Jump to content

Template talk:United States political party shading

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rfc for republican shading

[edit]

A republican party official complained to me about the republican party shading of pink. They were concerned with the image that pink (or yellow) conveys. As everyone knows, image in politics is everything and even petty things matter. They requested a different color that wasn't pink or yellow. In the U.S. I don't think either Democrats or Republicans would like to be associated with pink or yellow for their obvious connotations (i.e. Pinko, Pink elephant, Yellow journalism, Yellow dog Democrat, "Yellow belly", etc, etc). The colours aren't necessarily offensive but they may affect the reader in the same way the color of campaign signs affect them. Red and Blue are traditional representations of the united states political parties. I have swapped the colors with other parties including defunct parties, so readability would not be compromised, but have been reverted. It seems this is reasonable request since it doesn't really matter to the Encyclopedia what the colors are as long as it illustrates what is intended (i.e. differences). Readbility won't be compromise if it's swapped with a defunct party that no longer cares what the colors are.

  1. Support Changing shading of U.S. republican party to something other than pink or yellow that doesn't compromise readability per request from external party. --Tbeatty 04:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Seems reasonable, no good reason not to. - Crockspot 12:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per WP:Why the heck not?. Sarcasticidealist 07:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a Support. I will swap with a defunct party. It's been 2 weeks since it was posted here and on the poltics RfC page. --Tbeatty 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reopen this discussion. I don't have strong feelings about this, but in the popular American press the terms "Red State" and "Blue State" have come to distinguish Democrats and Republicans. While I agree that any non-duplicated color could be used, I do think a color in the red family should be used for the Republicans. Accordingly, I Oppose this change.Argos'Dad 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A color pattern that's used in thousands upon thousands of articles is changed based on a discussion of three people? There is now a clear association of red with Republicans (see Red states and blue states), and the use of a shade of green that so closely clashes with the blue used for Democrats only makes a bad situation worse. I didn't know that we kowtowed to party officials in these matters under any circumstances, let alone in one that makes Wikipedia less useful. If this awful color choice sticks, can we change the article title to "Mint pistachio states and blue states"? This change needs to be reverted and then revisited on a far larger scale. Alansohn 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I confess that when I expressed my support earlier, I was taking it for granted that the switch would be for some kind of red or red derivative, although I could have seen that I was mistaken in that had I checked the shading's history. Sarcasticidealist 17:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the color change, and posted a link to this discussion at WP:Project Congress so we can have a broader discussion on whether the colors need to be changed at all, and, if so, what color it should be. For the record I Oppose any change to the current color scheme.Dcmacnut 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Party color changes

[edit]

I recently noticed that an editor User:Padfoot714 made several color changes to Template:United States political party shading, which I have since reverted because they seem to be too large of a change to implement without consensus.

The templates in question are Republican, Democratic-Republican, Union, Non-Partisan League, Greenback, and Jacksonian. I want to assume good faith, but given the controversy the last time colors were changed, I have reverted all except the change to the Republican template. I'm not too concerned about that color change, since it is still a shade of red and may may address some concerns that the old color was too "pink." I'd be fine with the Greenback change (darker green) for the same reason. But the color change for Democratic-Republican went from a shade of green to a dark purple, Union from purple to brown, and Jacksonian from purple to bright blue. I think there needs to be a wider consensus on what the colors should be before they are changed again.Dcmacnut 16:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table showing of above changes

[edit]

Here's a graphic display so the changes can be viewed easier.Dcmacnut 16:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Color New Color
Republican Republican
Original Color Reverted Color
Democratic-Republican Democratic-Republican
Union Union
Greenback Greenback
Jacksonian Jacksonian
Non-Partisan League Non-Partisan League
NPL NPL
  • The change of the Republican color seems fine to me. I see no need for the other changes, except possibly the Greenback change. The new Greenback color seems a little too dark, and I prefer the original color. --CapitalR 17:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the new Republican color. I think the new Greenback color is a vast improvement (the old one being too "neon green"), and would support a change back to Padfoot's version. The Union and NPL ones look too similar for my taste and support the reversion. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colors too similar

[edit]
Moved from User talk:Dcmacnut § Party Color Templates

I didn't realize I needed a "consensus agreement" to make some color changes to political parties. I'm not even sure who I would need to ask to obtain a "consensus" seeing as this site is open for editing to the entire world. I'm kind of a newbie when it comes to editing so I don't really know what kind of protocol or manners I'm supposed to use when editing such a widely used template. I've added a topic to the talk page on the party shading key which puts forth my issues with the current key if that appeases you.

I made the changes I did because the Populists and Democratic-Republicans have almost identical colors. Also the Know-nothing, Unionist, Republican, and Jacksonian parties all have very similar colors that can be hard to tell apart. I edited the NPL color because it essentially non-visible as a color and I edited the Greenbacks because the previous color of green seemed out of place with the other more muted colors being used. I'll admit that the NPL and Greenback edits were purely aesthetic but the other edits were meant to make things easier to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padfoot714 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We encourage editors to be bold, but changes to the party templates affect hundres of articles, and drastic changes can be jarring and lead to edit wars. About a month ago, a single editor decided the Republican color was too pink, and changed it to an shade of green. Your changes were less dramatic, I will admit (and I liked your tweak of the Republican color). However, the main area for discussing party colors is Template_talk:Party shading, which covers the colors. The party key is mainly a simple way to display the various colors used for U.S. political parties in Congress, and any discussion of changing the colors is more appropriate on this page.
My understanding of these templates is their primary purpose is to graphically display a color generally associated with a particular party. Beyond that, the color must be light enough so the text is clearly legible across a variety of computer monitors, particularly blue wikitext. This is precisely why bright red is not used for the Republican Party or dark blue isn't used for Democrats. A dark brown or a dark green will not work. Some template colors are similar, but editors are urged to add a party abbreviation rather than using color alone to eliminate any confusion. Moreover, Union, Know-Knothings, and Jacksonians were existed at different times in political history, so chances of having overlap of those parties causing confusion is minimal. The proximity in the Template:United States political party shading key is not what we should be focusing on, but how the colors render in actual articles.
Having said that, I have no objections to some changes in color, but we need to think about this. The current color schemes were agreed upon a long time ago, and while they aren't static, they should be changed only after careful deliberation. I agree a reevaluation is probably in order because some colors are problematic. Your are right that the NPL color is far too light (it shows up on my monitor at work, but not at home). I will try to come up with some solutions and share them on this site, but for now I ask for patience and that we leave the colors as is for now.Dcmacnut 14:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you. If it's resonable to expect a substanial change would be controversial then you should seek consensus first rather then unnecessarily starting a revert war which would be disturptive to wikipedia s a whole. Furthermore, people on both sides tend to get frustrated when their well meaning efforts are reverted which means any discussion is likely to start with both parties unnecessarily aggrevated. BTW, the "seek consensus first unless it's unlikely to be controversial" is the same sentiment as expressed in page moves for example and I don't see any reason why it should not apply to wikipedia as a whole. Last I read, WP:BOLD is quite clear that being bold doesn't mean you should be reckless and making a substanial change which is unlikely to have a consensus and which is likely to be reverted seems to be reckless to me. None of this means that people need to seek consensus for every change to wikipedia but if the change you're making is likely to substanially affect many pages for example then it's wise to give a bit of thought to whether everyone is going to agree with the change and if you feel they won't attempt to seek consensus first. Nil Einne 06:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New color scheme

[edit]

At the risk of beating this dead horse further, I've come up with a recommendation on new colors. I've stuck with the same general color scheme, but darkened and lightened a few of the problematic ones. I'm using Template:United States political party shading key as a guide. I've also added Socialist to show that recommended color change and a new proposd color for Nullifier Party to the mix. These are only suggestions, and focus only on the major party colors used for U.S. Congress delegation articles. These seem to render OK on my monitors.

I have not addressed the colors for modern third parties, and didn't make any changes to Democratic-Republican or Populist. Even though they are both the same color, I think enough time has passed between the times both parties operated that I don't think it will be too confusing, as long as the party name is used along with the color. Freel free to share your thoughts or criticisms.Dcmacnut 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New color scheme

Key to party colors and abbreviations for members of the U.S. Congress and other politicians or officials
Alaskan Independence (AKIP)
Know Nothing (KN)
American Labor (AL)
Anti-Jacksonian (Anti-J)
National Republican (NR)
Anti-Administration (AA)
Anti-Masonic (Anti-M)
Conservative (Con)
Covenant (Cov)
Democratic (D)
Democratic–Farmer–Labor (DFL)
Democratic–NPL (D-NPL)
Dixiecrat (Dix),
States' Rights (SR)
Democratic-Republican (DR)
Farmer–Labor (FL)
Federalist (F)
Pro-Administration (PA)
Free Soil (FS)
Fusion (Fus)
Greenback (GB)
Independence (IPM)
Independent Democrat (ID)
Independent Republican (IR)
Jacksonian (J)
Liberal (Lib)
Libertarian (L)
National Union (NU)
Nonpartisan League (NPL)
Nullifier (N)
Opposition Northern (O)
Opposition Southern (O)
Populist (Pop)
Progressive (Prog)
Prohibition (Proh)
Readjuster (Rea)
Republican (R)
Silver (Sv)
Silver Republican (SvR)
Socialist (Soc)
Union (U)
Unconditional Union (UU)
Vermont Progressive (VP)
Whig (W)
Independent (I)
Nonpartisan (NP)

Support. I like the new colors except for Greenback & Nullifer. They're a little too dark.—Markles 20:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I like all of the proposed colors. Argos'Dad 21:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought one of the goals was to appease Republicans who thought that the color was too pink. I definitely think it should stay in the red family, but it still looks pretty pink to me. (see my suggestion above.)--Appraiser 22:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for doing this Dcmacnut. I think I can agree with this new key. However, I still think that it is a bad idea to use the same color for the Democrat-Republicans and Populists even if the two parties didn't overlap in their existences. It just seems illogical to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.53.93 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made a few more changes. Democratic-Republican gets the old Free Silver color, Nullifier is lightened, and Pro-Administration is made a little bluer. As far as Republican, I've given it the proposed Socialist Color, and given Socialist the old Know-Nothing color. Appraiser suggested giving Republican the Know-Nothing color, but I thought it was too purple. Jacksonian gets the current pinkish Republican color. Have at it all.Dcmacnut 02:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This should make everyone happy. (Yeah-right!)--Appraiser 13:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, there's a reason why the Republicans were pinkish before. The shadings shouldn't overwhelm the text, and thus light colors should be used rather than dark colors. It's not as big a deal for minor parties, but it's pretty important for the major parties that it be a subtle color. Maybe something like FFB6B6? On the other hand, Socialist really can't be too red, mostly because that's the kind of red they'd normally pick to distinguish themselves, I'd imagine. It does cause a clash with Redlinks, but I'd be in favor of something more like FF5050 (or even FF6060) with the red maxed. SnowFire 23:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had tested FF8989 in a few articles, and the text didn't seem to be overpowered, even red links. It does make the blue Democratic seem a bit washed out though. I'm willing to go with your suggestions. FFB6B6 is lighter, but still red enough to address the pink concerns. One point I'd like to make, though, is that the shading colors are unique, in that they don't necessarily match (or can match) the row heading colors elsewhere. They will always be slightly different or off, because the are superimposed behind the text. For example here's a comparison of how row headings and the shadings match up. Note: this is my next project, though I'll probably stick with these colors for the major parties, and just update to reflect whatever changes are made to the shading key.Dcmacnut 03:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done: After hearing no objections for about a week, I've changed the colors and updated the party key as discussed above.Dcmacnut 01:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why a template?

[edit]

Why is this a template? If its only purpose is to be a guide for editors, then shouldn't it be moved to the Wikipedia:Project namespace? —Markles 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea, but it might have something to do with the slash trick that creates a subpage of the page. So Template:Party shading/Republican is a subpage of Template:Party shading, and gives you the < Template:Party shading under the title. But that's just a guess. --Ali'i 18:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since no mainspace articles link to it, I think it should be moved to WP space.--Appraiser 19:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: A single template instead of a collection of templates

[edit]

With the proper coding, the coloring could be accessed with {{Party coloring|party name}} rather than {{Party coloring/party name}}, and there is merit to such, as all of the colorings can be modified at once. Example code: 

{{#if: {{{1|}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{{1}}} | Federalist Party (United States) |#EA9978|
{{#ifeq: {{{1}}} | Democratic-Republican Party (United States) |#008000|
{{#ifeq: {{{1}}} | Democratic Party (United States) |#3333FF|
{{#ifeq: {{{1}}} | Whig Party (United States) |#E3FF2A|
{{#ifeq: {{{1}}} | Republican Party (United States) |#FF3333|
{{#ifeq: {{lc:{{{1}}}}} | independent |{{#if: {{{2|}}} |#EEEEEE|{{{2}}}}}|
{{{{{1}}}/meta/color}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
|#EEEEEE}}

...whereby selection statements for additional pairs of party name and party legend color can easily be inserted in place of {{{{{1}}}/meta/color}}, like for example: 

{{{{{1}}}/meta/color}}
     →     
{{#ifeq: {{lc:{{{1}}}}} | no party |{{#if: {{{2|}}} |#EEEEEE|{{{2}}}}}|
{{{{{1}}}/meta/color}}
}}

...or certainly in other ways, as each line item is nested in the else field of the selection statement of another.

-- Lindberg 23:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Covenant Party (Northern Mariana Islands)

[edit]

I'm working on or will be working on several articles on the politics of the Northern Mariana Islands. As the Covenant Party there is a major party (the current governor and past governing coalitions in the legislature have been Covenant), does anyone have a suggestion on the color for its party shading? Qqqqqq (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution party

[edit]

I added a shading template for the Constitution Party (which was on the ballot in a majority of states, with results reported in several Wikipedia pages, some with shading). The URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Party_shading/Constitution

I hope it was'nt TOO BOLD of me to do this! (P.S. I will be out of the country and probably off-line for more than a week. Feel free to fix what I've done, but I won't be able to respond to comments, etc. until I return. BAM ("tripodics") (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Slight Problem with categories

[edit]

I created Template:Party shading/Democratic/block and Template:Party shading/Republican/block, but each time I use the template, the respective page (example: Template:Alabama House of Representatives and Alabama House of Representatives) are being added to Category:United States Republican Party color templates. Is there a way to stop them from being added to said category? Frank0051 (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed them. Did my fixes work?—Markles 01:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, see Category:United States Republican Party color templates...they are still there, unless my browser cache is not updating. Frank0051 (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOW it's working, I think. OK?—Markles 16:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, gracias. Frank0051 (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution vs. ConstitutionUSA

[edit]

What's the difference between Template:Party shading/Constitution and Template:Party shading/ConstitutionUSA? Aren't they just the same party? I prefer the former, since it's more easily distinguishable from the Republican shading. -LtNOWIS (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility

[edit]

The color contrast in this template is very low, which is a problem for people with poor vision or color-blindness; or those using monochrome devices such as Kindles. Technically, it fails WCAG AA luminosity tests, and thus breaches the relevant section of our manual of style. I'd suggest using colored squares or bullets before or after the names, or colored borders; or dropping the colors altogether. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true; none of this Red state/Blue state stuff is good; it's American political rancour spilling into this project. Far better to use words and judicious use of colour; say a bit of left-border a few pixels wide. (Remember when "Reds" were Communists?) Alarbus (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of accessibility, editors do not use color alone, it is merely decorative. Party names or abbreviations, often linked, are required. The colors need to be light so they remain a subtle background. When darker shades are needed, a different color scheme is used, denoted by Template:American politics/party colors/…. Please see {{United States political party shading key 2}} and Category:United States political party color templates for fuller collections of the templates.—GoldRingChip 13:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of using colour alone (which would be a separate accessibility problem) but of making the text unreadable. The WCAG standards have an unambiguous metric for measuring the readability of colour combinations, and the current colour combinations fail this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to ditch the pastel pallate for darker colors. I know some ppl think non-pastels hurt their eyes, but pastels look too much like each other, or like white Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need to either ditch coloured backgrounds completely, or find background colours which have a measurably acceptable contrast to the foreground text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When they are background colors, they need to be light so the text can still be read. There are too many shaded parties (in this case, 30), to eliminate the pastels and just keep the darker ones while maintaining a visual distinction.—GoldRingChip 14:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Can you suggest accessible colors for the parties? —GoldRingChip 15:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to use the existing colours, but in front of the text (as an icon or a wide margin or border) rather than as a background to the text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using the colors at all is really silly. Just because the tv networks do it is no reason for WP to do so. Also: A color symbol indicates that the Republican Party of 1862, for example, is the same as the Republican Party of 2012, which is just not true. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are intended for and very widely used as background colors.. If, as you say, they aren't accessible as backgrounds, then it defeats the purpose of having them. The scheme of an icon or colored margin/border is used by Template:American politics/party colors/….—GoldRingChip 01:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone who would object if we just dropped them altogether? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They are used in thousands of pages.—GoldRingChip 19:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How would you propose that we resolve this, then? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. —GoldRingChip 21:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have any suggestions; or shall we open this discussion to a wider audience? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change the color?

[edit]

Why did you make this change to {{Party shading/Independent}}? If you're going to make such a change to such a widely used and thoroughly discussed (not to mention fully protected) template, you really need to give a reason and/or discuss it first. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care which color is ultimately used, but would like to know the reason it was changed. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it because its former color, gray, looked too similar to vacant, or hold. Like you, I'm not bound to a specific color, but on United States Senate elections, 2012, for example, yellow looked good.—GoldRingChip 12:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a little concerned about tables where it appears next to a Libertarian, since both are on the "gold" side of yellow. Your point about the similarity to "vacant" is well taken, however. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good point. I forgot about the libertarian yellow. So could we switch the libertarian to a different color, brown perhaps?—GoldRingChip 16:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, please don't. Libertarian being "gold" is not only fairly established on Wikipedia, but in various "real world" sources as well (see, for example, Iowa House 45's official results here and the Libertarian Party's own logo), so it really shouldn't be changed. Perhaps use a yellow that's less gold and more brown for the Independents? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent color looks now almost the same as the Whig color. There were not many Independents around during the Whig era, so I suppose it's not really conflicting, but aren't there more colors in the rainbow than 30, or so? Besides, I think the grey color was originally selected because "independent" reminds one of indistinct, hazy, non-classifiable, neither white nor black but somewhere in the middle, or some such thing. Kraxler (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not almost the same, it is the same. I blatently copied Whig colors when I recoded the Independent colors. Pretty lazy of me, frankly. That does, of course, create a conflict. I think we used gray for the reasons you state, Kraxler, but perhaps a primary or secondary color like yellow or green (which are often used in mass media) would look better.—GoldRingChip 14:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any personal preference which color should/could be used. But I'm curious now, is there some historical background to use yellow for the Whigs? And, could you give a link to the mass media which use colors for parties, having yellow or green for Independent? Kraxler (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have very occasionally seen yellow for incumbents, but gray is more common by far. At this point, I think it should go back to the original gray until we've reached a decision for a replacement color here. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with green for independents is that it is already used for the Green Party (which makes sense IMO). Grey is also not necessarily the best choice, since it tends to indicate null and we also use it for instances of "other" (for example, write-in candidates). I concur that the two yellows are still close enough to one another to cause some degree of run-toegther / confusion. Perhaps we could agree to use a distinct color for independents that can be differentiated from the currently used colors? Purple perhaps? Elcid89 (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on a fairly lengthy WikiBreak, but as I was one of the origional editors of the current color shadings after the last controversy, I'm fairly partial to using grey for Indepedent. A shade of yellow, while easier to read, is too similar to several other parties. These colors aren't reserved for U.S. Congress, and it could create confusion throughout various political or election articles. The key is to use a color that can easily differentiate party affiliation without accompanying text. I do agree that the darker grey is too dark and likely better reserved for vacancies. I would propose a lighter shade of gray.DCmacnut<> 15:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Existing color variances

[edit]

Why are the Democratic and Republican colors lighter than on Template:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color and Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color? CTF83! 03:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind, but I've forked your comment out for clarity of discussion (since it's really two discussions). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading that the different colors are for different usages, but don't remember which was for what or which talk page the discussion(s) were on. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are lighter because they're intended to be shading behind text, whereas the …/meta/color templates usually fill in color in a table without any text on top of them.—GoldRingChip 20:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, that makes perfect sense, Gold. No problem, Philosopher. CTF83! 02:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Republican Party of 1872

[edit]

The Liberal Republican Party (United States) of 1872 that nominated Horace Greeley against Ulysses Grant - does not have a color shading. On the United States presidential election, 1872 page it has been assigned "colour2 = C154C1" but there is no official color yet... Polifollower (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/Libertarian

[edit]

The Libertarian colour is yellow or gold, not this golden-brown colour that is currently in use.  How did it get this way?  Here's how:  On December 10th, Jack Cox darkened the colour.  Then, SnowFire undid Jack Cox's edit (see reversion here), admonishing Jack Cox to "Please discuss potential changes over at Template talk:Party shading first."  Literally two minutes later, without discussing it here at all, Jack Cox again darkened the colour (see re-darkening here).  The shade has remains uncharacteristically dark since then.

This must be rectified.  Golden-brown is just too dark.

I believe we ought to replace this (#DCB732) with this (Gold).  Please let me know if there is any problem with this.

Cheers,
allixpeeke (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven days have passed, and no one has suggested that she or he has any problem with this; thus, I am making the change.

Best,
allixpeeke (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Allixpeeke: Just wanted to let you know that I made a very subtle change from "Gold" (which Internet Explorer renders as #FFD700) to #FED105, which is the shade of gold used in the png logos and the CSS style sheets on http://www.lp.org. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahecht, I think that was a wise decision.  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Federalist Party

[edit]

Any particular reason why the Federalist Party is salmon-ish? Bjengles3 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:United_States_political_party_shading&oldid=1255035497"