User talk:Justanothersgwikieditor#top

{{ivmbox

|1=On 4 February 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Barbie Hsu, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 02:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

|2={{Ambox globe current red}}

|imagesize=50px

}}

Hello JASWE, I just came back for a bit of some time to spend on Wikipedia, albeit the editing was only on an on-off basis (at least for the time being until a while, before the year's hotly seen elections which I can't wait to help you out again).

Yes, thank you so much, I had seen the replies and I also noted on the user into the edits about the Major Crimes page in which something felt off for once, being uncivil and sometimes the patterns are suspicious (the user have always into mobile editing), and consistency into Wikipedia editing is something a must (especially the WP:MOS), in which the user wasn't into that either. I also noted that some anonymous users are acting like vigilantes.

As mentioned, I had no idea on how should I report to administrators or initiate dispute requests, because that in my accord, it is best that I will try not to cause too much conflicts to users of such level (something I learnt during the early years, but since doing so upon my return from hiatus), and I do not wish to create a confrontational scenario. Seeing this make me sick for other readers, so I need your help just for once, albeit that I want to learn something as well. Thank you. Sculture65 (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Sculture65, no worries. As editors, just try to remember we are not trying to righting great wrongs, using the policy loosely. Sometimes we have content, MOS disputes but usually we can come to a middle point. Based on the reply, obviously they have a siege mentality already and that whatever they have written is the correct way. Give the article a break, come back to it later when you are comfortable. I have many issues with the various Star Awards articles but I come back to it bit and pieces and avoiding conflict periods. We do not have to win all battles, make the comments in talkpages and leave it as that. I did not reply to the last comment because the reply is literally hindsight, copying my concerns, and continue to go on a tangent. Wikipedia articles can WP:WAIT and we can always fix it later when their fixation is gone or literally stopped editing. ~ JASWE (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Justanothersgwikieditor}}, I understand. See you into the elections. It is best for writers to wait for the right time before it gets better. Thanks for advising, and happy CNY! Sculture65 (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Ping|Justanothersgwikieditor}}, I know I do not want to bring back things up, but after some thoughts, I suggest on doing a request on Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for the major crimes article page, and continue to monitor or perhaps a good time to report to that user who always use mobile editing? Maybe this can help. Sculture65 (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::@Sculture65: You can try the GCE for help. Perhaps after their help, the IP editors etc might follow suit? While my English writing is passable, sometimes it is rather bad! Benefit of doubt is that these editors are following the current style and think they are doing okay. Nelson's writing improved a lot after we helped to edit some articles of his and he realised what is better etc. Let's tackle a thing at a time. Sometimes when I look back at my article expansion, I realise I need to be more exposed to other good quality articles to emulate style, organisation, tone etc. ~ JASWE (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Justanothersgwikieditor}}, got it (I decide when it be a good time FYI). And maybe it is good time to publish the Pre-election day events of the 2025 Singaporean general election now as campaign and hustlings are still underway, and there are more articles. I try to dig up the past elections as I am working on it per archiving resources and any news that writers may have missed out. Sculture65 (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi!

I saw you reverted my edit with good faith on Leong Mun Wai regarding the party name. You understood why I did the edit as per not needing to denote "party" twice in the infobox (as per Wikipedia custom and logical use of the infobox). I'll admit though, I didn't fully understand revert edit summary haha.

I'm just curious though, as you're a Singaporean yourself (and I assume you primarily edit Singapore related Wikipedia pages), would having party names in infoboxes of politicians and etc be better with the full name (e.g. People's Action Party), Wikipedia norm (e.g. People's Action), or abbreviation (e.g. PAP). I see for the Parliament of Singapore page, abbreviations are used. And if I'm not wrong, among Singaporeans abbreviations are commonly used to describe the parties (someone would say the abbreviation "PAP" instead of saying the full "People's Action Party" name). Similarly with how Germans would say "CDU" instead of the full "Christian Democratic Union", or "FPÖ" instead of "Freedom Party of Austria", SD instead of Sweden Democrats, and so on.

So wouldn't it be better/more correct then to list "PAP" and "PSP" instead of "People's Action", "People's Action Party", "Progress Singapore", or "Progress Singapore Party". I mean for Singaporean election pages abbreviations are only used (and countless other pages like Polish parliamentary elections, and some politicians like Giorgia Meloni saying FdI instead of Brothers of Italy).

I've already seen that user Object-Concept has reverted the infobox back to full party names of "People's Action Party" instead of "People's Action" on pages like Lawrence Wong and Lee Kuan Yew (though I believe it was previously the abbreviation "PAP" in the infoboxes).

Btw I'm not sure if the changes should be done in the Module:Political party though! (I have yet to learn how to use modules correctly in Wikipedia)

Curious on your thoughts! ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:@ZlatanSweden10. Hi there! Based on the Template:Infobox officeholder documentation, there is no indication that to remove Party if the party names ends as "XXX Party". Most Parties have their name ends with "Party" but there are some outliers like Red Dot United, Peoples Voice (not a typo) and not to mention non-English parties such as Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Singapura, otherwise known in English as Singapore Malay National Organisation. This is why I think Party is not an implied suffix (and rightfully) to all the parties name. I see your edit history and I understand your rationale which means your edit is not malicious and hence done in good faith. My edit summary is both automated and manual (aka custom reason if I wants to add any).

:Sometimes some errors are perpetuated through time. Somebody made a mistake and make the same mistakes in similar articles, someone else picked up the mistake and continue. Some saw the error and fix it but failed to find all and then someone else saw the mistake and follow through the mistake.. and the cycle continues. I am still halfway through updating the various constituencies result and format and I realised I left a lot in mid-fixes (case of one improvement done halfway and adding new improvement which leads to revisiting everything again... leaving things in half fixes hahaha. Luckily these articles got highlighted roughly every 5 yrs or so..)

:My understanding of infobox is that we treat them like the lead paragraph. Full names, fully wikilinked like you first encountered it (and also no references if possible). Personal experience for me is that I read the infobox for quick summary and I prefer full names so I do not have the click or hover to find out the full name of the abbreviations (so instead of PAP, WP, PKMS, SPP, SDP), I know which party it is. Parliament of Singapore might be following other parliaments' articles (example Bundestag) but I believe its to reduce length of the infobox as a party name might stretch to 2-3 lines just for naming it. I noticed now for Leong Mun Wai's article, he was preceded by {{xt|Dennis Tan (WP)}} etc in the infobox which should be expanded based on my logic as above (about infobox fully). Out of curiosity, I checked out some German (uses abbreviation) and US politicians (Full name but no Party) and noticed there is no standardisation on this issue but I guess we can standardise within a country~! If you are asking me for a preference, I prefer the full name as per above. If consensus says to use abbreviation, I would want to use the Template:Abbr so hovering the abbreviation will show the full name (example Workers' Party (Singapore)).

:For Singaporeans, for the political aware, they should know which party it is but for the international audience, they probably will only know or half guess PAP and WP and not the rest. I guess also it depends on the number of syllabus also. On a personal level, we usually call PAP by its abbreviation (full name is a mouthy 6 syllabus), Workers' Party by its full name (4 syllabus). The smaller parties tended to be spoken in full name for easier recognition (nobody knows what is PV but understand Peoples Voice or mostly by its leader, Lim Tean).

:For the module, I believe updating the documentation will do but this will requires a consensus and likely a WP:RFC. Auto adding Party might backfire for those using abbreviations as well. ~ JASWE (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)