Template talk:Party shading
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Rfc for republican shading
A republican party official complained to me about the republican party shading of pink. They were concerned with the image that pink (or yellow) conveys. As everyone knows, image in politics is everything and even petty things matter. They requested a different color that wasn't pink or yellow. In the U.S. I don't think either Democrats or Republicans would like to be associated with pink or yellow for their obvious connotations (i.e. Pinko, Pink elephant, Yellow journalism, Yellow dog Democrat, "Yellow belly", etc, etc). The colours aren't necessarily offensive but they may affect the reader in the same way the color of campaign signs affect them. Red and Blue are traditional representations of the united states political parties. I have swapped the colors with other parties including defunct parties, so readability would not be compromised, but have been reverted. It seems this is reasonable request since it doesn't really matter to the Encyclopedia what the colors are as long as it illustrates what is intended (i.e. differences). Readbility won't be compromise if it's swapped with a defunct party that no longer cares what the colors are.
- Support Changing shading of U.S. republican party to something other than pink or yellow that doesn't compromise readability per request from external party. --Tbeatty 04:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Seems reasonable, no good reason not to. - Crockspot 12:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support per WP:Why the heck not?. Sarcasticidealist 07:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a Support. I will swap with a defunct party. It's been 2 weeks since it was posted here and on the poltics RfC page. --Tbeatty 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to reopen this discussion. I don't have strong feelings about this, but in the popular American press the terms "Red State" and "Blue State" have come to distinguish Democrats and Republicans. While I agree that any non-duplicated color could be used, I do think a color in the red family should be used for the Republicans. Accordingly, I Oppose this change.Argos'Dad 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- A color pattern that's used in thousands upon thousands of articles is changed based on a discussion of three people? There is now a clear association of red with Republicans (see Red states and blue states), and the use of a shade of green that so closely clashes with the blue used for Democrats only makes a bad situation worse. I didn't know that we kowtowed to party officials in these matters under any circumstances, let alone in one that makes Wikipedia less useful. If this awful color choice sticks, can we change the article title to "Mint pistachio states and blue states"? This change needs to be reverted and then revisited on a far larger scale. Alansohn 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I confess that when I expressed my support earlier, I was taking it for granted that the switch would be for some kind of red or red derivative, although I could have seen that I was mistaken in that had I checked the shading's history. Sarcasticidealist 17:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the color change, and posted a link to this discussion at WP:Project Congress so we can have a broader discussion on whether the colors need to be changed at all, and, if so, what color it should be. For the record I Oppose any change to the current color scheme.Dcmacnut 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I also oppose the change and thank Dcmacnut for the reversion.—Markles 18:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Party color changes
I recently noticed that an editor User:Padfoot714 made several color changes to Template:Party shading, which I have since reverted because they seem to be too large of a change to implement without consensus.
The templates in question are Republican, Democratic-Republican, Union, Non-Partisan League, Greenback, and Jacksonian. I want to assume good faith, but given the controversy the last time colors were changed, I have reverted all except the change to the Republican template. I'm not too concerned about that color change, since it is still a shade of red and may may address some concerns that the old color was too "pink." I'd be fine with the Greenback change (darker green) for the same reason. But the color change for Democratic-Republican went from a shade of green to a dark purple, Union from purple to brown, and Jacksonian from purple to bright blue. I think there needs to be a wider consensus on what the colors should be before they are changed again.Dcmacnut 16:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Table showing of above changes
Here's a graphic display so the changes can be viewed easier.Dcmacnut 16:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
| Original Color | New Color |
|---|---|
| Republican | Republican |
| Original Color | Reverted Color |
| Democratic-Republican | Democratic-Republican |
| Union | Union |
| Greenback | Greenback |
| Jacksonian | Jacksonian |
| Non-Partisan League | Non-Partisan League |
| NPL | NPL |
- The change of the Republican color seems fine to me. I see no need for the other changes, except possibly the Greenback change. The new Greenback color seems a little too dark, and I prefer the original color. --CapitalR 17:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I like the new Republican color. I think the new Greenback color is a vast improvement (the old one being too "neon green"), and would support a change back to Padfoot's version. The Union and NPL ones look too similar for my taste and support the reversion. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Colors too similar
 |
For the sake of a broader audience, part or all of the discussion below has been transferred from the User namespace at User talk:Dcmacnut#Party Color Templates to this space below. Please continue the discussion here. |
I didn't realize I needed a "consensus agreement" to make some color changes to political parties. I'm not even sure who I would need to ask to obtain a "consensus" seeing as this site is open for editing to the entire world. I'm kind of a newbie when it comes to editing so I don't really know what kind of protocol or manners I'm supposed to use when editing such a widely used template. I've added a topic to the talk page on the party shading key which puts forth my issues with the current key if that appeases you.
I made the changes I did because the Populists and Democratic-Republicans have almost identical colors. Also the Know-nothing, Unionist, Republican, and Jacksonian parties all have very similar colors that can be hard to tell apart. I edited the NPL color because it essentially non-visible as a color and I edited the Greenbacks because the previous color of green seemed out of place with the other more muted colors being used. I'll admit that the NPL and Greenback edits were purely aesthetic but the other edits were meant to make things easier to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padfoot714 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- We encourage editors to be bold, but changes to the party templates affect hundres of articles, and drastic changes can be jarring and lead to edit wars. About a month ago, a single editor decided the Republican color was too pink, and changed it to an shade of green. Your changes were less dramatic, I will admit (and I liked your tweak of the Republican color). However, the main area for discussing party colors is Template_talk:Party shading, which covers the colors. The party key is mainly a simple way to display the various colors used for U.S. political parties in Congress, and any discussion of changing the colors is more appropriate on this page.
- My understanding of these templates is their primary purpose is to graphically display a color generally associated with a particular party. Beyond that, the color must be light enough so the text is clearly legible across a variety of computer monitors, particularly blue wikitext. This is precisely why bright red is not used for the Republican Party or dark blue isn't used for Democrats. A dark brown or a dark green will not work. Some template colors are similar, but editors are urged to add a party abbreviation rather than using color alone to eliminate any confusion. Moreover, Union, Know-Knothings, and Jacksonians were existed at different times in political history, so chances of having overlap of those parties causing confusion is minimal. The proximity in the Template:Party shading key is not what we should be focusing on, but how the colors render in actual articles.
- Having said that, I have no objections to some changes in color, but we need to think about this. The current color schemes were agreed upon a long time ago, and while they aren't static, they should be changed only after careful deliberation. I agree a reevaluation is probably in order because some colors are problematic. Your are right that the NPL color is far too light (it shows up on my monitor at work, but not at home). I will try to come up with some solutions and share them on this site, but for now I ask for patience and that we leave the colors as is for now.Dcmacnut 14:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with Dcmacnut. I think changes may be freely made by any user. Preliminary consensus is only necessary if revert wars or other editing conflicts arise.—Markles 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I disagree with you. If it's resonable to expect a substanial change would be controversial then you should seek consensus first rather then unnecessarily starting a revert war which would be disturptive to wikipedia s a whole. Furthermore, people on both sides tend to get frustrated when their well meaning efforts are reverted which means any discussion is likely to start with both parties unnecessarily aggrevated. BTW, the "seek consensus first unless it's unlikely to be controversial" is the same sentiment as expressed in page moves for example and I don't see any reason why it should not apply to wikipedia as a whole. Last I read, WP:BOLD is quite clear that being bold doesn't mean you should be reckless and making a substanial change which is unlikely to have a consensus and which is likely to be reverted seems to be reckless to me. None of this means that people need to seek consensus for every change to wikipedia but if the change you're making is likely to substanially affect many pages for example then it's wise to give a bit of thought to whether everyone is going to agree with the change and if you feel they won't attempt to seek consensus first. Nil Einne 06:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New color scheme
At the risk of beating this dead horse further, I've come up with a recommendation on new colors. I've stuck with the same general color scheme, but darkened and lightened a few of the problematic ones. I'm using Template:Party shading key as a guide. I've also added Socialist to show that recommended color change and a new proposd color for Nullifier Party to the mix. These are only suggestions, and focus only on the major party colors used for U.S. Congress delegation articles. These seem to render OK on my monitors.
I have not addressed the colors for modern third parties, and didn't make any changes to Democratic-Republican or Populist. Even though they are both the same color, I think enough time has passed between the times both parties operated that I don't think it will be too confusing, as long as the party name is used along with the color. Freel free to share your thoughts or criticisms.Dcmacnut 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
New color scheme
| This is a key to party colors and abbreviations for Members of the U.S. Congress: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Party abbreviations or full names must be retained for universal visual access. | |||||||||||||||||||
Support. I like the new colors except for Greenback & Nullifer. They're a little too dark.—Markles 20:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Changed Greenback and Nullifier colors. Greenback is same as the old color, only not as much neon.Dcmacnut 21:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Support. I like all of the proposed colors. Argos'Dad 21:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I thought one of the goals was to appease Republicans who thought that the color was too pink. I definitely think it should stay in the red family, but it still looks pretty pink to me. (see my suggestion above.)--Appraiser 22:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Support Thanks for doing this Dcmacnut. I think I can agree with this new key. However, I still think that it is a bad idea to use the same color for the Democrat-Republicans and Populists even if the two parties didn't overlap in their existences. It just seems illogical to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.53.93 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've made a few more changes. Democratic-Republican gets the old Free Silver color, Nullifier is lightened, and Pro-Administration is made a little bluer. As far as Republican, I've given it the proposed Socialist Color, and given Socialist the old Know-Nothing color. Appraiser suggested giving Republican the Know-Nothing color, but I thought it was too purple. Jacksonian gets the current pinkish Republican color. Have at it all.Dcmacnut 02:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Support. This should make everyone happy. (Yeah-right!)--Appraiser 13:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there's a reason why the Republicans were pinkish before. The shadings shouldn't overwhelm the text, and thus light colors should be used rather than dark colors. It's not as big a deal for minor parties, but it's pretty important for the major parties that it be a subtle color. Maybe something like FFB6B6? On the other hand, Socialist really can't be too red, mostly because that's the kind of red they'd normally pick to distinguish themselves, I'd imagine. It does cause a clash with Redlinks, but I'd be in favor of something more like FF5050 (or even FF6060) with the red maxed. SnowFire 23:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I had tested FF8989 in a few articles, and the text didn't seem to be overpowered, even red links. It does make the blue Democratic seem a bit washed out though. I'm willing to go with your suggestions. FFB6B6 is lighter, but still red enough to address the pink concerns. One point I'd like to make, though, is that the shading colors are unique, in that they don't necessarily match (or can match) the row heading colors elsewhere. They will always be slightly different or off, because the are superimposed behind the text. For example here's a comparison of how row headings and the shadings match up. Note: this is my next project, though I'll probably stick with these colors for the major parties, and just update to reflect whatever changes are made to the shading key.Dcmacnut 03:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Done: After hearing no objections for about a week, I've changed the colors and updated the party key as discussed above.Dcmacnut 01:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why a template?
Why is this a template? If its only purpose is to be a guide for editors, then shouldn't it be moved to the Wikipedia:Project namespace? —Markles 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I honestly have no idea, but it might have something to do with the slash trick that creates a subpage of the page. So Template:Party shading/Republican is a subpage of Template:Party shading, and gives you the < Template:Party shading under the title. But that's just a guess. --Ali'i 18:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Since no mainspace articles link to it, I think it should be moved to WP space.--Appraiser 19:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
