Template talk:Infobox political party/Archive 1

Addition for 'dissolved'
Could someone more knowledgeable with the conditional template variabled please add an optional "dissolved" or "disbanded" parameter? I would like to use this infobox with historic parties. Thanks, dewet|✉ 08:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

New proposal
I have made a new proposal for an update on this template so that we can get rid of all the national "Template:Infobox National Political Party" and use this template for all of them, see Template:Infobox political party/testcases.

Some general issues that it would be good to have some input to are:


 * Should the fields, , be abolished in favour of using only the  fields? This is how this is resolved in Template:Infobox Country, and I would say that this is quite a similar case. There are many kinds of political parties that use different styles for their leaders, such as the "General Secretary" (not the same as Secretary general or Party secretary I suppose) of the Communist Party of China, and other parties who use one or more spokespersons as their leaders. Whatever the case, I think there must be some customizable fields for leader titles that are used in only on country (such as Senate and House Leaders from Template:Infobox American Political Party.)


 * How should the fields for international affiliations be organized? Should there be only one field that should be used for all international organizations that the party is affiliated with, or should we add separate fields such as ,  etc. as is done in the infobox templates for European political parties? Or should we use customizable fields such as  above?


 * The phrase "Political ideology" have been changed to "Official ideology" to point out that this field should only state what is the official, self-stated ideology of a party, and not what is the opinion of media and other outside observers. To use anything else than the party's official position here would be against WP:NPOV and will only lead to edit wars and disputes over what is to be considered a reliable source.


 * The "political position" fields that is used in templates such as Template:Infobox British Political Party and others have been added. However I would propose that this field is removed, as there is most of the times no neutral way to place a political party on the left-right scale and this is often very disputed and controversial.

/Slarre 15:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

variable on this template
Am I wrong or we have different variables?? see the two syntaxs at the doc page -- Andersmusician  VOTE  22:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
I have just placed a NPOV tag on the template. The problem is that the template does not allow for the existence of "Chairman". Could someone help sort out this template so that political organisations with Chairman can use the term as per their constitution, rather than using the inapplicable neologism "Chairperson". Ohconfucius (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

More wings
I would appreciate if the was an option to also add student, farmers, women and labour wings (along with youth wings). Also I think 'General Secretary' should be included after chairman. --Soman (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Leadership posts
I left only "Leader" among the leadership posts. If one wants to put other leaders, he can do it by putting these in the correct order. Indeed the "Spokesperson" is not everywhere a leading figure and in some countries (as Italy) the "Secretary" is far more important than the "President". The template is now as neutral as possible. --Checco (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Template causes rendering problems...
Could someone look at this template and try to figure out why the behavior like United Pasok Nunukragang National Organisation is happening? Try reversing the order of the infobox and this template and you will see that this template actually goes on top of other text on the page. Thanks! Livitup (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing major seems amiss from here... Could you generate (then revert) a version of the page that shows the problem and post a link to it here? Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Native Name Larger and Above English Name
I think that the native name of the party should be the larger name and displayed above the translated name, just as the native names for countries are displayed above the translated names in Template:Infobox Country. I personally believe that the name that the party officially goes by should be put above the name that has been translated into English. --Credema (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

About this disbanded parameter
copying from User talk:Plastikspork:

I think when the dissolution parameter is present it's obvious that the party is disbanded. At this case "leader" of course means "leader at the time the party was active". In fact a disbanded part has no former leader, it had a leader. These are just some thoughts I made just now :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that if a party is disbanded, then it should be clear that the leader is no longer an active leader. Perhaps we could change the way that this parameter is used.  I had seen some "former political party" templates placing the text "former party" or "former political party" just below the logo. The reason for adding this parameter in the first place was Template:Infobox Australian political party.  I agree that if there is a dissolution date, then disbanded is redundant.  If you want to remove this parameter, or change how it is used, I can add it to the tracking category, and change all transclusions if necessary. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  23:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You should ask Svick if he has any ideas as well. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we start a discussion in the template's talk page. I don't have the time this week for big changes. We are doing well so far with the unification. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

end copying. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The disbanded parameter is silly and it has broken a lot of existing layout, forcing leaders into "former leaders". I also agree with Magioladitis on their points. Sambauers (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case, I will add a tracking parameter to find all transclusions and work on removing it. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Transnational political parties
As there is such a thing as Transnational political parties, (see Category:Transnational political parties). I have added a country2 parameter to allow for this. It is an optional parameter. Snappy (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * country only adds three see also links at the bottom of the infobox. In case of transnational parties we can just omit this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Magioladitis has a point, but I nevertheless tweaked the code so that is shows the country name in the links for both of them and not just for the second one, when both country parameters are specified. I also fixed an error, when  was specified, your changed code showed links for it twice. Svick (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Magioladitis, I disagree, for transnational parties BOTH sets of links should be shown, pointless having none. Svick, thanks for fixing my error. Snappy (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the links section is a bit long if there are too countries. I added back in the pipes, but perhaps a more abbreviated version should be used if there are two countries?  How about reducing the number of links? Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  19:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine as it is now. Look at Sinn Féin, looks good to me. Snappy (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is Slogan?
It is very alarming to see that this template has no Slogan component. A vast majority of political parties have official taglines/slogans. Would'nt it be more descriptive of a political party if it's slogan is stated under the logo. Or second or third entry below it?  Hamza  [ talk ]  05:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, I added it just below party leaders. Svick (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviation
Can someone add an abbreviation field? Ideally, IMO, it would follow the name and native name fields - above the logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.21.103 (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Addition of 'Official anthem'
There should be a heading in the infobox called 'Official anthem' or just 'anthem'. This is somewhat self-explanatory. Willwal talk 18 June 2011 18:46 (BST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.202.99 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bottom links
At the bottom of the infobox, the links are fixed to follow the format: Politics of, List of political parties in , Elections in. In some cases these may not link to the main article on the topic. Could we introduce disambiguation parameters, so that these links can be changed? 117Avenue (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can always create a redirect with the name expected by this template.  User&lt;Svick&gt;.Talk; 12:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you can't. On a Canadian federal party I want to link to List of federal political parties in Canada and List of Canadian federal general elections, not List of political parties in Canada and Elections in Canada. 117Avenue (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Political position
For political position, I would suggest two subheadings: "Economic position" and "Social position." This would be much more revealing, especially with parties that do not fall into the traditional left-right scale very easily, like the Libertarian Party (United States).

Messages left at Template talk:Infobox American Political Party, Template talk:Infobox Political party, Template talk:Infobox Afghan Political Party, Template talk:Infobox American State Political Party, Template talk:Infobox American State Political Party Green, Template talk:Infobox French Political Party, Template talk:Infobox Historical American Political Party, Template talk:Infobox Irish Political Party, Template talk:Infobox Japanese Political Party, Template talk:Infobox Dutch Political Party, and Template talk:Infobox Dutch Political Party. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is clearly U.S.-centric, other countries have other dimensions than the American economic and social dimensions. Canada has the issue of Quebecois autonomy, the Nordic countries a rural/urban divide etc. I think every country should have its own dimensions. C mon 19:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why separate countries have separate infoboxes. Perhaps they can also have subheadings for those different issues. However, I think that internationally, there are two main facets to political ideology: economics and social policy (or three facets if you count foreign policy, but that is sometimes hard to place on a left-right scale). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Luckily I have got more than intuition to go on. Arend Lijphart in his Patterns of Democracy, a core book in the field of comparative politics lists the issue dimensions which characterize 36 democratic polities. The socio-economic cleavage is present in each one of them. The issue of religion and government is present in 22 of them (note that it is not present in the US). Divisions between language groups is present in twelve. Urban-rural cleavage in  8. The issue of regime support in 8 as well. Foreign policy is in present in 12. And post-materialism is present in 4. So I see no basis to include the social policy issue dimension because it is present in none according to this external reliable academic source (which is even named in a US centric way, in the Netherlands it would be called the ethical policy dimension, as social policy involves social affairs, the welfare state). And this also supplies a basis to use only one dimension, since that is present in every one of Lijphart's cases. Finally, note that the United States has been blessed with its own party templates. C mon 08:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with C_mon here. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 13:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So a good idea would be that every country has its own infobox, but leave this one alive as copy&paste reference -- Andersmusician  VOTE  22:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest removing 'Political position' alltogether from this template, this is extremly contextual (what is leftwing in USA is far right in Scandinavia, for example). --Soman (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's really duplicative to ideology and does miss things, including foreign interventionism. CarolMooreDC 17:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Language parameters
native_name should be coupled with a native_name_lang parameter (see Infobox bridge for example markup). But we also need something similar for the other, numbered, language/ name pairs. How can we best achieve this? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Official color" parameter
I propose this be changed to 'party color' or simply 'color' ('colour' for British English). Few political parties have an "official" party colour, for example many parties are instantly assigned a colour based on ideology. The two major U.S. political parties have never had any official colour and there are no clear reasons why either should be red or blue.

It's only a small change, but I believe it would be more accurate to drop the 'official..'. -- Peter Talk to me 23:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the actual parameter is "colors =", so all that needs changing is the visible text. -- Peter Talk to me 23:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The above messages were posted not by User:Peter, but by User:Hazhk


 * I agree. The parameter is in many cases used for non-official colours, and I don't see any indication or advantage for writing "official" colour. --RJFF (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just seen the change now. Thanks! -- Peter Talk to me 21:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The above message was posted not by User:Peter, but by User:Hazhk

Flags and colours?
re British Union of Fascists - What should be passed to the,   and   parameters?

The BUF has several strong pieces of graphical branding: their Flash and Circle party flag, the red, white and blue colours of it taken from the Union flag, and also their infamous 'black shirts'. So what belongs where?

Presumably  means literal colours, not colours in the sense of a flag. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Native name
This template needs a way for the italics around the native name to be suppressed. In languages that do not use our alphabet, we shouldn't be italicising those names (per MOS:BADEMPHASIS). Ideally, this template should use Native name, which should know how to suppress those italics itself, though that is not yet the case either. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * agreed. I removed the italics per infobox person, infobox settlement, ....  it is better to add them directly where needed. Frietjes (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2013
Please replace the code for header59 to data64 (i.e. header59, data60, header61, data62, header63, data64) with the following, which, for the parameters forming the first two pairs, removes the relatively wide gaps between them. (The testcase page, as it currently stands, shows the result.)


 * data59    =


 * data60    =


 * header61  =
 * data62    =

Thank you,

213.246.83.192 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I don't see value in doing this. There's nothing wrong with the "relatively wide" (actually not much wider at all) gaps, and it breaks the semantics. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviation 2.0
I noticed an IP users request from a while back went unnoticed. They have a point, party name abbreviations are a pretty important factor in identifying parties, certainly on par with logos and colours. Can we include this parameter in the template? Buttons (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * sounds like a good idea, what should we call the parameter? abbreviation? Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Buttons (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * added. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

New field: think tank?
Can we have a new field for the affiliated think tank? — Kaihsu (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * sure, why not? Frietjes (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone implement this? I am not familiar with template markup magic. –Kaihsu (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * implemented as think_tank. Frietjes (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Legalized
In some countries, parties were founded long before they were officially legalized, and both dates are important. Could we add the entry  right after  ? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * seems reasonable, will wait to see if there are objections, but if not, just add


 * label23   =
 * data23    =
 * Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll wait a few days and then change it. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Tunisian info needs to be updated
The info on this template page Template:Infobox Tunisian political party regarding the seats held by a party needs to be updated. Specifically, the seats parameter should be changed from Constituent assembly to Assembly of the Representatives of the People. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. Will do so as soon as results are published. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please change the native name back to the header
Please change the native name back to the header section. It looks terrible on some of the infoboxes now.Lmmnhn (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide some evidence to substantiate your claim. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * i agree with Lmmnhn it does look terrible, just see the infobox of Christian_Democratic_Union_(Germany) for example Dannis243 (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * just moved the bottom border. does that fix it? Frietjes (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * no, please restore to the version of 20:36, 30 May 2014‎ edited by you (Frietjes) before all of this happened. Dannis243 (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * can you be more specific as to the precise problem? Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * the problem i cannot able to revert to the original version myself, i do it but nothing changes so can you please help? Dannis243 (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * why do you need to revert anything? please be specific as to why it looks "terrible". Frietjes (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * it just looks aesthetically worse than the original version, this issue is obviously not about functionality but about what people thinks is looks better, whats wrong with the original version, your edit neither is what i or the opposing user wants Dannis243 (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * again, you are going to need to be more specific. I [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=Template%3AInfobox+political+party&rev1=610839692&page2=Template%3AInfobox+political+party%2Fsandbox&rev2=617372073&action=&diffonly=&unhide= copied the old version into the sandbox], and added a testcase for CDU.  when I look at Template:Infobox political party/testcases, I see no substantial difference.  so, again, you are going to need to be more specific about the problem. Frietjes (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * the english name and native name are too far apart from each other, please remove the space beetween them Dannis243 (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * which webbrowser are you using? in FF on Linux, there is no more than a 1px difference in the spacing. Frietjes (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Chrome on windows 7, but on it is also the same in internet explorer here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_Party_of_Germany is where there is large space beetween english and native name Dannis243 (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * added that one to Template:Infobox political party/testcases, and I see no substantial difference. there is possibly 1px or 2px more spacing between the two versions.  I also checked it in chrome.  if anything the version on the left is more readable, since there is more clear separation between the two names. Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like one of the issues is illustrated decently in this recent thread here. The text next to the bars reflecting parliamentary seat counts is not aligned well and probably should be centered with those bars, rather than floating towards the top.  I don't understand everything that has changed, but can what I've described be fixed? I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * i was talking about how far the results bars are seperated vertically from each other Dannis243 (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Folks... This is not so much a problem in the infobox, rather then in Composition bar. Try to fix that first, then you can try align the labels (using padding-top).  18:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Layout
After lengthy discussions with Dannis243 he suggested we change the layout of the "seats" bars within the infobox to that implemented at User:Huon/Test (for comparison, the current version of that infobox example can be seen at Party of the Swedes). That's basically changing the height of Infobox political party/seats from 1.3em to 1.5em. Personally I don't have much of an opinion either way; if no one objects, I'll implement the change in a week or so. Huon (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Remove "political position" parameter
"Political position" is contextual within the country -- i.e. a "center left" political party in Scandinavia has a different ideology than a "center left" political party in the United States. They only have any genuine meaning if you have an understanding of the political and ideological culture for the nation/region of the party's origin. It's also subject to much debate -- to the point where both the Democratic or the Republican parties in the U.S. have the parameters removed from their infoboxes. Shouldn't we acknowledge the pointlessness of this categorization and remove the parameter altogether? --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I completly agree! This parameter just creates endless edit-wars across hundreds of articles. --Soman (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. This parameter is unclear, uncharacteristic, uses politically loaded terminology, and perhaps outdated. Bcharles (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

We should definitely remove the "Political Position" parameter.
This is one of my "pet projects" on Wikipedia, and I've mentioned it here in less definitive terms, but after some more debates on the issue, I can say that I firmly believe we should remove the Political Position parameter, for reasons discussed previously. I figured if anyone could so object, we could talk about it here, or we could go about discussing its removal, which I'm not sure how to do.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. When I built the wrapper for Infobox Tunisian political party I omitted this parameter because it is mostly meaningless and sometimes leads to small, pointless edit wars. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 04:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. It is a rather arbitrary label, and there are a range of interpretations of this 1 dimensional scale.  The parameter "ideology" allows flexibility for a more relevant descriptor. Bcharles (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion was started more than a month ago and so far has unanimous consent. Is it acceptable to just go ahead and delete the parameter? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say go for it. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a method which all editors have to follow to reach consensus involing more and more participants as possible. Especially in this case, which removing affects numerous editors' work. First, I think you should have mention this "debate" in the relevant wikiprojects' talkpage (WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Templates etc.) in order to invite other editors. There is also the option of Requests for comment. Anyway, I don't agree with above arguments. If you bring reliable and independent sources there would be no "pointless edit wars". In additon, the parties' political ideologies (especially regarding the extremist parties) are also could be a subject of debate, based on this argument. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I know you're not trying to jump in here, but do you think anyone can even agree on what "reliable and independent sources" are? Try proposing one for either of the two major U.S. parties and see what happens... --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hack for nowiki issues
per this discussion at VPT there are now problems with using  in the various infobox/navbox style statements. unfortunately, thousands of meta/color templates use the nowiki tags to keep the # from being parsed as a list item. I have implemented a hack to circumvent the issue, moving the border colors into div tags. hopefully there is a simple technical solution upstream, and these hacks can be removed in the future. Frietjes (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_political_party
Can one increase the seats to 15 Braganza (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * sure, if there are no objections. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

More leaders
Current limit on leaders is 5. Is it possible to increase the number to 7 or 10? Some parties have more than 5 significant leadership positions.--Jay942942 (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

An RfC for you
Talk:Alternative_for_Germany Jytdog (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Module:Check for unknown parameters
Could someone edit the code (in this template), so this modules generates categories sorted by name of political party, or displaying the parameter it is sorting by? Farleysmaster (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * the category is sorted by the parameter name, and you can see the particular offending parameters by opening the article in edit mode, the press preview. Frietjes (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Deputy leader
I found an article where deputy_leader is used, but it does not show and when editing the source, there is a warning about deprecated or unknown parameter "deputy_leader". In the documentation it's listed under Basic Usage and TemplateData, but not under Full and in the box to the right of Full. Is it a parameter that have been removed or what's wrong? /PatrikN (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata
Doesn't this template use data from Wikidata? It seems to look like e.g. Infobox company, but when I tested it, it didn't automatically fetch data from there. /PatrikN (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Composition bar style
It is proposed that Composition bar, which is often used in this type of infobox, be reverted to a single-line style as in and /testcases. Please see Template talk:Composition bar for discussion. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Chairman / chairperson + chairwoman
Please add chairwoman parameter. --Logom (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with Italian version
I thought I'd ask here since this has higher volume and is related. The Template:Infobox Italian political party has a problem in all three articles that use it. The Preview gives the message "Warning: Page using Template:Infobox political party with deprecated or unknown parameter 'party_logo' (this message is shown only in preview)." However the use of the template on the three pages *has* logo= in the infobox. I'm not sure how the field is being mapped in the italian template, so I thought I'd ask here.Naraht (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * looks like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_Italian_political_party&type=revision&diff=766436723&oldid=337599254 you fixed it]. Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

still more wings
I have not figured out how to edit this template. Could some one add "Women's wing" after student and youth wings, as this seems to be a common entity. Adding "wing4" (and "wing4_label") after wings 1-3 may also prove useful. Thanks. Bcharles (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Added "womens_wing" and "wing4". Bcharles (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you perhaps add armed wing as well? Some parties have that judging by Book:Military wings of political parties // Liftarn (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Or it's perhaps not necessary, instead you could use wing1 instead. // Liftarn (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Double spaces being left after "Membership" field?
I just noticed, on Pauline Hanson's One Nation, the membership field's title is "Membership  (2015)", with two spaces between the words. Is that an error with the template? -- numbermaniac  ( talk ) 07:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Deregistered
I seem to have unsuccessfully added 'deregistered', which is necessary to describe the undissolved yet defunct Australian Democrats. Will someone please diagnose my error and sort this out. Bjenks (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed that as well, and it should definitely be re-added as it applies to several parties (at least in the Australian context). The "deregistered" parameter appears in the documentation but not in the template itself. Perhaps it was accidentally removed at some point if someone mistakenly assumed it was synonymous with "dissolved". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Political position (Again)
This has been a subject of much debate, not only on this talk page, but all over the encyclopedia, on the "political position" parameter. More often than not, it seems that this parameter is not very helpful as it leads to an overly simplistic definition of a political party, and in most countries, as far as I know, major parties don't have a clearly defined position and frequently bridge over each other (especially in two-party states like the U.S.). Also, the definition of left and right vary a lot by country: for instance, Americans generally see the Democratic Party as being "left", while many other countries would see it as a centrist party. Not to mention this parameter often results in edit wars and endless discussions (see Nazi Party). I believe it would be more helpful to readers to simply state the party's mainstream ideologies (and mention the minority ideologies of other internal factions) than to put a blanket position in the left-right scale. Maybe it would be interesting to open an RfC on possibly removing this parameter. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 October 2017
In order to add image sizing parameter, please replace  with

Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sandbox copied to live. Cabayi (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 October 2017
Change To Pages using the new logo_size parameter are reporting that the parameter is not supposed to be used. -- The Voidwalker  Whispers 19:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done (logo_upright should be used instead of logo_size per WP:UPRIGHT.) —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 21:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 November 2017
As per my previous request, can someone please add the parameter "deregistered" to the template. This is necessary because a political party such as the Australian Democrats can be temporarily removed from the official register but be working to achieve reregistration. (I.e., "defunct" is an inapplicable parameter in such a case. Bjenks (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I removed it from the documentation since it has never been supported. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 15:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at this and clarifying. The important distinction between deregistered and defunct can be simply handled in the body of a relevant article, e.g., Australian Democrats. It is understandable that templates of this type may achieve misleading oversimplification in pursuit of comforting brevity, a readily avoidable outcome. Bjenks (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 January 2018
Add data/label/tag 'Motto' to match infobox organization, as this is relevant and it would be used by most (if not all) political parties internationally. Thecurrentaffairswiz (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Disabled edit-protected request for now. This is a proposal to be discussed.  We shouldn't add new parameters to infoboxes used on a vast array of articles without being sure there's consensus in favor of it, or it causes drama later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to add "Registered" as an option? It would show the registration date the party was registered with the courts. Kj1595 (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 September 2018
Please add affiliation2_title and affiliation2 parameters like the current affiliation1_title and affiliation1 parameters. This is needed on the pages of Belgian political parties, as they tend to have French-speaking, Dutch-speaking, and/or German-speaking counterparts. Ezhao02 (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * change in the sandbox, but will wait to see if anyone objects. Frietjes (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I think the sandbox code can just be copied over to the main template, as I do not think this is a controversial change. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * okay, now implemented. Frietjes (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

deprecated params
thanks for cleaning this up. I noticed that has been deprecated, and according to the tracking category it isn't used anywhere. However, there are a number of lines in the template similar to. Should those lines be changed to look at instead? -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * per this thread, I think we can remove this feature, but it seems slightly unsafe to change it over to using dissolved. I think the point that it's obvious that they are former is a good point. Frietjes (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 October 2018
To edit the Template:Infobox Indonesian political party. The mostly-used title of the highest leader is General chair(wo)man ("Ketua Umum"). There are many chairs ("Ketua") under the gen-chair. For example, in their organization leadership (pages 3 to 4) submitted to the General Elections Commission from PDI-P. There are "Ketua" for different issues ("bidang"), for instance "Ketua Bidang Kehormatan Partai" (Party's Dignity), "Ketua Bidang Ideologi dan Kaderisasi" (Ideology and regeneration), and "Ketua Bidang Organisasi" (Organization). Flix11 (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Do you want to change Indonesian political party infobox to have "General chairman" instead of "Chairman"? Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Removing the 'political position' field
I propose that we remove the 'Political position' field from this infobox. The rationale is that an infobox should only contain uncontroversial information (the problem being that experts do not agree on what property is essential for being leftist or rightist), and that the 'Ideology' field already does the informing. See Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_27 for more details about this issue. I have also proposed this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. VarunSoon (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

When to use the split field?
There's a discussion at Talk:Aontú concerning the use of the split field in this infobox. Aontú is a new Irish political party formed by a former Sinn Fein parliamentarian. It has attracted a number of local politicians too, some from Sinn Fein, some who had been elected as Sinn Fein candidates but already left the party, but also some from other parties. So, is this a split from Sinn Fein?

We have also been debating this at Brexit Party. This was formed by 7 or so MEPs who were all elected as UKIP, but who had all previously left the party. If no-one went direct from UKIP to the Brexit Party, is it a split? Then we have The Independent Group, which was set up by 7 Labour MPs, but then a couple of days later also joined by 3 Conservative MPs. The article's infobox describes the party as a split from Labour and the Conservatives.

Generically, what are the parameters for using this field?


 * Should it include small breakaway groups or be restricted to substantial splits? Does split mean "split in two" or include "a fragment split from"?
 * Does a split have to be direct from old party to new party, or if there's a period in between where politicians leave one party before setting up a new one, is that OK?
 * Can a split only be from one party, or can a new party be a split from more than one party?
 * Does the split only refer to the party founders, or can it refer to early joiners too?

Obviously, we should try to follow RS, but RS are often ambiguous on such matters. Another option I rather like is to remove the field and let the article text discuss the matter. Bondegezou (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Deputy Leader
The deputy leader field doesn't show. This was only mentioned in 2016, and was not responded to. If nobody objects, I will add it below the leader. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  20:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I support your proposal. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 14:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Colors vs Colours
Is there a way to get the infobox to display "colours" for articles in varieties of English that use this? --LukeSurlt c 12:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like the infobox is set up so that if the parameter colours is used, then that is what is shown.Naraht (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --LukeSurlt c 20:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"Registered" field
Per discussion at Talk:Brexit Party and Talk:Change UK - The Independent Group, both these UK political parties would benefit from a way to indicate the date of the party's formal registration.

An attempt was made to use the 'legalised' field for this, but in both cases this was reverted because - at least in British English - "legalised" doesn't mean this; it implies that the group was previously illegal.

Any objection to adding a "registered" field (either as a separate field or an alternate label for "legalised", if that's what that field is for)? TSP (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

As proposed above and not objected to, please could a 'Registered' date field be added; either as a new field after 'Founded' or as an alternate label for 'Legalised'. (I'm not clear what 'Legalised' is intended to mean - if it means "legally registered", this is simply a language difference; if it means "no longer illegal", this is an unrelated field.)

This has been established as required for both Brexit Party and Change UK, which are currently using unwieldy formats putting multiple dates into one field in order to present this information. TSP (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * please confirm that the code on Template:Infobox political party/sandbox and the examples on Template:Infobox political party/testcases match what you are requesting? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * : Yes, thank you. TSP (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Okay, deployed &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * could a "deregistered" parameter please also be added to match the above? I'm not about the UK but it would certainly be used for Australian parties. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a 'Dissolved' field, I don't know if that would suffice? TSP (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 June 2019
Suggestion to add party ID-codes as used in major datasets (such as ParlGov www.parlgov.org) to the full party infobox template. e.g. parlgov = 1592 SSLH2000 (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ Two things: this change needs consensus, so declined. Secondly, is this really useful? It is very rare for infoboxes to contain information like this, this information usually is given in footnote-style templates such as and templates documenting Wikidata listings and such. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I closed this because the edit request was for the documentation subpage (which is semi-protected) but it seems like the request was for the template itself. Reopening as a template-protected edit request so a TE/admin can assess. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 14:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. – bradv  🍁  06:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Deputy leader
Is the deputy_leader parameter still in use? If not, can it be removed from the documentation and TemplateData? If it is, then why do I get a warning here (only shown in preview when editing infobox content)? ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 February 2020
Per MoS WP:OVERLINK "Everyday words understood by most readers in context (e.g., education, violence, aircraft, river)", change these parameters as follows (changed in the sandbox): to   to     to  --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * . "Religion" has been delinked. The other two are phrases which, in this context, for example a "think tank" that is specifically a policy/research institute that "performs research and advocacy concerning topics such as social policy, political strategy, economics, military, technology, and culture", might not be easily understood by most readers.  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 11:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to add "spokespeople" option
The "spokesperson" toggle does not allow for situations where there might be multiple spokespeople within a political party, such as in the case of Quebec Solidaire. Is it a possibility to add the ability to choose "spokespeople" and "spokeswoman" instead of the currently-existing "spokesperson" and "spokesman"? There is already a switch for "spokesman", so I do not see a reason why the latter does not exist.

KevTYD (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 May 2020
Can we get —(or should it be faction, singular; as with Ideology? Or political faction/s?) to be added to the template code? I don't think it should wikilink to Political faction, for we can wikilink it to several articles that are about party political factions such as Factions in the Democratic Party (United States), Factions in the Libertarian Party (United States) and Factions in the Republican Party (United States).--Davide King (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , how do I get consensus for this? Unfortunately, there doesn't seems to be many users here, but seemed to find it useful and we already put factions in the Infobox anyway, so we might as well get the correct code for it.--Davide King (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would start at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal that we change the ideology section to ideologies
The vast majority of political parties on Wikipedia have multiple ideologies listed in their respective infobox's. Therefore, it would be more grammatically accurate for us to use the plural ideologies in the infobox, rather than the singular ideology. Helper201 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would tend to disagree; a party's ideology is a single constellation of ideologies or to put it another way, a party's ideology is an amalgam of ideologies. One speaks of "party ideology" far more frequently than "party ideologies". Whether or not a party's ideological currents are contradictory is of course a different matter. :) Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to add Policies and Factions
What does everyone think of adding Policies and Factions to the template? Several parties already do that, so maybe we should add them to the infobox to make it look better and more uniform. My proposal would be so that Ideology contains only the actual ideology and variants of the party (conservatism, liberalism, socialism; conservatism liberalism; social liberalism; democratic socialism, etc.) and Policies would contain what the title is referring to, i.e. party policies that are usually put in Ideology (anti-immigration, civil libertarianism, cultural liberalism, economic liberalism, pro-Europeanism, Euroscepticism, Keynesianism, laissez-faire, non-interventionism, etc.), but that it would be better to separate them. For single issue parties, you won't see anymore Marijuana legalization in Ideology but in Policies. Maybe add Position (historical) too so that we can better reflect changes, especially radical ones, in relation to that.--Davide King (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see value in the option for a factions parameter. I think less value in differentiating ideology and policies with two different parameters, the problem you highlight here is more an editorial issue (ie policies should just be removed from the ideology parameter). Furthermore, creating a separate policies parameter will likely overload information in the infobox (and won't really add much to the overall information in the infobox that is not already covered under the ideology parameter).--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your reply. As I wrote, I thought of that because you see how political position such as Pro-Europeanism or Euroscepticism are put in Ideology when they aren't really an ideology, but it could be argued that they may be regarded as being relevant and importat enough to be part of the Infobox. I don't know whether it would look too overloaded (I'd be curious to look at it as an example of how it would look like, for we would have to put just one or two political position like Pro-Europeanism or Europscepticism, or Anti-immigration, Cannabis legalisation, etc.) as long as it doesn't split too much text. In that case, it could be called Political position while the current Political position would be renamed to Political spectrum. Either way, while I agree this addition may necessitate of more discussion and consensus, do you think that by now Factions (or Poltical faction/s) could be added already?--Davide King (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think some modification to make clear that "political position" refers to position on the spectrum might be a good idea. Adding a "Policies" field I'm less sure on. While it's certainly one way to cut down on unnecessary arguments about ideologies (I can point you to two articles that see frequent attempts to add one or more so-called "ideologies", and I doubt they are isolated cases), I think it will just cause more arguments about what should and shouldn't be included. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says infoboxes are for key facts, not listing every policy that's in the party's latest manifesto. Will it be simple to decide which policies are key policies and are worth including in the infobox? I think if it's even being considered then a few example infoboxes using real ideologies and policies should be created and a discussion take place somewhere like the village pump. There doesn't seem to be much traffic here, and a proposal that's going to cause lots of drama across virtually every article about current (and to a lesser extent, historical) political parties from every country would ideally need lots of eyes on it. FDW777 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comment. I agree about Political position which could simply be renamed Political spectrum. As I stated elsewhere, my proposal is to name that Political position where we can add things like Anti-clericalism, Anti-immigration, British unionism, Christian left, Euroscepticism, Laissez-faire, Monarchism, Pro-Europeanism, Republicanism, Two-state solution, United Ireland and others which are usually wrongly put in the Ideology parameter. I simply assumed that there would be a fight on whether to remove them, so I thought the best way would be a compromise in which they're moved to a more appropriate parameter. Of course, I agree they would need to be strongly referenced and better yet to be discussed in the main body with all references there (the Infobox should be a summary like the lead), otherwise we would simply leave the parameter blank; however, I think it would still be worthwhile to add those parameters and make those changes, even in they may initially be used only in a few party pages which can be considered key facts, as you wrote. Same thing for a Factions parameter; many parties articles have factions in the Infobox and in some case we already have a Factions referenced section in the main body which discuss that and could be considered as key facts to be included in the Infobox, as you wrote. So we might as well add already a Faction/s parameter to not make it look awkward. Either way, I'm not an expert on this and I never discussed before on the village pump, so I hope you can help me get more users' eyes on it to discuss this together and try to reach a consensus or something so as to put an end edit wars.--Davide King (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we are some considerable distance away from a village pump proposal, so let's not rush things. I think an example infobox or two about real parties with real information would be a good starting point, then perhaps list it at Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law for some wider discussion. It may be the village pump discussion isn't a necessary step depending on how that discussion goes. FDW777 (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Davide King's proposal is worth discussing. The outcome might be more complicate and there would still be parties in which two ideologies should be mentioned (typically "Liberal conservatism" and "Christian democracy" go together). Indeed, deciding a party's main ideology might be tricky. However, I support adding "factions", while I am more doubtful on "politices". I hope this discussion will continue. --Checco (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comment! As for Policies, my proposal would now be to renamed Political position to Political spectrum and create a new parameter for Political position where positions which are usually put under Ideology would go there. I give you the example of the Libertarian Party (United States), where only Libertarianism and perhaps Classical liberalism would go under Ideology while Cultural liberalism, Economic liberalism, Fiscal conservatism, Laissez-faire and Non-interventionism would go under the new Political position parameter. Another example would be the many right-wing populist parties are full of Anti-globalisation, Anti-immigration, Euroscepticism, etc. which not only fill the Ideology parameter too much but are also wrong for the parameter as they are not really an ideology but rather a political position, hence my proposal. Of course, we may simply remove them all from the Infobox, but then we will just argue about it and I believe they can be useful when they are properly discussed and referenced in the main body and thus may require the Infobox to reflect that, too.
 * Another proposal I would like to see is basically an Historical parameters for Ideology, Factions, Political position and Political spectrum to reflect the parties which changed through history (again, this would need to be referenced and all, otherwise we will leave them empty; and indeed, I hope that would motivate us all to discuss it in the main body so that it can be also referenced in the Infobox as a key fact). For example, I think this would be very useful and helpful for social-democratic parties to reflect their Marxist and revolutionary origins and their evolution, etc., but for now let's simply discuss the above proposal (it makes no sense discuss an Historical parameters when there is no consensus yet for other newly-proposed parameters). Most of all of this is already reflected in many articles, but it looks sloppy and we might as well add the proper parameters for that (again, we may simply remove them for all party pages, but I think they can be helpful or useful and I idealistically hope that it will motivate us to improve the articles by adding a referenced section about it in the main body first). There are already some party articles which have a referenced section in the main body so that it could be warranted in the Infobox too, if only there was a parameter to make it look good.--Davide King (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * (Half) second thoughts: I fear that a "factions" parameter would replicate the problem we are having with the "ideology" parameter. What if editors would start adding each and every, not matter how tiny, faction for each and every party? We should have only main ideologies (one or two, three at most!) and only very relevant factions. And what if editors start adding faction names instead of ideologies? --Checco (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , there are always going to be unhelpful edits, so I do not think that should be a reason to not improve the Infobox. We would revert them for edit warring and not adding a proper citation. As I just wrote above, we would have to discuss and properly reference them in the main body first. Ideally, nothing should be referenced in the Infobox (again, you may argue that users are going to remove and add things, but we would revert them and explain them they are in the main body and they need to first get consensus on the talk page; this happens already for the leads which contain no or little references as they are all in the main body), for everything should already be discussed and reference in the main body, hence why it should be in the Infobox in the first place as key facts.--Davide King (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Add parameter for party organization
Examples include business-firm party (run like a company, by one person), mass party (having many members), cartel party (relying heavily on state funding), aspects often discussed by reliable sources. The organization of political parties can be a controversial issue and is certainly relevant to include in cases where it has gotten significant coverage in independent sources, for example Forza Italia, ANO 2011 and Party for Freedom due to their top down operations. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Country" function
The "country" perametre doesn't appear to be working at present, at least not at DeVlag. Can someone have a quick look at it? —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * it is working correctly. The country field makes the Politics of Belgium link (and the other two links as well) appear at the bottom of the infobox. There might be an argument that it would be a good idea to have a field that displays a more standard country field, but that's another issue. FDW777 (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , many thanks. I guess I was expecting "Belgium" to pop up as a field! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination
Template:Infobox political party has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 14:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Nomination withdrawn. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Nickname(s), other name(s)
Can we add? E.g. nicknames: Dems or Democrats; GOP or Grand Old Party; other names Jeffersonian Republicans for Democratic-Republican Party. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 June 2021
Add a new line with an automatic short description: <templatestyles src="User:Tol/diff.css" /> Thank you! Tol &#124; talk &#124; contribs 16:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ and thank you for that!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 20:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you; you're welcome! Tol  &#124; talk &#124; contribs 22:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What about ? This format already seems fairly common as a manually-entered SD. — Goszei (talk)  00:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Goszei: Sounds fine, though I would refine it to . You're welcome to improve it.  Tol  &#124; talk &#124; contribs 01:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have implemented this change (with an explicit space before "in", since it isn't parsed otherwise). — Goszei (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Be aware that if the party exists in any more than one country, the formatting and length of the short description will be a mess. See Rassemblement Démocratique Africain. A simple check would be for country char length; a better one would be a check for specific characters (like commas or line breaks). The easiest solution would be to remove the country from the autoSD altogether. <span style="font-family: Avenir, Futura, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination
Template:Infobox political party has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. ― Tartan357  Talk 04:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Women's wing
The page women's wing should be linked to. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ in light of lack of objections. Would anyone object to me similarly adding a link to Student wing? -- Tamzin  (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 06:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Thanks for the link. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This hasn't received any opposition, I think it's a good idea to link student wing as well. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * On WikiBreak at the moment (I say, answering this all of 11 minutes after your ping...).Draws a name from the TPE hat. ... Can you action this?  -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * & - ✅ given lack of objection after 10+ days.  firefly  ( t · c ) 10:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 September 2021
Create a parameter "governing body" as an alternative to "presidium" for parties that don't use that name. For example, the Democratic National Committee would go there in the Democratic Party infobox. ― Tartan357  Talk 08:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ User:GKFXtalk 14:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Some suggested links
I would recommend that the "leader" parameter link to the article party leader, the "chairperson" parameter link to the article party chair, the "secretary" parameter link to the article party secretary, and the "spokesperson" parameter link to the article party spokesperson. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 06:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems appropriate that presidium be linked too, given how unfamiliar it will be to many readers. Thank you! <span style="font-family: Avenir, Tenorite, Verdana, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @HTGS: ✅. User:GKFXtalk 14:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Membership year
Could the non-breaking space before the membership year please be replaced with a standard breaking space? Additionally, could no bold be applied to the membership year? This would bring the infobox into conformity with the much more widely used Infobox organization and provide much more room in the content column (as opposed to the label column). Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 06:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination
Template:Infobox political party has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. ― Tartan357  Talk 03:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 16:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 November 2021
Please move "secretary" above "governing_body". The governing body shouldn't be sandwiched between two names, as is the case at Libertarian Party (United States), because the chairperson is on top. ― Tartan357  Talk 00:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * just to note two items: 1) the parameter governing_body has not been added to the documentation (added by PIE), and 2) there are other such bodies that are sandwiched, the Presidium and the Standing committee, and there are other single names besides the Secretary that are below the bodies, the Founder and the Spokesperson. Just moving one single name, the Secretary, above the bodies does not appear to resolve the general aspect of the issue you have raised. Suggest you sandbox all this so we can get it right.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;-  ed.  put'r there 18:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Request disabled until code is ready in sandbox. are you still working in the sandbox? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can work around my edits that would be great as it's still a work in progress. Gonnym (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. I moved secretary up with the other top leaders (leader, president, chairperson), as a party secretary is typically a political leader and an officer, rather than just a clerk. I think spokesperson and founder should stay where they are as neither are active political leaders in a party. ― Tartan357  Talk 07:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 07:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Short description
, I just found an article with a default SD from this template. It said " Political party in India ". The link to the country needs to be stripped out. (the infobox had India with India wikilinked. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 19:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * . See German Reform Party. It will probably still be a mess if people use flag icon templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Flag size
A lot of editors choose to add a fixed image size to the flag parameter, contrary to WP:IMAGESIZE, because the template renders it 3/5 (0.6) of the default / user setting. The default image size is 220px, meaning the default flag height is 132px, which is incredibly small for a prominent infobox element. The ratio for the logo parameter is at a more reasonable 4/5 (0.8). I propose that the ratios be made the same. <span style="color:#757575; font-family:Consolas, monospace">Yue 🌙 00:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see Test 1 and Test 2 for examples of this proposed changed. The flags used in Test 1 and Test 2 have the two most common flag ratios, 1:2 and 2:3. For articles which currently have a fixed image size for their flag(s) similar to the proposed render under default settings, see Chinese Communist Party, Christian Democratic Union of Germany, and National League for Democracy. <span style="color:#757575; font-family:Consolas, monospace">Yue 🌙 05:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 02:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Deregistered vs dissolved
Just wondering if this should be distinguished as separate parameters? There are cases where regluations may no longer grant a party legal existence, ballot access etc, but the party continues to operate. Dissolution might be legally mandated or self-iniatied, whereas one would see deregistration as a legal process. (This differentiation would equally apply to the difference between registration and foundation). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 January 2023
Please add "wing_title5" and "wing5". Also, please add "lgbt_wing" as a parameter; many parties now have LGBT wings, but currently only "youth_wing" and "womens_wing" are existing parameters. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Thiscouldbeauser: could you make your desired changes to Template:Infobox political party/sandbox please? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Done, but I think it's pretty self-explanatory what I'm trying to do. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't understand why there is a need for a 5th generic wing title, nor why wing1 cannot be used for LGBT wings? You haven't provided applications of infobox political party where wing5 would be needed. Can you please show where you think it's required? (Don't really have a problem with adding the LGBT param, just have a hard time envisioning a party that has more than 4 wings beyond womens, youth and LGBT.)  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 16:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: no response from OP &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 February 2023
change the line:


 * label8 = Chair

to


 * label8 = Chair

Scu ba (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ @: I have added support for chairwoman. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)