Welcome to the talk space of WikiProject Politics. In this area you can find discussions, notices, requests of many articles that in some way deals with the practice of politics. If you would like to discuss, place a notice about, or if you have a request about, an article within the scope of this project, please do include it here. If you have an interest in politics and would like to contribute, please add your name to the list of participants on the project page.
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:
This page is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was to use campaign colors in non-partisan elections, especially if needed for a map legend. There was also consensus to change the template to make sure the gray separator bar between rows of candidates always shows up. --Beland (talk)17:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone I would like to as if we the Wikipedia Politics community can remove Color Bar on the election infoboxes for all nonpartison Election races for the United States. Quick explanation on nonpartisan elections, nonpartisan elections where the candidates party affiliation is not listed on the ballot in the United States, The color bars (shown on the first infobox on the bottom of the candidates pictures) we added to not add political party on the election infobox but most editers will still put political parties or will remove the color bars as a good faith edit but some veteran editors will put the color bars back on the election infoboxes. To end the madness I would like to request the we remove the color boxes to end good faith edit and to make it visually easier for people who are color blind to see the election infoboxes (shown on second infobox) thank you.
(The candidates pictures are used as an example and are not actual election infoboxes)
Why not use the campaign colour of the candidate? (signs, website, literature, etc). That's what we do in Canadian municipal elections, most of which are non partisan as well. --Earl Andrew -talk13:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we definitely shouldn't be using four non-partisan colour bars, because at that point it's not actually informing anything (that it's a non-partisan election can be mentioned in the body). But a better approach would be to identify each candidate with the colours they use in their campaign materials. Colour-coding can be quite handy, since most election pages have results maps or polling graphs — and identifying a candidate with a certain colour can a) serve as a legend before you get to those graphics and b) ensure that all those graphics are consistent with each other. As for how to determine those colours, like Earl Andrew said, we can use their campaign materials for guidance. This is essentially what we already do for internal party contests:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries gives each candidate their own colour instead of everyone having Democratic blue. —Kawnhr (talk)18:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the slow-rolling edit war can be mostly attributed to there not being a clearly-established consensus for how to handle non-partisan elections — so editors jump in assuming they're fixing something. If we have project agreement one way or the other, I think that will settle a lot of the disputes. —Kawnhr (talk)20:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just let people know that this is most likely a sockpuppet of FYE31, who has frequently campaigned against grey coloring in nonpartisan elections in the past under different accounts. Personally, I've been against removing colors, I think it just looks bad without anything, but I can endorse the idea thatKawnhr said where it's using campaign colors/color-coding to identify them. I like that idea way more than just removing them altogether.reppoptalk05:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should absolutely be using colored bars in the infoboxes no matter what. Without the colored bars, any infobox with more than 3 candidates has bad formatting because the line separating the rows doesn't show up. I don't see the issue with having gray colored bars. This has been the standard on US nonpartisan election pages for years. Having a colored bar helps separate the image from the candidate's name and just generally improves the formatting.BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)14:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could also change the code to include the separator line even when there is no color bar. Technology is not the restriction here.—CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})17:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) Technology is not the restriction at all. let's remove the color bars to end the good faith edits and change the code to include the separator line. I would like to call for a vote to one remove the color bars to end the good faith edits and two to change the code to include the separator line without the color bars.66.74.82.136 (talk)23:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would also like to point out it's possible to brute force the separator in even without colours, as demonstrated on pages like2005 Conservative Party leadership election (the trick: have a color= field but dummy out the code. the colour bar doesn't appear, but the separator still does.) Obviously, it would be ideal to fix this on a template level… but this is one more reason that technical issues shouldn't be a consideration. —Kawnhr (talk)18:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with youKawnhr Lets do the Dummy trick it the code from Kawnhr
(the trick: have a color= field but dummy out the code. the colour bar doesn't
appear, but the separator still does.) as a temporary solution until the code changes
to include the separator line without the color bars as the ideal to fix. Can we start a
consensus poll on Kawnhr idea to add the Dummy trick until the code changes to
include the separator line? I'm not sure if I can start a consensus poll because I would
be in support of Kawnhr idea and I prefer someone who would be neutral on this topic to start the
I'm making a subsection to form the consensus on remove the color bar and replace itby usingKawnhr Dummy trick it the code (the trick: have a color= fieldbut dummy out the code. the color bar doesn't appear, but the separator still does.) as atemporary solution until the code is changed as a permanent fix. or leave the color bar.My view shall beneutral as Left guide has provided some useful sources, but I don'tcare whether they go in or not now.69.75.92.194 (talk)04:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I Support the change to add the Dummy trick it the code until the code can be changed to add the permanent fix so we can stop the constant accidental disruptive edits and good faith edits. I do agree with the author lets end the madness.2603:8000:5741:64AB:9DE3:C243:EA02:279C (talk)04:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would say no, personally. An LLM is a piece of software. It can beused by an organisation, but how can it be a member of it?Loytra✨13:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support; There needs to be a more appropriate range of infoboxes for articles surrounding loosely-defined political bodies, particularly movements and party factions. Maybe this template could be designed for bodies that don't cleanly fit into the 'party' or 'organisation' boxes?
Alternatively, perhaps the main political party infobox could be reworked to be more applicable to groups such as factions and this new 'movement' infobox could exclusively be designed for loose groupings that don't have any formal organisational structures (e.g.Trumpism,Antifa (United States),teal independents, etc.)
I've often found that articles for both factions and moments tend to use either the organisation infobox or party infobox and that neither are particularly well-suited for this purpose, so a change is definitely needed nonetheless.Loytra✨13:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, unless someone can find a better one. The organization boxes aren't really designed for political movements, and movements are not (necessarily) political parties, so having a box independent from them would be best. --Aquillion (talk)16:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don’t think this sort of topic lends itself to an infobox, which primarily includes precise facts, written as short as possible. There are many such fields for political parties (office-holders, membership, headquarters etc.), but few would make sense for a loosely-defined movement (start year, slogan, predecessor). Some fields which could make sense and have a precise content are likely to be very debatable (leader, spokesperson, affiliations). And the most relevant sorts of information are going to be a battlefield (ideology, methods, affiliation). Movements of this sort seem closer to an ideology than to a formal political party, and you’ll notice that there are no infoboxes for ideologies.Keriluamox (talk)17:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I just took a look atOccupy Wall Street and found they're using the{{infobox civil conflict}}. Which is OK, except then I checked theOccupy movement page and found it's doing the same thing... for the whole movement?! Seems like there isn't a good consistent standard and it might be worth the experiment to create one, or at least, something like{{infobox political party}} could perhaps be changed to something broader ("political faction" etc) to encompass political movements without electoral ambition.Hornpipe2 (talk)14:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I fully support this idea. However, I believe if we want to do this, we need to have it so that all possible parameters for a potential ideology infobox are included in this movement infobox. So many articles across Wikipedia, about ideologies and movements, have to make do with other infoboxes and I think that is really detrimental. As @Hornpipe2 already mentioned, the Occupy Movement article has to try and make do with the Infobox civil conflict. Another example would beTrumpism which currently uses the political party infobox to portray the movement. I am also open to Hornpipe2's idea of expanding the political party infobox to a broader political faction infobox. —EarthDude (Talk)03:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening. I ask all interested users to review the current situation and express their opinions. The thing is, a week ago in theWoke article, there was a simmering dispute between a user and me over the name of one of the sections, after I renamed the section due to a significant addition. Now, a week after the user and I had essentially reached a consensus after I agreed to his compromise, another user,Sangdeboeuf, has joined the discussion, effectively denying the very existence of consensus and effectively reversing that user's proposed compromise, essentially reversing the outcome of the previous discussion, since he disagrees with it and calling the disputed old version the "status quo." I reverted the version I consider the consensus version and asked the user to resolve such sensitive issues through discussions, in response to which he quoted me a number of rules, while, as it seems to me, ignoring the situation itself. Even actually putting forward the condition that he would simply return his edit if no one spoke out against his version within a few days. Considering that the one-on-one format again risks leading to a protracted dispute and conflict, I ask other users of the project to review the discussion and express their opinions. At the moment, what's important to me is not so much the outcome of the discussion in one way or another, but rather making sure that it was done through consensus, and not the sole decision of just one user, ignoring the entire previous discussion. So if during the discussion a new consensus is created or users agree with the Sangdeboeuf's opinion, I will not be against it.Solaire the knight (talk)19:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UPD. Just to be clear, for the reasons described in my post in the thread itself, the dispute was effectively closed due to my recusal. I'd still be happy to hear opinions from other users outside of this thread, though. Because the very existence of such a situation over a simple section title still effectively amazes me. Thanks in advance for your feedback.Solaire the knight (talk)17:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Ram Mandir attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Forthe article, title seems too long for a Wikipedia article, perhaps change it instead into something likeExecutive parliamentary orPresidential parliamentary. We could potentially move the article intoSemi-parliamentary system,Parliamentary system, or anything related to the types/forms of government.
You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Class president § Proposed mergers, and more specifically the newer section named§ Proposal: Rename "Class president" to a more encompassing title also including, the discussion of student government in schools.Issac I Navarro (talk)19:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
