This is an archive of past discussions about Module:Political party. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A few editors have raised issues with the meta/colors potentially not being compliant with accessibility standards, and have changed the colours to match these standard. I personally feel we would be better off changing the use of these templates to ensure compliance, than changing their use. What do people think? YttriumShrew (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, agreed – /meta/colors shouldn't be used as background colours in fields with text – they're designed for empty cells or rows. Cheers, Number5720:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I've combined some similar threads about error handling into this one mega-thread; hopefully this will keep similar issues together. Primefac (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Is it possible to implement error-tracking categories?
I don't know enough Lua to make this happen, but articles like Labor Party (Hawaii) in its current state, which are showing errors like "parameter 1 should be a party name" should probably emit maintenance categories so that we can track them down and fix their problems. I'm happy to do the tracking down, I just don't know enough to make the categories happen in Lua. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes and no. We originally had them as script errors, but due to concerns that we would be flooding the script error category we scrapped that. Then, we tried putting cats straight in, but when you try to stick in Category:X in the middle of a background: <color> command, things get a little not-happy. So the short answer is yes, we can easily do it, but no one will like it, or we could try to figure out a longer way that may take a bit to figure out. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Allowing empty party name may be needed
I don't know how these used to display, but it appears that empty party names are currently displaying big red error messages in 400+ articles. Somewhere, an adjustment should probably be made to allow empty party name parameters more gracefully. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
A module that is working perfectly fine, IMHO, does not emit big red error messages where there was peaceful blank space in the past. I think we can treat our readers better by being a bit more elegant than that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but if "do nothing when there is zero input" is the output for the module, how do we know when it's being used improperly and/or something needs fixing? A lot of the pages that get flagged in that search have a blank "X party gains seats in the election", which in my opinion should be fixed and not ignored. Primefac (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
That might cause you lint errors or something. I'm not sure how all templates that use this module invoke it. I know that some use it inside a link, while there may be others which don't. Would something like [[[[Category:Error category]]]] cause lint (or other kinds of) errors? Gonnym (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I think I have fixed the problem in one template just by checking for|party=. If someone wants to emit a maintenance category as part of the if statement that makes a wikilink (not the one that styles the cell), it should be straightforward. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I was just thinking about that! Allows for use of the error message when called directly, but when put through a template it can avoid those big messy all-table errors. Primefac (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I fixed all 400+ of these errors with edits to 20 election templates. There sure are a lot of slightly different election templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
No kidding. I feel like going through my conversion edits of the (literally) hundreds of election-related templates, one would find that 90% of them could be merged somewhere (reducing down the total number of templates to maaaaaaybe 20). Primefac (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Default color handling
I noticed that Jonesey95 was adding a white color to some parties so the error at Module:Political party#L-81 won't appear. That error should probably be removed and we should let the module just return the default color instead of adding many default values just to remove that error. That brings me to the second issue, Template:/meta/color, the previous de-facto default color, used the color white. The default colors editors are adding to this module is also white. We should either change the default color to white or place a notice to stop editors adding manual default colors as white. The current system where we use two different default colors is just wrong. Gonnym (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I think, similar to the "no party" issue in the section above, we need to determine what we actually want when there is an error. Do we want the editor to recognise that their colour is not in the template and ask that it be updated/added, or do we want to default to "give them the default table background"? On the matter of "which colour is default", I think somewhere in the initial discussions we decided that (which is not white/) was more appropriate since it is the background colour of the tables in which this module is most-often used, so if people are going to just fill in missing colour values, I think we should be using #F8F9FA. Primefac (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The default colour shouldn't be white, as this is the actual colour of some parties. I think we discussed this previously and agreed it should be the default background colour of wikitable cells. Number5722:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with a default background color instead of a manual "white" value. The problem I was trying to work around was a big red error and a broken div tag when there was an entry in "local full" with an abbrev but no color. An encyclopedia should not display that sort of horrorshow to casual readers. If the module can see 'color = ""' and output a default color, that would be fine. Visibly broken div tags are undesirable, however. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Then for colors we probably always want to return the default color instead of an error at line 81 (or a value the user requested if no color is available, i.e. args.error) and stop adding white "default" colors. Gonnym (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Italian political parties
Could someone please change (or remove) the shortnames for Italian Communist Party, Italian Republican Party, etc. for all parties starting with "Italian"? I do not understand why the shortname for Italian Communist Party is just "Communist Party": it should not appear like this in the infoboxes and wherever the shortname is used. The word "Italian" is in fact always associated to it, even in Italian language (one would say partito comunista italiano or PCI, but very rarely one uses just partito comunista to refer to the PCI). The same is valid for all other parties starting with "Italian". Thanks, Yakme (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The issue here is that the shortname templates have somehow been imported incorrectly; the shortname for the Italian Communist Party was PCI, but has ended up as "Communist Party", so I've changed it back to PCI.
A wider issue with your suggestion is that shortnames that are the full names of parties with not-very-short names are a bad idea, because they don't fit in infobox rows. The whole point of shortname function is to get a name short enough to use in an infobox.
Unfortunately Module:Political party/I and some others are template-protected and I am not allowed to edit. Anyway: PCI is the abbreviation, not the shortname so I agree with your edit (and I would extend it to all other similar "Italian ..." parties. --Yakme (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I've downgraded the protection to ECP. If there are any others still with template editor protection, let me know.
Just to clarify on the terminology, the terms shortname and abbreviation are not literal. 'shortname' refers to the form of the short form of a party name used in infoboxes and Election box results tables (which can be a shortened name or an abbreviation). 'abbrev' refers to the very short form of the name used in some cells of tables. Unfortunately, due to the way the module was created, we are currently stuck with putting shortnames that are abbreviations in the abbreviation field (although they will show up in infoboxes if nothing is entered in the shortname field), but there is an RfC about fixing this above. Cheers, Number5709:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
But I see that only the abbreviation of Italian Communist Party has been converted into an acronym. I don't know if the abbreviated name or the acronym is more correct in the infoboxes, but surely there should be the same treatment for all parties of a country. Currently the acronym appears only for the Italian Communist Party, the other parties use the abbreviated name.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The same treatment is not required – what matters is how the parties are known. For the UK we have names for some, abbreviations for others (e.g. Labour and SNP).
This issue seems to have arisen because Nick.mon changed all the shortname templates for Italian parties in late September (from names to abbreviations in many cases), but these changes weren't picked up by the major import done before the templates started being deleted. You need to discuss between yourselves what the best names for parties are. Number5712:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Number 57. I am going to restore the "full" shortname for all these parties. I do not think that having the acronym is consistent with the treatment we have currently for all the rest of the Italian parties. I will keep the acronyms in the "abbrev" entry, because they are still useful in tables etc, and very much used. I guess this thread is a good place to discuss, if Nick.mon or Scia Della Cometa have something against what I just wrote. --Yakme (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Yakme: I think this is a very bad idea and will make the infoboxes look awful – please do not use the full party names. I believe Nick.mon converted most of them to abbreviations in September, but the module then reversed this as it wasn't updated properly. If you use the shortname field for Italian parties, the abbrev field will not be used anywhere, because as far as I can see, no /meta/abbrev templates were created for Italian parties (as their use is quite specific). Number5712:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The infoboxes look fine to me now. It would be much worse to have the infoboxes show a bunch of obscure acronyms, which a non-Italian or a young Italian would never understand unless he/she clicks on the link. The full names are not that long anyway, they fit well within the election infoboxes. --Yakme (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I changed the shortnames some months ago using abbreviations because I thought they were better than "Communist Party", "Social Movement" and so on, but I could live with those too if there's a consensus. However, at the moment the Italian Communist Party is the only one shortened with the acronym and infoboxes look awful... -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I too prefer shortened names like Socialist Party, Liberal Party etc. than full nouns. They are clear and in many cases avoid the second line. Surely the current situation is not ok, the Italian Communist Party uses the acronym and the other parties use the abbreviated name, a correction is needed.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
At this point it is still not clear to me what is the real purpose of shortname, full name and abbrev. If there is an ongoing RfC about this I would wait for its result to make a decision about what to insert in shortname for these parties. I think it is quite a demanding condition to impose the one by which no party can be shown in two lines in the infoboxes. Look at 1972 Italian general election where even Christian Democracy comes in two lines: What would you do with this? Have just "Christian"? Hopefully no. The decision would then be to have "DC", but then by consistency also all other parties should be shown with their acronym (PCI, PSI, PRI etc). And here another large problem comes, i.e. that not all parties in Italy have established acronyms like PCI, PD or DC or PSI. I still think that for now the full name is not that bad in the infobox. Note also that the "shortname" is used at the end of the election infoboxes (where previous and current PM are shown for example): in this case it would be extremely weird to have something like "Communist" or "Socialist" below the PM's name. At least in Italy one would put the full party name. Probably in order to solve this one would have to use "abbrev" in the first part of the infoboxes (where the results are) and "shortname" or something else wherever one needs the full name without parentheses (like "Democratic Party" instead of "Democratic Party (Italy)"). --Yakme (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Of course it is impossible to always write party names in one line, unless acronyms are used. I meant that it would be best to avoid writing names in two lines whenever possible. Honestly, the adjective "Italian" seems to me a bit superfluous in infoboxes. Personally I'm not even against using acronyms. The proposal of Number 57, on the other hand, seems to me difficult to apply with some parties, especially recent ones, but also with some old parties (the "Italian Socialist Party of Proletarian Unity" or the "Democratic Party of the Left", for example). Anyway the issue about the PCI acronym should be fixed.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding shortname and abbrevs: shortnames are used in election infoboxes and {{Election box}}. abbrevs are used in a very limited group of templates in cells where a very short name is wanted, for example where just "Lab" (as opposed to "Labour") appears in the table here. The names are not literal, but unfortunately were taken as such during the build of this module, hence we ended up with the contents of most /meta/shortname templates in the abbrev field. The RfC above is simply proposing that the module properly matches the old /meta/ templates (/meta/shortnane to shortname and /meta/abbrev to abbrev) which would avoid all this confusion (which is exactly what I was worried would happen). Number5719:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Social Democratic Party (Nigeria)
["Social Democratic Party (Nigeria)"] = {abbrev = "", color = "#e67819 ", shortname = "",},
Could you change the party color to #e67819, it primarily uses orange. Watercheetah99 (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Please change the name of ["Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas"] = {abbrev = "", color = "#CD5C5C", shortname = "PDSP",} to ["Philippine Democratic Socialist Party"] = {abbrev = "", color = "#CD5C5C", shortname = "PDSP",} as per name change in the said article. NewManila2000 (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I request that
["Liberal/Country coalition"] = "Liberal Party of Australia",
["Liberal/National coalition"] = "Liberal Party of Australia",
["Liberal/NCP coalition"] = "Liberal Party of Australia",
and moved to the main list of Module:Political party/L as full entries. These entities used to have their own colour templates, and they should still be separate entries. The Coalition is a distinct entity, and should be treated as such. The current code is causing many infoboxes (such as here) to be inaccurate, saying only the Liberals contested an election, not the Coalition. YttriumShrew (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. I just dropped from TPE to ECP. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Done, see below
Should what was in the meta/shortname templates be moved into the shortname field in this module, or is the placement of the content of /meta/shortname templates into the abbrev field appropriate in cases when the shortnames are an abbreviation? Number5719:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Background to this RfC: As part of the merge of the colour, shortname and abbr/abbrev templates into this module that was decided by this TfD, three fields were created in the module – one for each. shortname templates were used to display short versions of party names in infoboxes and some results tables. abbrev templates were used to display a very short version of party names in some types of tables.
In the process of creating the module, the contents of many of the shortname templates have been moved into the abbrev field because the terms 'short name' and 'abbreviation' have been taken literally – so party shortnames like PSOE, SPD, SNP are now in the abbrev field. A significant number (possibly the majority) of shortname templates were in this format, so have been moved.
While this currently does not have much impact (as any a call on the module for a shortname gets diverted to the abbrev field if no shortname exists), if people start to fill in alternative shortnames, they will appear ahead of the abbreviated forms. When copying across a shortname template that was missed during the module creation process to the shortname field, it was subsequently moved into the abbrev field.
This change was not agreed at the TfD, so I believe needs discussion to ensure there is consensus for this. Cheers, Number5719:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Survey
Comment I would personally prefer that there be only one "shortname" field. Having two different fields seems like unnecessary complication, and there are many case where the line between an abbreviation and a shortening is quite blurry. YttriumShrew (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I would have no objection to this; however, a small number of templates may need to be redesigned as they call abbrev templates that were very short – for instance, the coalition column of this table called the abbrev templates for Danish parties, which were only one or two letters (Template:Social Democrats (Denmark)/meta/abbr was just "S" as opposed to "Social Democrats", which is the party shortname). Currently the table is using the shortname equivalents (because the Danish abbrev templates were missed when the module was created), which is why it looks a bit busy. Number5720:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
While there are relatively few entries which use both an abbreviation and a short name, which might suggest that there is no need for both, I could see potential for having both uses. However as the usage is currently low, I'm not completely opposed to merging the values if that is the result of this RfC (but note that there are entries that use both and choices will need to be made). If on the other hand both fields are kept, I am opposed to placing abbreviations into the short name field. A simple use-case to illustrate why that is a very bad design. "User A" adds a "shortname" value for "Democratic Socialist Party (Ireland)" which is "DSP", then "User B" wants to add "Democratic Socialist" to the same value. Which value should we now use? User B here is correct to expect a short name in the shortname field and not the "DSP" abbreviation. (Democratic Socialist Party (Ireland) is an actual example of a party that uses both). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs) 20:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
As we've discussed, I don't think the situation you describe is an accurate representation of the issue at hand. If a party is listed in {{Infobox election}}, this uses the shortname, so users do not get to decide which of shortname or abbrev fields to use. If there is a disagreement about what the shortname should be, a discussion would be held to resolve the situation, just as there was a discussion at Template talk:Scottish National Party/meta/shortname that resulted in the decision to use SNP. Number5721:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I believe the main point of the shortname templates is to ensure consistent use of party names between articles (as otherwise we could have simply got rid of them altogether and just replaced them with links), so while this could work on a technical level, I don't think it's the solution for this particular issue. Number5722:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
As I've said before, if the issue is with a specific template, in this case, Infobox election, then it should be fixed. A possible fix could be a manual override field and then the editor can request the abbr value. Gonnym (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
This is backwards; the infobox and templates don't need fixing – the module does. Before the module was created, we had a set of templates that were used to decide how party names appeared in infoboxes, which was a mix of "Labour" and "SNP". These templates just happened to have the name "shortname"; this was not a literal description. The module should provide the same information to the infoboxes and tables that the meta templates did. Number5700:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
As someone who looked at the code of over a dozen of election templates, I can certainly say that a lot of them were sub-par and needed fixing as was the previous system as a whole. I disagree with your rational and your suggested fix. Seeing as you are now just repeating the same arguments, lets wait for other editors. Gonnym (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think the RFC question makes sense as written, so I don't know how to respond to it, but since we are in the middle of this process, I think it makes the most sense to migrate everything across in parallel (abbr to abbrev, shortname to shortname). Once the modules are done being migrated, misplaced abbreviations can be straightened out as needed. The process is confusing enough without additional and unnecessary complications being added. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Also agree with Jonesey95, but I think that the desirable situation – now that the migration is completed AFAIK – is the one where abbreviations like acronyms are in abbrev and "shortened" names (in words) are in shortname. Partly unrelated to this: I also think we need a parameter "fullname", because in some cases like Democratic Party (US) where there are DAB parentheses, it is useful to have a command that returns the full name without parentheses, also for usage in some parts of infoboxes. Hopefully it might be that this can be done automatically by a script in WP, without having to add by hand all "fullname" parameters for all parties. --Yakme (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I think some tweaking of the code could allow for automatic removal of disambiguators such as (political party), as I do agree there are a fair number of "shortnames" that are just the full name minus that dab. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Words need to mean something. If the value is an abbreviation, it should be in abbrev. If it's a short(er) name it should be in shortname. At the moment the module is set up so that if either abbrev or shortname are empty, it looks at for the other value. This was specifically done for "shortnames" that were actually abbreviations in the old system. For example, the Scottish National Party doesn't have a short name, being referred to by its abbreviation "SNP"; since there is no shortname the module will pass along the abbreviation even if shortname is requested. If someone tries to put shortname="ScotNat" or something similarly silly their change will be reverted as improper.Going through the thousands of entries in the 27 different submodules and debating "was this a shortname or an abbrev in the old system?" is a waste of everyone's time, because the new system works and there is zero reason to muck about with it. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, as a thought on Number 57's agreement with Jonesey95 - I don't think you're agreeing with what you think you're agreeing. Jonesey95 says Once the modules are done being migrated, misplaced abbreviations can be straightened out as needed which to me means "if a /meta/shortname contains an abbreviation, we can move it to an abbrev field later". That has already been done (and was pretty much done when the RFC was proposed). Primefac (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I feel like I have said this a hundred times already, but the terms 'shortname' and 'abbrev' should not have been taken literally – they were never meant as such. If the naming of them is an issue, they can simply be renamed something meaningless like 'name1' (for what used to be the shortname templates) and 'name2' (for what used to be the abbrev templates).
As for Jonesey's comments, I think they are saying that the module should first reflect what was in the templates, and then the community can make a decision on what to do which will have proper consensus, rather than the unilateral action that was taken (despite me explicitly requesting that it not be). I also don't think it will be that much work – given how few abbrev templates there were, I think we can safely assume that all cases where there is only one entry in the abbrev or shortname fields, that it came from a shortname template. Number5717:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Inasmuch as you've said your phrase a hundred times, Gonnym have said our piece the same number. When it comes down to it, I'm not trying to convince you, because you've already made up your mind and clearly are not going to change it. I am stating this here and now a) because I realised I had not actually !voted in this RFC, and b) to explain to others why I feel the way I do. It's them I am attempting to convince. Just because people had hack-and-slashed a terrible system in such a way that nothing meant anything when it was in use doesn't mean that we cannot fix that with this new system - I have already seen a dozen or so election-related templates at TFD that were either merged or deleted as unnecessary, and I suspect there will be more before the dust settles. "This is the way it has always been done" is not a reason to keep things the same, nor is "the old system was broken but it worked". Primefac (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
There was nothing broken though. The templates were used to display a version of a party name that was suitable for infoboxes and tables; there was never a requirement that they had to be an actual short name or an abbreviation – whatever was most appropriate for the party was used. The major issue here is that you introduced a unilateral change that potentially has significant ramifications further down the line, and that change needs to be reversed if there is no consensus for it (which there clearly isn't). Number5717:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
Number 57, I have no issue with you notifying relevant WikiProjects and templates, but could you please modify your notice to not make it sound like we're deleting those abbreviations? Primefac (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I can't see how it reads like the abbreviations are being deleted. What part of the notification is the issue?
Separately, I noticed that you have deleted abbr templates that were missed when the import was done (like the {{Social Democrats (Denmark)/meta/abbr}} one mentioned above). I found quite a few shortname and color templates that had been missed during the import process in the last few days – were any checks done to make sure the contents of templates had been imported before they were deleted? Number5720:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The sentence starting with "However" could be read as "this information is no longer available". Regarding the abbr templates, we decided way at the beginning of this process that if a /meta/ template wasn't being transcluded, it did not need to be carried over into the module (it could always be re-added later). Thus, I did a check of the templates to ensure that none of them were transcluded before they were deleted. Primefac (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Don't really see it that way, but I've amended it anyway. Re the checking, the Social Democrats abbr template was being transcluded at List of prime ministers of Denmark amongst other articles, because that article uses {{Officeholder table coalition}}, which used /meta/abbr until it was converted to use the module. So either it was missed during the check, or the check was done after the conversion had taken place, so the template was already looking at the module rather than the /meta/ template. Number5720:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a stonkingly huge module, and I've deleted almost 10k templates this week following hundreds of updating edits and hundreds of null edits to clear out the server caches (and I've got probably 15k to go before the /color variants are done). So to be completely honest, the probability of missing a few names is likely to be fairly large.
I've said it a few times, though: if there's something missing it should be added to the module. I might be comfortable with the template and coding and familiar with its inner workings, but you are clearly more familiar with the content and the parties that are still lacking. Primefac (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
What is quite significant is that the run does not appear to have picked up any /meta/shortname templates where there was not an equivalent /meta/color template for the party – this will particularly impact alliances listed in infoboxes as there is no colour display for them. I'm guessing this cannot be resolved as the templates have all been deleted? Number5712:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Is your issue with the /shortname missing or the color missing? I didn't quite understand. this will particularly impact alliances listed in infoboxes as there is no colour display for them - when the color was not set, it defaults to "#F8F9FA". Gonnym (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
That the shortnames are missing. This particularly impacts alliances as I suspect they are less likely to have a colour template alongside a shortname template, as in {{Infobox election}} the colour displayed is the colour of the party entered in the party field and there is no colour associated with the alliance field. However, like the party field, the alliance field uses the shortname templates. Number5712:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Can you give an example of an alliance template that didn't get picked up and for which the output is now different? Gonnym (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
There's no difference between alliance and party templates as such – I'm saying it is just more likely that ones for alliances will have been missed because they were less likely to have associated colour templates. The ones with shortname and no associated colour templates that I've spotted so far include:
Another related issue – when parties have been renamed, this has usually resulted in a new shortname template being created for the new name and the color template being moved, leaving a redirect, so a party ends up with two shortname templates (for their former and current names) and one colour template. However, the module has picked up these /meta/color-based redirects and then pointed the incoming request to the current name of the party, meaning that a template looking for a shortname of the old name is pointed to the current name, leading to incorrect party names appearing.
This again appears to be an issue with shortname templates with no colour equivalent not being imported. Are they actually in the list that was used to create the module (and were stripped out), or were they missed from the list? Given that they have been deleted, I hope potentially it's the former (and so this can be fixed) rather than the latter (in which case I wonder how they were identified to be deleted?). Cheers, Number5717:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if this edit is related to the above discussion, but Primebot replaced a template without the module being properly updated with the party's color. I imagine it is not the only instance of this error; it looks like something needs to be fixed with the template replacement workflow to ensure that colors exist in the modules before the bot replaces the corresponding template. No rest for the brave template migrator.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
It was a duplicate entry issue, actually, not a "missing info" issue. Inasmuch as I tried to make sure such things didn't happen, there are a LOT of names in here and it's easy to have your eyes glaze over as you check (even with Excel/Sheets-assisted checks). Primefac (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I have copied all of the "full local" sections to a text editor and performed some duplicate detection. I found and merged about ten duplicates, all of the ones that I could find. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Nothing like completely failing MOS:ICON... I do agree they fall under the general purview of the /meta/shortname discussion, but I also agree that it's probably better to send them for a semi-procedural TFD. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
If "All India Trinamool Congress" is now an alternate, then its values will need to be migrated to /T (and the name changed to "Trinamool Congress") and the /A version converted into an alternate (similar to "AITC"). If you need a hand with that implementation let me know. Primefac (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I would like to create a page on the template - Template:Welsh Liberal Party/meta/color with the template colour to be the same as the Liberal Party (UK) - #ffd700
Your changes of election templates from "Labour Party (UK)" to "Welsh Labour", "Conservative Party (UK)" to "Welsh Conservatives" etc etc are completely unnecessary. UK elections are fought on a UK-wide basis. The idea that people like Ian Grist or James Callaghan (or even people who lost seats in Wales, like David Tredinnick or Bryan Davies) should be thought of as "Welsh Conservative" or "Welsh Labour" rather than UK-wide politicians is plain wrong. You seem to have unilaterally changed about 10 Welsh constituency pages like this (nowhere near all of them), without even creating the "Welsh Liberal Party" template. They really should all be changed back to the UK-wide template.88.106.240.100 (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I disagree (obviously) the delineaton of Welsh specific parties is a more accurate reflection of the organisational nature of election campaigns and parties. If it is acceptable to delineate between UK Labour and Labour Co-Operative, as has been the case on wikipedia for years and which I support then it is acceptable to do the rest which have their own websites etc. Hence my request which merely reflects the historical truth. The Welsh Liberal Party obviously no longer exists hence making it an even easier change. Agreed it may all be trivial but I am interested enough to pursue it, as I have. Benawu2 (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The disagreement seems to be about the edits not the inclusion in the party colour template. Not sure how to go about seeking consensus about the party colour template. Have dropped a comment on the Welsh Liberal Party talk page but not sure what else to do? Benawu2 (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Can you add this color code for the party: ["Katipunan ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino"] = {abbrev = "KANP", color = "#008080", shortname = "",}. Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Some letters are still locked. It's better if these are updated together, and someone who handles these to do it to prevent screw-ups. These should be uncontroversial (no changes to hex values, short names and abbrevs). Howard the Duck (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
This involves a change in hex value but I believe the change is minor and no images/maps/diagrams will be affected.
["Bangon Pilipinas Party"] = {abbrev = "", color = "#3F9727", shortname = "Bangon Pilipinas",},
Ooops. I'd imagine there are parties everywhere where - and &endash; are used interchangeably. I suppose this would also be dealt with somehow? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you can see an example at Module:Political party/P – you effectively create a redirect from the wrong dash type to the correct one by doing: ["People's Party - Our Slovakia"] = "People's Party – Our Slovakia",Number5713:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what the rules are, but almost all parties seem to use endashes in their names rather than hyphens. The spacing is specific to each case though (i.e. a mix of spaced and unspaced). Number5717:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
It looks like the reason this edit didn't work is because you are redirecting all the old names to "Lakas–CMD" and "Lakas–CMD (1991)", names with endashes, but the parties are actually listed as "Lakas-CMD (1991)" and "Lakas-CMD", with hyphens. Cheers, Number5712:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 1 February 2022
The largest party in the current Israeli governing coalition Yesh Atid has two official colors: dark blue and orange. The former (current template color) is indistinguishable from Yesh Atid's main rival Likud's branding color.
The current Knesset is filled with parties brands themselves with different shades of blue. Considering Yesh Atid's centrist/social liberal ideology, which internationally usually corresponds with yellow/orange, changing Yesh Atid's template color from the generic dark blue to orange would increase intelligibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 沁水湾 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Irish Labour Party and Labour Party (Ireland)
This party operates in the Republic of Ireland, where it is known as the Labour Party, which can be helpfully shortened to "Labour". Historically, it sometimes ran candidates in Northern Ireland, where it was in competition with the Northern Ireland Labour Party, which would be the party referred to as "Labour" there, and in some UK-wide tables it also appears alongside the British Labour Party. To avoid confusion, in these Northern Irish contexts, it is referred to as the Irish Labour Party, and has "Irish Labour" as a shortname. However, it is inappropriate to use "Irish Labour" in the Republic of Ireland articles, as that doesn't reflect usage. This all worked fine using the old templates and I've fixed these modules to allow it, but my edit was reverted. It needs to be corrected so that the shortnames are appropriate. Warofdreamstalk18:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Just so I'm clear on it, there is a single party that went by different designations depending on where they were running? Primefac (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Could you please link to the articles of the parties you refer to. That would help better understand the differences between them. Gonnym (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
It's the same party (Labour Party (Ireland)); the issue is that it is known by one name in the Republic of Ireland and another in Northern Ireland, so needs two different shortnames. This can be achieved by doing this, but the edit was reverted, presumably because it was not understood why it was being done. Number5723:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it should be in the lead, it was only a minor party in Northern Ireland, and hasn't operated there for many years. It's mentioned in the relevant section of the article. Warofdreamstalk21:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
If it's mentioned in the relevant section of the related articles, why does it need to be differentiated like this? Primefac (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Should we not in those elections be calling |party=Northern Ireland Labour Party, which gives "NI Labour"? To echo Gonnym, this is why links to specific articles is helpful - if something is being done in a sub-optimal way, it should be fixed. We're still not yet clear on whether that location is "in the article" or "in the module". Primefac (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
What more information do you need here? The NILP and (British) Labour Party are distinct parties and their use is clear. I've already set out how the (Irish) Labour Party can helpfully be described, and the different name it used in Northern Ireland is covered in its article. I understand that the situation is complex, but it is all laid out. Warofdreamstalk23:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the situation is perfectly clear and would suggest you reinstate the edit as it does seem to be the only solution here. Number5723:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
What more information do you need here - well, I did say zero examples of how they should be used/split, implying that I would like at least one. Primefac (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand, do you mean you cannot understand the above and need a specific example? In 2020 Irish general election, the party's shortname should be "Labour", as that is how they are known, and there is no scope for confusion. In 1958 Northern Ireland general election, the party's shortname should be "Irish Labour", as that is how they were known, and the leading Labour party there was the Northern Ireland Labour Party (helpfully shown as "NI Labour"). Similarly, in 1951 United Kingdom general election, the Irish party should appear as "Irish Labour", which distinguishes it from the British Labour Party, known as "Labour" in Britain. Warofdreamstalk23:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I wanted examples; if they really need to be distinguished that way, and this is the only way to do so, then I suppose we should do it. Primefac (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The infobox at 1921 Victorian state election has party3 = Victorian Farmers' Union, links to the correct article, however instead of the correct shortname "Victorian Farmers" it shows as National. I understand the error is caused by this module, but I am unsure how to fix this. --Find bruce (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Find bruce: Fixed. The issue occurred because {{Victorian Farmers' Union/meta/color}} was a redirect to {{National Party of Australia/meta/color}}. Unfortunately, when this module was implemented, it was done primarily on the basis of the contents of the /meta/color templates; if the /meta/color template was a redirect, the module was set up with the incoming request for the party as a redirect to the party the /meta/color template was pointing at (regardless of whether there was a separate /meta/shortname template that was not a direct); hence the incoming shortname request for Victorian Farmers' Union also ended up being pointing to the National Party's details.
If you find any other examples like this, you can fix it like this (i.e. by removing the 'redirect' function for the party, and adding them in as their own row). Cheers, Number5717:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
People's Redemption Party
["People's Redemption Party"] = {abbrev = "", color = "#ed3136 ", shortname = "",
Could you change the party color to #ed3136, it primarily uses red. Watercheetah99 (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The colour of National Unity Party (from Myanmar) has been wrongly shown as red in #2188ca .
Correct colour = #2188CA
In fact, red has never been NUP's colour since its renaming on 24.9.1988. (Red was party colour before renaming.) The party changed its name, its logo, its flag and "its colour". But its 1988-2016 flag still used the red background despite its colour had been sky blue since 1988. In 2016, the party finally changed its flag to comply with its colour.
In 2016, U Han Shwe (current party chairman) , then a member of central executive conmittee, stated that "... Our party colour has already been sky blue since the start. ..."
Reference:
|url= http://burmese.dvb.no/archives/176669
|title= တစညပါတီအလံ ပြောင်းလဲအသုံးပြုမည်
|trans-title= NUP party flag will be changed
|language= Burmese
(font difference: the title is Unicode but the body is Zawgyi) နေနီဝန်း (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Could somebody please change the Heimatblock colour to #669966? This was the authentic colour of the party and the broader Heimwehr movement, as demonstrated here [1] and here [2].
Thank you. The colour tone used on the Spanish article seems to match the colour scheme in the party's posters more closely and would likewise be a better colour for the political party module entry. EtheyB (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
["National Rescue Movement"] = {abbrev = "", color = "#fecd00 ", shortname = "",
Could you change the party color to #fecd00, it uses yellow. Watercheetah99 (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
["For Each and Every One"] = {abbrev = "KuK", color = "#FB8337", shortname = "",}
Party LuK rebranded and has a different name, abbreviation and party color now
Mirashhh (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Change Democratic Socialist Party (Nepal) to Loktantrik Samajwadi Party (Nepal) since its the more commonly used name. Also change color to olivedrab since color is too close to Nepali Congress which is the older party. RulesTheNation (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Never mind, I realised I could edit the submodule (/L) myself. I thought I couldn't as I thought the page protection was the same as the main module. Marcnut1996 (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Democratic Socialist Party (Nepal) and Loktantrik Samajwadi Party, Nepal should be merged as they refer to the same party. As you can see in Loktantrik Samajwadi Party, Nepal, Democratic Socialist Party is the translation of the name. The color and is too close to the one for Nepali Congress. I suggest changing the color for Loktantrik Samajwadi Party, Nepal since Nepali Congress are the older party (founded in 1950 vs 2021 for Loktantrik Samajwadi). I suggest changing the color to either olivedrab , since it is a different shade of green, or orangered , since the party flag also has this color. RulesTheNation (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Partly done: I've converted the Democratic Socialist entry to an alternate name; unless someone wants to give me an "official" colour for the party I'm not going to change the /L page entry. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Could the Runnymede Independent Residents' Group colour be changed to #264404 - the colour used on campaign branding? Could the shortname also be changed to simply "Runnymede Independent Residents" also? Thank you. The pazter (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes to the first, no to the second (our article is not called that) but I have added in a few alternate names. Primefac (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Request to change People's Freedom Party (Nepal)
Request to change People's Freedom Party (Nepal) to Nagarik Unmukti Party, the short name to Nagarik Unmukti and the abbreviation to NUP. The party is more commonly known as Nagrik Unmukti Party and People's Freedom Party or Citizens' Liberation Party are just translations. [2][3]
Also request to change the shortname for Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Socialist) from CPN (Unified Socialist) to Unified Socialist since it is the more commonly used short name. Here are some examples [4][5][6]RulesTheNation (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Any takers? If there were any instructions I would do it myself. But I don't have the first clue how/where to add new items. Thanks. Sionk (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
1. Please provide meta color for Hamro Party and abbreviation with HP. The Color Code (navy blue) for Hamro Party is #000080.
2. Please provide meta color for Bharatiya Gorkha Prajatantrik Morcha and abbreviation with BGPM. The Color Code (yellow) for Bharatiya Gorkha Prajatantrik Morcha is #FFFF00.
@SWinxy:, Nope not done. Please see if there is any bug. Here, Communist party of Nepal (Unity National Campaign), Party's P shall be capital.Nepalese590 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Mauritanian political parties
Hello, I'd like you to please add the following Mauritanian political parties
Current parties
["Equity Party (Mauritania)"] = {abbrev = "El Insaf", color = "#0042BA", shortname = "El Insaf",}
["El Karama"] = {abbrev = "El Karama", color = "#2B5F2E", shortname = "El Karama",}
["National Democratic Alliance (Mauritania)"] = {abbrev = "AND", color = "#92440A", shortname = "AND",}
["Sawab (Mauritania)"] = {abbrev = "Sawab", color = "#5B9BD5", shortname = "Sawab",}
["Burst of Youth for the Nation"] = {abbrev = "PSJN", color = "#788F02", shortname = "Sursuat",}
["Party for Conciliation and Prosperity"] = {abbrev = "HIWAR", color = "#A47A7E", shortname = "HIWAR",}
["National Democratic Union (Mauritania)"] = {abbrev = "UDN", color = "#32523D", shortname = "UDN",}
["Reform Party (Mauritania)"] = {abbrev = "El Islah", color = "#715331", shortname = "El Islah",}
["El Wafah/ACD"] = {abbrev = "El Wafah/ACD", color = "#FFD201", shortname = "El Wafah/ACD",}
["Party of Peace and Democratic Progress"] = {abbrev = "PPPD", color = "#D37D10", shortname = "PPPD",} Historic parties
["Shura Party for Development"] = {abbrev = "Choura", color = "#A963A9", shortname = "Choura",}
["Unitary Party for the Construction of Mauritania"] = {abbrev = "PUCM", color = "#F7941D", shortname = "PUCM",}
["National Pact for Democracy and Development"] = {abbrev = "PNDD-ADIL", color = "#92440A", shortname = "PNDD-ADIL",}
["El Wiam"] = {abbrev = "El Wiam", color = "#004373", shortname = "El Wiam",}
Can the color for the Socialism and Liberty Party, of Brazil, be updated to it's signature yellow? Nowadays the party barely uses any red, and heavily the yellow and purple, as seen on it's site.
["Socialism and Liberty Party"] = {abbrev = "PSOL", color = "##FFCC00", shortname = "",},
Please change the color of Greater German People's Party (GDVP) to #0E428E
["Greater German People's Party"] = {abbrev = "GDVP", color = "#0E428E", shortname = "",}, KaiserWilheim (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: Please provide examples of articles with wikilinks which are incorrect. Please clarify where exactly in the articles the incorrect links appear. —andrybak (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Partly done: We actually had both <Regionalist> and <Regionalism (politics)> as values, so I made the former an alternate of the latter and it seems to have fixed the issue, at least from the module side. However, since {{Election box candidate with party link}} hardlinks the |party= value, if |party=Regionalist it will point to Regionalist. You'd have to go through and change all of those links to Regionalism (politics). Primefac (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Sanseitō party colour (Japan) for the party colour template
@Pppery: Thank you for the clarification! I still didn't really get used to this system, having spent too much time working with the previous one (before it was changed last year). —Sundostund (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Proposals/discussions on colour choice should be made at the article's talk page; this page is for discussing the template/module and updates to them. I do note that the infobox, despite having the colour listed as (Light Green) is actually using #bd4c00. Primefac (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Proposal to change color for MFG (Austria)
The party sees itself as "multi-color", but is shown as grey. I think the color should be White (#FFFFFF).
Unity of the People (South Ossetia) color is wrong
Unity of the people, a political party in South Ossetia, lists their own color as green, however, they don't give a specific hexadecimal value. The color code for the party on Wikipedia, however, is a shade of red . I propose that it is changed to just a generic green as such: . Scu ba (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Description of suggested change:I suggest changing colour of Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Socialist) to which suits best to its party flag. Current colour seems totally irrelevant to its ideology and presence.
Made this change but then self-reverted, because the #FF3800 color at least passes the first column with a AA rating, while the proposed #C41E3A darker red color fails in all three accessibility columns. See no reason to go from bad to worse. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there22:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I would rather have accessibility over hyper-accuracy. For reference, the two colours are and respectively (so it's not a huge difference). Primefac (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
These changes are deeply unhelpful and have been reverted (in particular, it creates a big mess with the Social Liberal Party, whose colour is hot pink). Stop trying to force them back in without consensus. Number5719:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I can agree to having acted wrongly, and I'll admit that, and apologize. I will however hope you can help me understanding how I can propose some of these color changes. I especially believe that something like this , is completely unreadable in realation to the similar color for Green Left and Red-Green AllianceThomediter (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Please, you should change the abbrev of Asturias Forum from FAC to Foro. The party changed in 2021 its name and its abbreviation. Nowadays most of the the sources refer to the party as Foro. Basque mapping (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
How does the change of link for "Independents" work?
Currently, if you put "Independents" into an infobox, the module converts it into a link to "Independent politician" (which avoids pointing readers to a disambiguation page via Independents). Is there some special code in the module that makes this happen? It doesn't seem to be via the alternative section (as using other party name that are alternatives does not change the link).
It works in terms of changing the colour, but not in changing the link from Vacant to Casual vacancy (if someone puts in "Vacant" in an infobox). Have one that by changing the shortname module above though. Cheers, Number5714:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I still don't see the benefit, and why those particular links for those particular values? What if someone feels that "other" should link to somewhere else? I think making these changes in the templates you link above, and allowing for user-generated input of where these words should link, would be better than hardcoding them here. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@Primefac By default args[1] is used for linking which is not useful(dab page) for some values, hence a more useful link as default, if someone wants to change it they can use |link= or have "link" value for "Other (country)" etc. Besides the module, it could also be used in {{Party abbrev linked}}, {{Party shortname linked}} which already has the subpage loaded, logic for shortname, abbrev processed here, so its better here; Also allows making use of alternate table for links and when display parts are in full → direct links and allowing faster updation, eg when Party A changes to Party B, just put it up in alternate table and done, there wont be a need to update the pages. Its convenient :D. REEDriler (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
If links need to be changed, then the names that are used for linking should be changed. If there are situations where one <party> could potentially link to multiple places, then the templates that call this module should allow for manual |link= addition in the article directly, not add in every possible alternate link option. Since you and I clearly disagree with this, I am going to close the TPER until other opinions are added and a consensus can be determined.
As a minor note, please do not call /sandbox templates in the mainspace; they should only be used for testing purposes. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@Primefac You don't get to decide that. Any thoughts are not going to influence what others choose to use, be it using just "Vacancy" for "Casual vacancy" or <alternate> for <full>, or why just links and full names shouldn't make use of alternate when color, abbrev, shortname does. It'd be better than copying the same switch statement over and over. Any other potentialities are derivative of the implementation and shouldn't be clipped.
As for the note, ok you are right since it involves making a 2nd edit to remove it, but it doesn't mean I can't use a redirect to it like {{ltl}} as "early access" heh. REEDriler (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure which "that" you are referring to. If you are referring to "not implementing your request until there is more discussion", yes I absolutely can. If you are referring to "not using sandboxes", yes absolutely I can state that.
And if you insist on trying to back-door your way into getting what you want without discussion, I will seek sanctions against you. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
*Your* module's help isn't needed to implement an uncontroversial change which just adds support to use alternate table for all elements of the o/p : <color><party> rather than just some. And stop following me around. Thank you for your time.
And there was absolutely no need to delete those pages merely used for testing but again you have been up to no good from the beginning [8]. REEDriler (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Two things. First, it is not my module, I simply disagree with the necessity of your proposed changes. This leads to point two, which is that changes require consensus, which you currently do not have for this module specifically. As I said earlier, I am not strictly opposed to your idea for changing the template output, just that it should be implemented elsewhere. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
As this template is the target for merging, I don't think it needs tagging. It won't help anyway, as this template is not actually transuded anywhere. Number5723:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Request to add Tønder Listen party color
I've made a page concerning Tønder Listen, and was wondering if it could have the color code #F38B35, so that the party will have a design displayed here
Ashford Independents Party colour is outdated. They changed their colours to a combination of a lighter, more yellowy/green colour and a grey. My suggestion is that their colour is updated to reflect this, and that the colour is set to the grey colour they use as this will make looking at the results less confusing as the more established Green Party of England and Wales is also competing for many of the same seats.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change:
Please edit the abbreviation of Aam Aadmi Party. The current abbreviation is "AAAP"; but the correct abbreviation is "AAP". The same is used for short form.
For consistency, not confusing folks, and ease of use, I believe we should keep all hex values as six-digit values. I am starting this discussion because REEDriler seems to refuse to start this discussion despite them being the first mover and has already been reverted. This is in reference to Special:Diff/1148531561 and Special:Diff/1148636495. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Why do you feel like you get to dictate the usage of an inherent property of CSS? Shorthand hex and color names are in contrast actually for ease of use which is why it's been part of fam since CSS1 and have been documented here as well eg. [9]. Feel free to reword it if its not already c l e a r. Again, your moderation/control is not required unless you convince the vendors to drop its support (f). REEDriler (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I am not "dictating the usage", I am contesting your change. It is up to you to get consensus for your proposed changes. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Primefac here. The colors seem to have been fairly long-standing, and the template/module-set used in many articles. It's disruptive to keep changing them. And given evidence it's contentious, it's important to discuss and get consensus first rather than to keep being BOLD and discussing it (such as one might be) through edit-summaries. DMacks (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
The colors remain unchanged because they mean the same in RGB spectra. Please read the doc again. Shorthand hexes are common in usage and could found lying around mostly everywhere on this site and subpages here. I need not get any consensus to pass it through with the edits I make because its already been made available since before this site was even created, however, you may talk to the vendors to drop its support. REEDriler (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I never said they were changed. I said that they are non-standard uses compared to every other hex code used in these modules. By using six-digit hex codes for every hex value, it creates consistency and does not confuse people who might not be 100% sure of how hex values work. You do need consensus to make mass changes like this, and if you cannot get it then I will be reverting you (if you refuse to self-revert). Primefac (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So you're edit-warring over a purely cosmetic edit? And it's just "your preference" vs other(s) who disagree and at odds with long-standing practice here? Any change to the template/module sources can trigger propagated changes up the transclusion stack even if the display winds up being the same, so it pollutes our recent-changes types of lists for zero actual gain? That's disruptive. You have provided no support for your claim that your change is an "ease of use" advantage. Instead given other dicussions have focused on specific shades, having more fine-grained control does seem like an advantage. And consistency among entries also seems like an advantage. DMacks (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@REEDriler I've blocked you from the Module: namespace for 36 hours to prevent what seems to be a rather silly edit war - as I see it, the changes are pointless (i.e. have no impact on rendered output or readability) and contentious (at least two people have objected to the change, and it appears to be changing a well-established norm), and yet you continue to make them rather than find a consensus. This is particularly worrisome in the context of templates or modules, and doubly so for widely-used ones like these as every edit causes the cache of potentially thousands of pages to be invalidated. Please discuss the changes here or elsewhere and don't just continue to make them once the block expires.
With regard to I need not get any consensus to pass it through with the edits I make because its already been made available since before this site was even created, however, you may talk to the vendors to drop its support - the fact that browsers support any given feature or function does not elide the need to gain consensus on Wikipedia in cases like these. firefly ( t · c ) 18:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Only if it was the sole reason for the edit, it would be silly, such as Primefac's edit here, It was useless. My edit was already made, before Primefac's limit of appeal was known, which shouldn't be crossed as he set up this module(very important).
Moreover he kept breaking a link to the actual entry on another page (/B), but you bunch would rather view it as edit-war on hexes, which apparantly goes against a made up norm. (f) Do some wp:OR, because as I said It could be found lingering in every corner of this site and this module and I doubt you like sophistication as you said you would want fine grain control, frivolous. do you get rid of basic color names and replace with hexes? no? six alpha-num chars? or use RGBA? but only misdirect a discussion and the fitted ones wouldn't care to look beyond?
I understood mass subs could cloud actual edits and the cache issue, So I'll be slowing it down. But there is nothing wrong with any possible entry which works because it is upto the user making the entry/change and everything is documented.
ease of use, as its obvious, less characters. think of it as a shortcut to a template, eg. re -> reply to or #(\w)(\w)(\w) -> #$1$1$2$2$3$3
That shouldn't be bad, using a shortcut (as though re is (f) obvious)? so bad warranting a block? And your focus is wrong when concerning confused curious folks, they would want know why it works, not close the tab. REEDriler (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Your manner of editing here has been disruptive and, so far, no one else agrees with your changes (to be clear, I do not agree with them either). I would encourage you to find something else to do. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Not done: The article you link specifically says "Change of colours: More green, less saffron", and #20C646 is pretty green Primefac (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
That is not the main color, it is a secondary color and just one of the logo colors. Blue is the primary color, please see.
Who are these two other users and why does their opinion matter? Why should Wikipedia use a different color for Trinamool when all political party Wikipedias use their respective primary colors? Aadmi345 (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Aadmi345 Blue is not TMC's primary color, and never was. Their symbol is of black and white color, while their flag has green color in it, no blue color. Their website still shows their green color. You are sharing a decade old sources which is quite speculative. Party's color derive from their flags, logos or their website colors, not painted roads and footpaths. Dhruv edits (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Alliance for Freedom and Democracy (UK)
["Alliance for Freedom and Democracy"] = {abbrev = "AFD", color = "#002182", shortname = "Freedom and Democracy",},
Ah, I missed it because the deleted page is at Alliance for Democracy and Freedom (UK). Either way, this template is for providing colours and shortnames, regardless of whether the group exists or not on-wiki (i.e. if a call is made in an article, the module should have the value). I would also note the Ethiopian party isn't in the module either, so they could ostensibly be added. Primefac (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change: The party color of People's Socialist Party, Nepal is to be changed. The current shade is used nowhere. Its logo uses 2 shades and one of them should be used even based on their ideology. The appropriate shades seem or which are present in its flag.[10]Franked2004 (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change the color of People's Socialist Party, Nepal back to from . The current color is too close to the the Nepali Congress's . Congress is the older party and should have priority. Being distinguishable is more important than simply choosing a color that's present in the flag. Nepal has many communist parties but it would not be ideal to assign them the same or similar colors. Similarly there are many other parties that use green and it shouldn't be used for every party. Pink is associated with socialism and was chosen as the color of the party before and I feel that it should be changed back. PenGear (talk)
Diff:
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. That being said, it sounds like there is some dispute over this so please get consensus before making your proposed change. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Resolved
.svg)
![[10]](https://peoplesocialist.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/cropped-banner_party_web_new_umbrella-scaled-1.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://cpnus.org.np/frontend/image/logo1.jpg){kind=link}