Template talk:Infobox political party/Archive 2

Archive 1

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 57 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 57 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, @Number 57:, 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 57 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)

 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 All India Forward Bloc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . I'm not sure why this is happening. Auric talk 14:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. 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 [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 =

| label51 = International affiliation | class51 = category | data51 =

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 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)

@Impru20 and Number 57: 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 57 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)

@Julius Schwarz: 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)

@Julius Schwarz: 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 57 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)

@Julius Schwarz: 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. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

New Parametre - "other_names"

@Number 57, Impru20, Julius Schwarz, Vacant0, HapHaxion, Checco, Braganza, Helper201, PLATEL, Nick.mon, Autospark, and Scia Della Cometa: I'd like to propose a new parametre called "other_names". By having this new parametre, it would shift info in the infobox about the various names of Ensemble into a separate parametre, instead of combining when the alliance was founded and the names it has gone by in its short existence. This parametre would be above the "leader" parametre. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

support Braganza (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have an example of how it would look? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Can't give you an example. But think of the same parametre as the one for TIP, with the parametre being above "leader". ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

So between the lang templates and the abbreviation? I'd support that. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. With this I want to propose add parameters for former, common and official name if possible. Mehedi Abedin 06:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mehedi Abedin: Common and official are for the leads in pages, while the former is for the new parametre. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. This has my support. Helper201 (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Also mine. --Checco (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Need new parameter for re-establishment date

Many political parties are very old and operated in more than one country. They were banned and then re-established under the same name. We have founded parameter currently and I have seen people using it for multiple dates. A great example is Republican People's Party. But it is not the only article with multiple founding date. I think now it is the time for adding a parameter for re-establishment date. Mehedi Abedin 05:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

"Chair" needed as synonym

Please allow "Chair" to be used as an alternative for "Chairman" or "Chairperson". See Labour Women's Network (Yes, I agree, it isn't really a party so it's the wrong infobox...) where the Chair is listed as such on their own website at https://www.lwn.org.uk/your_committee but can't be given that title in the infobox. See Chair (officer) to support this usage. Thanks. PamD 07:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I've found the workround of using "leader1", but it shouldn't be necessary to involve this complication. PamD 07:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Would it be better to just have 'Chair' or 'Chairperson' as the default rather than having a gendered term as the default? Number 57 20:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Need Leader6 or more

Specifically for Hamas ,Marwan Issa is listed as leader6 AlexBobCharles (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Key positions parameter

I have noticed that a new convention has formed regarding the ideology parameter, which is to only put one or two all-encompassing ideologies (see Labour Party (UK)). It used to be the case that the ideology parameter had five or so more specific entries that gave the reader a good impression of the party at a glance (see Bharatiya Janata Party).

In light of this, I think a 'Key positions' parameter would be a good addition which has, say maximum five entries which editors agree on, including regarding their order, and they would be based on citations from recent academia. The policy on this could distinguish between social, economic, national, and international positions to ensure a wide coverage. A national one could be say Unionism for a UK party, and an international one could be Euroscepticism for a European party.

The name 'Key positions' is problematic as there are political jobs also called positions, however I can't think of a better term. Maybe 'Political positions'? Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I've mentioned this on the wiki project politics page Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have deactivated the edit request template until there is consensus about what should be added and how, preferably by making changes to the sandbox version of the template. I have no opinion on the merits of the proposal except that "key positions" is a confusing name, because "position" can mean both "ideological stance on an issue" and "job held by a person within an organization". Use different wording. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed but I couldn’t think of better wording Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There hasn’t been any engagement w this and it’s been archived on the WP talk page so I’m not sure what to do. Would “Key policy positions” work? Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I hope it's not too late to drop it, but I simply wanted to comment that this could be a valuable parameter for policies, particularly for parties that have been in office. The name can be further discussed, but it's a good opportunity to improve the infobox. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)