Template talk:Greens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also Template:Conservatism, Template:Liberalism, and Template:Socialism. – Kaihsu 13:29, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Entry points

See Ideology#Political_ideologies – Kaihsu 19:33, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a redesign

Part of the Politics series on
Green politics

Green issues

Worldwide green parties (list): Global Greens · Africa · Americas · Asia-Pacific · Europe

Ideas in the
Global Greens Charter:
ecological wisdom
social justice
participatory democracy
nonviolence
sustainability
respect diversity
Politics Portal · edit

This template should indeed exist, but it needs to look like other templates in the political realm: This is not an ad - the image should be taken out, and it should list concepts in the same format as others (Template:Anarchism, Template:Conservatism, Template:Fascism, Template:Liberalism). I'm placing suggested changes here (at the right, below) rather than simply making bold edits since it's under review for deletion and it's not fair to change in mid-discussion. - Nhprman 03:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This template is older than the ones for socialism and conservatism, and has been quite stable. The "look-alike" argument is weak. Please keep it as it is. The sunflower image has been there since day one. There are images for anarchism and fascism too. – Kaihsu 17:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm also inclined to keep a sunflower image in the template. Sunflowers are used as an icon/logo by Green Parties around the world. —GrantNeufeld 19:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Me too -- it's not advertising, but identifies the template. Like the "anarchist A" in the Template:Anarchism. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 21:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The "A" in anarchism is a symbol, not a photograph. We get the point with a symbol. Yes, it needs to look like the others, and that's a compelling argument. It's a template, and shouldn't ever be accused of resembling an ad. I'd rather see compromise rather than repeated attempts to delete this Would anyone object to this image (see template), the attractive symbol of the Green Party of Canada? - Nhprman 00:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The GPC logo is specific to just one country. A generic image of a sunflower(s) is more appropriately general to Green Parties around the world. —GrantNeufeld 04:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds okay. (Though I'd like to hear others' views, since this is an awesome logo.) A single sunflower is a good idea, but a photograph of a field of them seems inappropriate. This is a political philosophy template, not an article on sunflowers or meadows. - Nhprman 05:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What repeated attempts to delete? This is a useful template, not advertising. A field of sunflowers is a symbol for the philosophy of the Greens, including "respect for diversity". – Kaihsu 08:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If problems are perceived in the design, this will come up again and again. Since there is nothing wrong with the idea of a Green template, I hope that doesn't happen. To insulate it from future attempts, a good faith effort to make it comply with the others should be made - not that it's that different to begin with, other than having a pretty photo instead of a simple logo, as ALL the others do. As for the sunflower photo, I do have to point out that each and every one of the sunflowers in the photo are identical in size, color and height. Not a great symbol for diversity. Frankly, it's a better symbol for conformity. - Nhprman List 18:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kaishu. But if there is a majority to change the photo to an symbol, this would be okay with me, as long as it isn't the symbol of a specific green party. Maybe the old logo of "DIE GRÜNEN" Germany would be usable; it is a stylised sunflower, but not longer used. See for example here: [1]. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not bad. - Nhprman List 01:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new design implemented

I have implemented the new design, with an image of a single sunflower. If you would like another image used, please pick a nice one from Commons:Helianthus annuus. – Kaihsu 13:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's beautiful! Very nice. Nhprman List 14:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! and also thanks to your unfaltering collegiality despite my earlier grumpiness. – Kaihsu 09:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different Shades of Green

The template is currently very green and we should watch with making infoboxes to colourful, often colours appear differently on different computers (see an interesting discussion here), and too much colour is often a distraction and not an improvement. I propose returing the template to (a slighlty more coloured version of) the original colour scheme. C mon 08:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Further, the content was hashed out over a great deal of discussion earlier (see above) so I'd hope any changes would be made based on consensus here on the talk page. Nhprman List 17:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I've made it basically a white template with a green border and titles, based on the design of Template:Socialism. I also added links to the Four Pillars and the Green Movement. I didn't think any of that was outside the scope of the consensus, but if it is out of line I can revert some of those changes. Fishal 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The current version is indeed less colour full than this one. I've made several slight alterations to it to keep it in line with the socialism template. But I'm satisfied with the current version. C mon 21:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I think the blue marble is a better choice than the sunflower, but you can change it back if you disagree. EamonnPKeane 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, but whenever changes are made, everyone should bear in mind that it's not a political ad, it's a template. If it gets too elaborate, someome may revert it. Hopefully there will be discussion here before major changes. - Nhprman List 19:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer to put the sunflower back because that's a recognized sign of Greens (for instance by the European Green Party) while the blue marble isn't. C mon 19:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with C mon. The image of the Earth, in a sense, glorifies the Greens by (subtly, I admit) implying that the Greens are the only political faction that cares about the Earth. It would be like showing a picture of Image:India.Mumbai.01.jpg, depicting a group of impoverished people, on Template:Socialism. While it is true that socialism is one way to address the problem of poverty, it is not the only way. In the same way, the Green movement is concerned with environmental issues, but it is not the only group to have this concern. The sunflower, as C mon pointed out, is a symbol of Greens in several countries (Illinois: [2], Germany: [3], Canada: [4]). However, it does not seem like the sunflower is as universal or international as my own edits suggest (oops). The Global Greens, for example, use a frog in their symbol. The Greens in New Zealand use a leaf and in South Africa use a tree. I can just as easily see how no image at all might be appropriate for this template. However, I always think an image is better than no image, and the sunflower comes closest to an internationally recognized Green symbol. Fishal 02:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the European Green Party, the strongest international green organization uses the sunflower. C mon 10:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus?

I rollbacked the edit that changed the structure of the template because I considered it worse than the previous version. I'm sorry but there is no consensus on such change. --Checco (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just concerned about edit warring. I like them both, actually. Fishal (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The reorganization is a copy of previous reorganizations of templates like {{socialism}}, {{anarchism}} and {{communism}}. The reason for this is that smaller templates are preferable for two reasons
  1. Having a large template can lead to strange lay outs on the screens, especially if articles have multiple large templates, it can become very messy
  2. Large templates can be pretty strange on small articles, when half the page is white, because the template continues but the text does not
Making templates expandedable with the "show" button deals with these issues quite nicely.
C mon (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I personally prefer templates without "show" buttons. --Checco (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear C mon, your opinion counts exactly as mine, so I don't understand why we can't return to the previous version of the template. I think it is fairly more practical to have templates without "show" buttons. They are more easily manageable. --Checco (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
After six days, I can only observe that there is no consensus on the edits of C mon, as he is the only one defending them in this talk page... I made the rollback. --Checco (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I rollbacked myself as we wait for a broader discussion, as suggested by C mon in Template talk:Liberalism. --Checco (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've put some time into this here template over the years, and I've officially registered my neutrality. I thought the show buttons made it nice and compact, but there's something visually to be said about the full navbox as well, especially as this one isn't particularly big. I do think the templates for the different ideologies should match. Fishal (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why I stongly favor a centralized discussion on all the templates on political ideologies. Can we do something like that? --Checco (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I created a centralized place for discussion about the show/hide-issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)