Template:Infobox political party is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here first. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use ((edit template-protected)) to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

	Infoboxes
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles

Politics: Political parties Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by Political parties task force.

This template was considered for deletion on 24 December 2020. The result of the discussion was "speedy withdraw".

Can some please add the ability to alternate/change the parameter of "spokesperson" to "spokespersons" for this template? This is for political parties that have multiple spokespersons and therefore a plural is applicable. This would be handy to add this ability to pluralise other positions as well e.g. leader/leaders, deputy leader/deputy leaders, general secretary/general secretaries, treasurer/treasures etc. Helper201 (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've kept off colors from Democrata Party infobox as no one knew what colors it used. The color blue we are usimg today is conjecture as the Nacionalista Party used red (while we use green here lol that's another discussion). Now, User:Vif12vf reverted me stating it doesn't have to be "official".

Is s/he right? Howard the Duck (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guidelines for colors on this page state "The official colors of the party, independent of infobox usage". So who's right? Howard the Duck (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there is a difference between the colour and colourcode-sections, with the latter existing purely for aesthetic reasons. Most parties have a colour in this section even though most parties dont have such a thing as an "official colour", with the colour they use just depending on the colour in the party logo or flag most of the time. As for adding colour to the regular colour-section, which is not what I did, any colour added to this section should definatively be official, as it otherwise would just serve to inflate many infoboxes more than they already are. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't color and any colorcodes be identical, i.e., if the color is blank, then the colorcode should be blank as well? Otherwise that will sow confusion and that's not what we want.

As fot aesthetic reasons, this boils down to WP:ILIKEIT arguments, which then boils down to which is a more vamid argument, having identical color and colorcodes or having nonidentical ones with the latter being used for purely aesthetic purposes, with article not even explaining how the color was used (again, a violation of MOS:INFOBOX.) ? Howard the Duck (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since most parties don't have an "official colour" per se, this would largelly render both parameters redundant. Keep in mind that for something such as a symbol or colour to be counted as official, it would have to be outlined as such in a central party document such as the party constitution, most parties do not have a colour mentioned in any such document, and simply uses a colour depending on what is used in other symbols such as their logo. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know this, but there are some parties that do not have logos or colors, or were lost in time. This is an example of that, and using colors this way is inaccurate. We can use unofficial colors if WP:RS themselves used it, but if we have nothing to base it on, it is WP:OR, more so on an important part of the article such as an infobox. I can understand using made up colors for areas where colors have no substitute (such as charts, diagrams where other parties are included), but this isn't it. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can some please add the ability to alternate/change the parameter of "spokesperson" to "spokespersons" for this template? This is for political parties that have multiple spokespersons and therefore a plural is applicable. This would be handy to add this ability to pluralise other positions as well e.g. leader/leaders, deputy leader/deputy leaders, general secretary/general secretaries, treasurer/treasures etc. Helper201 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because english, it's weird to say 'spokespersons' instead of 'spokespeople'. Same with 'secretary' -> 'secretaries'. An alternate parameter could be used instead for the plural version. 'Leader' and 'treasurer' can both have an "(s)" at the end. SWinxy (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be fine with having Spokespeople as an alternate option for spokesperson for when the plural is applicable. It’s just making the syntax or code (I'm not versed in the technicalities of such things) allow for parameters like these where a plural of these options can be used. There are parties with multiple spokespeople, secretaries, treasures etc. So, it would be very helpful to allow for the pluralisation of such parameters for when multiple people apply to the given section. Helper201 (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((Detect singular)) is useful for this work. If someone wants to modify the sandbox to use it, that would be helpful. See ((Infobox officeholder/office)) for an example of how it works. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Primefac (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles with ((Infobox Indian political party)) that also have |publication= have this infobox flagged as an error, eg All India Forward Bloc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . I'm not sure why this is happening. Auric talk 14:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Fixed. Someone had introduced invalid parameters to ((Infobox Indian political party)). – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone know why a user would make more than a dozen edits removing the political position from the pages of political parties using this template and put "Longstanding consensus not to include political positions for the democratic or republican parties" in their edit summary?

For reference, see [edit here]. skarz (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]