]

Can I suggest not adding PSI readings for every day in fully prose form? Adding a paragraph per day per country is really bloating the page with insignificant information that can be displayed just fine with a table anyway. Quite a few sections have moved into {{Overly detailed}} or even WP:NOTSTATSBOOK territory. — Reatlas (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, no one wants to add a line by line per day just for PSI and PM 2.5 readings. Who needs this page for the readings when they have the website, www.nea.gov.sg/psi ? In fact they squeeze up to 2009 readings in just a website but could we? 183.90.41.21 (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Reatlas: The table is not hourly readings. So, the worst APIs or PSIs cannot be shown. Anyone would be too lazy to update the Malaysian table hourly anyway. So, I think it's still best to cover it with text. Short, sweet, and trouble-free. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@183.90.41.21: The website is refreshed daily. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A "third" haze may be coming.

[edit]

On 18 August, there is a "third haze" with hotspots reaching 200 and above. Here in Kuala Lumpur, the sky is slightly haze. Anyone help to update this page? 120.138.91.68 (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User: Depends on either the API or PSI indexes that reaches unhealthy levels or above. Lastly, do sign up for Wikipedia, it's free to join! :)(Yenwei (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Probably the haze is coming. The first time I see dense haze. The west part of the Southeast Asia will be hit painfully if the wind direction is the same and the hot spots continue! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelegoers (talk • contribs) 13:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should we remove from the page?

[edit]

Wikipedia reports excessive content in this page, suggesting that the part "Countries affected" is over written. Do we need to describe the time lapse day after day? Probably not. Also, the introduction is overly written. Any suggestions to reduce the wordings in the page? Thelegoers (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 Southeast Asian haze. 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:

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) 12:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2013 Southeast Asian haze. 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:

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) 09:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Southeast_Asian_haze&oldid=1196646647"