Talk:FijiFirst

Fiji High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fiji, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fiji on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FijiWikipedia:WikiProject FijiTemplate:WikiProject FijiFiji articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance).

Party name

I've moved the article to FijiFirst - although the name is unusual (in not having a space), it is used by the media (see these BBC articles), so I don't think the concern about MOS:TM is applicable. Number 5 7 10:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is one source example, but as far as I can see, it's far more common for the media to write it with the space. Eg: Reuters, Associated Press, Australia, Australia, United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, New Zealand, Germany, India, Venezuela. Even the Fiji Times spaces it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There are plenty of other media that use FijiFirst, like Radio NZ, the Australian (can't link as it's a paywall site), Islands Business etc.

Perhaps more importantly given ENGVAR, Fijian media seems to use FijiFirst (e.g. Fiji Times, the FBC, Fiji Village and the Fiji Sun). Number 5 7 10:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Fiji Times comment which you added whilst I was responding (I hadn't seen any articles where they used Fiji First, but clearly they do as well), I had a look at the Fijian media in general to see what the pattern was. The results are in the table below, with a clear result in favour of the FijiFirst usage (the results for Fiji First would be even lower, but include mishits).

Outlet	FijiFirst	Fiji First	Notes
Fiji Broadcasting Corporation	17,000	308	Some hits for "Fiji first" are not related to the party (50% of those on the first page)
Fiji Live	22,500	12,100	Some hits for "Fiji first" are not related to the party (70% of those on the first page)
Fiji Sun	498	2,030	Some hits for "Fiji first" are not related to the party (none of those in the first page of hits are related to the party)
Fiji Times	38,100	31,400	Some hits for "Fiji first" are not related to the party (20% of those on first page)
Fiji Village	1,890	29	Some hits for "Fiji first" are not related to the party (50% of those on the first page)
Total	79,988	44,328

Comment. I don't think this is really an "ENGVAR" issue, since whether one chooses to include the space or not does not depend on a regional version of English that is adopted. Given that we have sources that use both, I would think that we would simply default to the way that usual principles of English would suggest that the name would be set out. I'll set up a WP:RM below and we can go with whatever consensus is on this issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FijiFirst → Fiji First – The issue of whether to include a space in the party name or not is discussed in the section immediately above. It appears that both formats are used in both international and Fijian media. As far as I can see, the "no space" version is more popular in the Fijian media, while the "spaced" version is more popular in international media. Personally, I feel that in cases of doubt, we should default to the regular English formatting rules rather than adopting a TM-style deviation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the clear evidence above from the local media, which I think needs to be given primacy when it's a topic related specifically to that country. I'm also not convinced the international media favours the spaced version. Certainly the BBC appears to use FijiFirst. I will do a more detailed investigation into international media usage tomorrow when I have time. Number 5 7 21:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What's good enough style for the BBC and the local media, is good enough style for us. We should default to the official name, unless an alternative is clearly used predominantly, or it's excessively nonstandard in style. —innotata 00:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support under MOS:TM. --IdiotSavant (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since i actually live in this country and got bombarded with adverts by the party for the past 6 months, i can honestly say the party is called "FijiFirst", NOT "Fiji First"...overseas/foreign media don't really do much "investigative journalist" when it comes to fiji, they just borrow from other sites..if we add the logo for the party, it would look much clearer..--Ste moc 02:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I don't think anyone is doubting that the party itself styles itself as "FijiFirst". But, of course, we don't always go with the "official" names of entities. Other factors can be considered and can come into play. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Ol’factory, can you point to guidelines that relate to the use of regular English formatting rules? IdiotSavant, MOS:TM mentions PlayStation, iPad and eBay. YouTube is similarly used in Wikipedia. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/youtube ,

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/playstation ,

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/ebay and

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/ipod are all classified as nouns.

I suspect that the problem of not following regular English formatting rules lies with the international media. This view might change if we found that the party had recently changed to the use of FijiFirst. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline says, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official', as long as this is a style already in widespread use". Also here: "For trademarks, editors should choose among styles already in common use (not invent new ones) and among those use the style that most closely resembles standard English text formatting and capitalization rules." Here, both are in use, so the guideline suggests we should use the one that most closely resembles standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, which would be to include the space. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the interpretation that the wording was put together as a noun and then other people messed it up. Sympathise with other view. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on FijiFirst. 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) 15:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology and positioning

Hi. I've removed from the infobox the ascribed ideology ("classical liberalism, nationalism") and political positioning ("centre-right"), as they were unsourced and rather questionable. "Centre to centre-right" would probably be correct, but it seems to me that the party's policy record and its manifestos make it a party of social liberalism rather than classical liberalism. It has implemented public spending on services and infrastructure for the benefit of the poor, which is in fact partly what explains its electoral success in 2018. "Nationalism" is also a problematic word to be used so bluntly and without qualification in a Fijian context. Traditionally in Fiji, it is the right-wing and far-right indigenous nationalists which are described by that term. A central aspect of FijiFirst's platform is the promotion of a sense of pan-ethnic common citizenship and civic national identity.
Anyway, those lines are probably best left blank until sourced content can be included. Aridd (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been several years now. Why is there nothing in the article about this party's positions, platform, or general ideology (other than single words in the infobox)? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]