Template talk:Infobox political party/Archive 2

Party position/ideology
These seem to be the most controversial parameters in this infobox, and frequently cause disputes and edit wars. I regularly (pretty much every day) see editors adding unsourced positions/ideologies to them (often when there is nothing to support that in the article). Can I proposed that we make it a requirement in the template documentation that these two parameters can only be used if sources are provided to support the information? This will then be something to point editors to when they keep trying to readd unsourced info. Cheers, Number   5  7  11:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I wouldn't be opposed to removing one or both of these parameters given the trouble they cause (particularly the position one, as parties can hold differing positions on different areas). Removing the position one was suggested several times previously (1, 2, 3, 4) and most editors seemed to be in favour (although it was quite a small number involved). Cheers, Number   5  7  11:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with such change. These two parameters are often unsourced in articles, therefore editors should know that if they do not have sources to back up the claims that they want to add, they should not add it. Whether they should be deleted is a thing for the community to decide. I think that a RfC would be the best option in that case. Also,, do you think that editors should be advised to not bloat these parameters with claims (doesn't matter if it's sourced or unsourced) that are not really needed? I'll cite MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE ("the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" and "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance") and WP:BLOATED ("Before inserting new material, consider its significance. Is this something the topic is widely known for?"). Or should this be left to editors decide on talk pages of the parties in question? This could be added to the documentation too, if it makes enough sense to be included in there. Vacant0 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen some infoboxes with far too many ideologies listed. Could a hard limit (like 3–5) be considered? If what is "bloat" is left open to interpretation, it will be subjective, hence the recent discussions regarding adding parameters to the legislative election infobox or whether to use certain parameters on certain election articles (where some editors don't see them adding/using more parameters as a INFOBOXPURPOSE violation but others do). Number   5  7  14:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You should promote this discussion on WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Elections and Referendums so that others could be notified of this discussion. Only 43 editors have this template on their watchlist. Vacant0 (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Spokesperson and spokespersons
Can some please add the ability to alternate/change the parameter of "spokesperson" to "spokespersons" for this template? This is for political parties that have multiple spokespersons and therefore a plural is applicable. This would be handy to add this ability to pluralise other positions as well e.g. leader/leaders, deputy leader/deputy leaders, general secretary/general secretaries, treasurer/treasures etc. Helper201 (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of color
I've kept off colors from Democrata Party infobox as no one knew what colors it used. The color blue we are usimg today is conjecture as the Nacionalista Party used red (while we use green here lol that's another discussion). Now, User:Vif12vf reverted me stating it doesn't have to be "official".

Is s/he right? Howard the Duck (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Guidelines for colors on this page state "The official colors of the party, independent of infobox usage". So who's right? Howard the Duck (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there is a difference between the colour and colourcode-sections, with the latter existing purely for aesthetic reasons. Most parties have a colour in this section even though most parties dont have such a thing as an "official colour", with the colour they use just depending on the colour in the party logo or flag most of the time. As for adding colour to the regular colour-section, which is not what I did, any colour added to this section should definatively be official, as it otherwise would just serve to inflate many infoboxes more than they already are. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't color and any colorcodes be identical, i.e., if the color is blank, then the colorcode should be blank as well? Otherwise that will sow confusion and that's not what we want.
 * As fot aesthetic reasons, this boils down to WP:ILIKEIT arguments, which then boils down to which is a more vamid argument, having identical color and colorcodes or having nonidentical ones with the latter being used for purely aesthetic purposes, with article not even explaining how the color was used (again, a violation of MOS:INFOBOX.) ? Howard the Duck (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Since most parties don't have an "official colour" per se, this would largelly render both parameters redundant. Keep in mind that for something such as a symbol or colour to be counted as official, it would have to be outlined as such in a central party document such as the party constitution, most parties do not have a colour mentioned in any such document, and simply uses a colour depending on what is used in other symbols such as their logo. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I know this, but there are some parties that do not have logos or colors, or were lost in time. This is an example of that, and using colors this way is inaccurate. We can use unofficial colors if WP:RS themselves used it, but if we have nothing to base it on, it is WP:OR, more so on an important part of the article such as an infobox. I can understand using made up colors for areas where colors have no substitute (such as charts, diagrams where other parties are included), but this isn't it. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 January 2024
Can some please add the ability to alternate/change the parameter of "spokesperson" to "spokespersons" for this template? This is for political parties that have multiple spokespersons and therefore a plural is applicable. This would be handy to add this ability to pluralise other positions as well e.g. leader/leaders, deputy leader/deputy leaders, general secretary/general secretaries, treasurer/treasures etc. Helper201 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Because english, it's weird to say 'spokespersons' instead of 'spokespeople'. Same with 'secretary' -> 'secretaries'. An alternate parameter could be used instead for the plural version. 'Leader' and 'treasurer' can both have an "(s)" at the end. SWinxy (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with having Spokespeople as an alternate option for spokesperson for when the plural is applicable. It’s just making the syntax or code (I'm not versed in the technicalities of such things) allow for parameters like these where a plural of these options can be used. There are parties with multiple spokespeople, secretaries, treasures etc. So, it would be very helpful to allow for the pluralisation of such parameters for when multiple people apply to the given section. Helper201 (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Detect singular is useful for this work. If someone wants to modify the sandbox to use it, that would be helpful. See Infobox officeholder/office for an example of how it works. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Primefac (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Problem with other infobox
Articles with Infobox Indian political party that also have publication have this infobox flagged as an error, eg. I'm not sure why this is happening. Auric  talk  14:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * . Someone had introduced invalid parameters to Infobox Indian political party. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Removing political position?
Does anyone know why a user would make more than a dozen edits removing the political position from the pages of political parties using this template and put "Longstanding consensus not to include political positions for the democratic or republican parties" in their edit summary?

For reference, see [|this edit here]. skarz (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 29 June 2024
Description of suggested change:

I propose moving a party's membership of a parliamentary group in the European Parliament ("europarl = ") before "continental affiliation" and "international affiliation".

Here is the reasoning. Currently, the order follows a growing geographical focus: national, regional, European, continental, and international. Placing "europarl" after "international" is therefore not geographically logical. One might argue that the first series is for political parties (and therefore includes European political parties at the right level), while "europarl" is for parliamentary affiliation. This is true, but, apart from European parties, supra-national parties do not really exist, and "continental" and "international" affiliations are affiliations to broad political alliances, not to actual international political parties. European parliamentary groups are much more homogeneous and "effective" or "concrete" than international affiliations.

Finally, in practice with the current order, the infobox for European parties shows the ideology, then political position, then international affiliation, and finally EP affiliation. Given the tenuousness of international affiliation compared to EP group affiliation, this does not seem appropriate. The same goes for national parties across Europe, where EP affiliation is more important than international affiliation.

This change would, of course, not have an impact on non-EU parties, since their "europarl" field is empty.

Diff:


 * label49 = European Parliament group
 * class49 = category
 * data49 =


 * label50 = Continental affiliation
 * class50 = category
 * data50 =

Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * label51 = International affiliation
 * class51 = category
 * data51 =
 * Done. Number   5  7  23:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Moving "europarl =" up a notch
Hi,

I want to propose a small change: moving a party's affiliation to a parliamentary group in the European Parliament ("europarl = ") before "continental affiliation" and "international affiliation". Here is my reasoning.

Currently, we have an order that follows a growing geographical focus: national, regional, European, continental, and international. Placing "europarl" after "international" is therefore not geographically logical. One might argue that the first series is for political parties (and therefore includes European political parties at the right level), while "europarl" is for parliamentary affiliation. This is true, but, apart from European parties, supra-national parties do not really exist, and "continental" and "international" affiliations are affiliations to broad political alliances, not to actual international political parties. European parliamentary groups are much more homogeneous and "effective" or "concrete" than international affiliations.

Finally, in practice with the current order, the infobox for European parties shows the ideology, then political position, then international affiliation, and finally EP affiliation. Given the tenuousness of international affiliation compared to EP group affiliation, this does not seem appropriate. The same goes for national parties across Europe, where EP affiliation is more important than international affiliation.

This change would, of course, not have an impact on non-EU parties, since their "europarl" field is empty.

Thanks!

Julius Schwarz (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * What do you guys think? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, makes sense to me to list it under European affiliation, as the next level above that is the European Parliament groups. Number   5  7  18:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree to that. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the proposal was not to "list the EP group under European affiliation" (that's already used for affiliation to a European political party and that makes sense to me -- affiliation is closely associated with party membership). The proposal was just to move EP group information a bit up. Are we clear on this (just checking)? Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably best to expand it to include the EU group, as it looks like it's out on a limb by it not being above the EU party parametre. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not sure I understand. The infobox already includes both "European party membership" (as "European affiliation") and "EP group membership" (as "European Parliament group"). The only issue in my view is the ordering (those two should be one after the other). Am I missing something? Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope. 57 was suggesting that the EU group should be included in the move too, as it is below the continental affiliation parametre, at the moment. If that were to be included (which it can), I would support that too. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No I wasn't. I was just agreeing with the original suggestion to move European Parliament affiliation above continental affiliation and below European affiliation. That's the only one that needs to be moved as far as I can see. I'm not sure what the confusion is... Number   5  7  20:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Great! But the EU group is the only thing that I propose to move in any case. Julius Schwarz (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I know, but you can always expand it, if you feel like it. I'm sure you'll find support for it too :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Moving the EP group entry just below "European affiliation" would be a good start. How do we go about this? Is anyone here an admin? I do not have rights to make this change. Julius Schwarz (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying you should include it in you proposal. You can expand on your proposal to include this. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope. I agree with your suggestion. Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 18:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)