Talk:2017 Austrian legislative election

Party Colours
Regarding the colours used in the article and in the plenary diagram, I see an issue in that the ÖVP seems to have switched from black to a turquoise colour (for an example see their website), while the colour in the wiki template is still black. However, changing the template colour would also change the colour for historical articles where black should be used. In making the plenary diagram I used a turquoise colour #66CCCC for the ÖVP, but what should be the approach with the rest of this article? Should we ignore the colour change altogether and change the colour in the plenary diagram to black, should we create a new colour template for the ÖVP which is turquoise, or should we just use the hex code #66CCCC in this article in case the ÖVP decides to change back to black? Tomiĉo (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you know if this will be a permanent change for the ÖVP? I'm fine with using the turquoise specifically for this election article for now (e.g. as with the orange of the UDF in France in 2007 versus the blue it used in previous years), but maybe we should just wait and see if it continues to be used for a while post-election before deciding to change it elsewhere. Say, wait to see if it's used extensively in next year's Landtag elections in Tirol/Kärnten/Niederösterreich/Salzburg? Mélencron (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know if this will be a permanent change—I suspect it will, but I don't have a crystal ball or access to ÖVP inner party thinking! As a result, I agree that your proposal to use the colour just in this article for now is the best course of action until it becomes more clear as to whether the change is permanent or not. Tomiĉo (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should use the colour consistently throughout this article, perhaps with a note saying why. As I recall the ÖVP presented a syncretic list of ÖVP members and other independents, so perhaps this should also be denoted in the infobox rather than just saying "ÖVP" with no qualification. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Austrian legislative election, 2017 result.svg
(discussion moved from User talk:Mélencron)

Hi Could you update the file ? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Mélencron (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But the light blue should be replaced by black. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree in the specific case of articles related to the 2017 election and possibly going forward, so long as ÖVP branding remains turquoise henceforth (e.g. as with the UDF switching to orange in 2006–07). Mélencron (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The logo haven't be changed yet. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's uniformly "Die neue Volkspartei." on turquoise; see official site, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Mélencron (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * neue Volkspartei is not OVP. We should wait. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why I specifically changed it in reference to the 2017 legislative election, for which the ÖVP (rebranded as Kurz's list) specifically used turquoise starting on 24 May. I'm not changing the templates permanently, but do note that this same color was used by the ÖVP for the municipal council elections in Burgenland on 1 October as well. Mélencron (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But the official name remains OVP. Obama also sported the green but the Democratic party remained blue.--Panam2014 (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No idea what you're going on about. I'm not saying the name has changed? The letters have changed, but I'm talking about the colors here. I'm not arguing that we should swap the ÖVP logo in the article because, as I've said, I'm specifically arguing for a change with regard to the 2017 articles, for which the turquoise was prominently used and the black was not. I have no idea what you're talking about when you're saying Obama used the green – first of all, that's irrelevant, as that's the color used by a candidate as opposed to the party as a whole which has consistently used blue in the modern era, and secondly I've got no idea what you're referring to when you say he used green for his campaign. When? Mélencron (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

For Obama it was in 2008 that the color of the candidature, ditto here. Then the OVP has already used other colors in the past for local and national applications. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure what "green" you were referring to when talking about Obama. If you're going with the color of the candidature, then it's turquoise, no? Bayrou/UDF used orange in 2007, and Kurz/ÖVP used turquoise in 2017. Your argument here isn't coherent. Mélencron (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Bayrou changed the color of the party. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, exactly, and the 2007 article uses the orange for the UDF whereas the previous years use blue, which makes sense, since the color of the party changed that year whereas it previously used a different color...? Mélencron (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For UDF logo and color have been changed, not for OVP. The turquoise is the color of the 2017 compaign. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition to the change in color for the party branding, the source page for the previous ÖVP logo leads to the page I linked earlier, which uses a turquoise variant of the logo, which as was noted earlier, is used by the ÖVP across all major platforms. And yes, that's what I'm saying – because the turquoise was used for the 2017 campaign, it is probably the color that should be used for the 2017 articles. Mélencron (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The logo is not the logo of the party. For that we should wait. The deutsch wiki use the black. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the apparent logo of the Wahlpartei and there's nothing that seems to indicate that the logo's going to revert post-election (does it make sense for the new People's Party to suddenly revert and become the old People's Party)? That logo, in any case, isn't in use by the ÖVP anywhere at the moment, whereas the turquoise one is. Erring on the side of caution, it makes sense to change the color used on the 2017 articles to turquoise (which is, after all, what the party itself submitted) given that the black was not used in the 2017 election. German Wikipedia uses the black, fine, but there are also editors questioning it for the same reason – it's not being used by the ÖVP itself and has been used for other campaigns, so it doesn't make particular sense to use black on articles related to the 2017 election when it wasn't in use then. Mélencron (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"new People's Party" is just an election label and the party did not take that name. Nothing says that it will not be abandoned after the formation of the government. It is urgent to wait. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you've gotten my point: I'm not talking about the party here but the election party – that used turquoise – which is pertinent to the 2017 election articles. I'm not arguing for any permanent change to the ÖVP article or meta template color. The ÖVP used turquoise in the 2017 election. Do you contest that notion? Mélencron (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On the infobox there is a link to the political party. However, this one has not changed color or name. Not to be confused with the electoral alliance. Finally, in view of the interwiki it is necessary to have a diagram in black. The other diagram is still in turquoise.--Panam2014 (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are mostly arguments in reference to other articles, which aren't pertinent to my concern, which is the articles related to the 2017 election in particular. Mélencron (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Only the official color of the party should be used. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but what if it changes? Mélencron (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We represent the color of the party because we have not an article about the list and the party contest as OVP. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But for the purposes of all election articles, the election lists are considered synonymous with the party itself, but that doesn't mean that one has to strictly adhere to the same methods – this is one such reasonable exception, like the UDF in 2007, which used orange as opposed to blue, and therefore that article uses the orange as opposed to the blue that is used on other articles. The situations are entirely analogous – I just don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge that. Mélencron (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

UDF have changed the color and the logo, not the OVP. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned above that that is not true. Mélencron (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So we couldn't compare OVP with UDF. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that the two situations are entirely comparable, contrary to your assertion. However, seeing as the discussion isn't going anywhere, I suggest that we can stop this back-and-forth and request further input, given that this case been argued about by other users as well (both on this article and the polling article). Mélencron (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I proved the opposite. But let's wait for other opinions.--Panam2014 (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the colour scheme used by the OVP in this election was just part of their election campaign, just as their use of the "new People's Party" brand. I saw a mention to the UDF situation in the 2007 French election as a comparation. Two fact because of which I think that is not a comparable situation: 1) Just remind you that the UDF was immediately replaced by MoDem (indeed, the 2007 legislative election held shortly after the presidential one shows MoDem and not UDF). In the French case, we are talking about a party in the process of turning itself into a new one. So I don't think it is comparable to this case, unless the OVP suddenly disbanded itself and became a whole new party. 2) That was a presidential election, not a parliamentary election. In these, candidates are what truly matter (and not just parties), so the colour scheme do not necessarily reflect the colour used by any given party, but rather, that of the candidate (orange has been associated as Bayrou's colour, both during his time in the UDF and in MoDem).

As black has been the colour traditionally used to depict OVP, we should keep that for consistency and simplicity. This, unless the new changes prove themselves to be long-lasting and somehow a "refounding" of the party or such. Otherwise, readers could be misled about the party being the same one as in previous elections, and this could be specially striking if the OVP stopped using turquoise by the time the next election is held. Impru20 (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Paraphrasing most of my comments from Template talk:Austrian People's Party/meta/color, where a similar discussion has been going on, I largely agree with Impru and that this is perhaps a temporary branding exercise akin to New Labour. I see de.wiki has stuck with the black, and as a result, all the maps use that colour; there was a brief discussion on the de.wiki OVP article's talk page which seems to have ended with a 'let's wait and see' whether this becomes a permanent colour change. This seems to be a sensible approach. Number   5  7  19:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Gap (caused by "clear") vs. scrollbar in squeezed table
The table "Popular vote" is squeezed to the left, gets a scroll bar (percentages are hidden), and is no more aligned with the table "Parliamentary seats". Perhaps trimming the captions of the files on the right, or making the table to the left longer, does the trick more satisfactory than my brute force "clear", which inserts an ugly gap to the left, but perfectly renders the two equally structured tables beneath. In my Firefox browser the files to the right take more vertical space than the table to the left does.

I am not familiar with the expected format of screenshots (I did a .jpg) to upload around here. Purgy (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you upload it to a file-sharing site like Imgur? (Update: I decided to move the maps to the gallery below the tables, but IMO the "popular vote"/"parliamentary seats" tables are a waste of space – it's easier to just include them within the main table itself.) Mélencron (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not feel very much like "identifying myself, subscribing, logging in, ...", WP is already enough for my taste. Furthermore, my pic would just reflect the trimmed, yet scrollable barbox, but not the "unnecessary" clear-gap, and also not the many new "necessary(?)" gaps, ... Whatever, good look for (re-)organizing the graphical information. :) Purgy (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)