Template talk:United States political party shading

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *I also oppose the change and thank Dcmacnut for the reversion.—Markles 18:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rfc for republican shading 

message: Here's a graphic display so the changes can be viewed easier.Dcmacnut 16:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table showing of above changes

message: 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:United States political 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)
thread_title: New color scheme

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Since no mainspace articles link to it, I think it should be moved to WP space.--Appraiser 19:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why a template? 

message: With the proper coding, the coloring could be accessed with  rather than , and there is merit to such, as all of the colorings can be modified at once. Example code:

{{#if: {{{1|}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{{1}}} | Federalist Party (United States) |#EA9978|
{{#ifeq: {{{1}}} | Democratic-Republican Party (United States) |#008000|
{{#ifeq: {{{1}}} | Democratic Party (United States) |#3333FF|
{{#ifeq: {{{1}}} | Whig Party (United States) |#E3FF2A|
{{#ifeq: {{{1}}} | Republican Party (United States) |#FF3333|
{{#ifeq: {{lc:{{{1}}}}} | independent |{{#if: {{{2|}}} |#EEEEEE|{{{2}}}}}|
{{{{{1}}}/meta/color}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
|#EEEEEE}}

...whereby selection statements for additional pairs of party name and party legend color can easily be inserted in place of , like for example:
{{{{{1}}}/meta/color}}	    →    	{{#ifeq: {{lc:{{{1}}}}} | no party |{{#if: {{{2|}}} |#EEEEEE|{{{2}}}}}|
{{{{{1}}}/meta/color}}
}}
...or certainly in other ways, as each line item is nested in the else field of the selection statement of another.
-- Lindberg 23:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: A single template instead of a collection of templates

message: I'm working on or will be working on several articles on the politics of the Northern Mariana Islands. As the Covenant Party there is a major party (the current governor and past governing coalitions in the legislature have been Covenant), does anyone have a suggestion on the color for its party shading? Qqqqqq (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Covenant Party (Northern Mariana Islands)]] 

message: I added a shading template for the Constitution Party
(which was on the ballot in a majority of states, 
with results reported in several Wikipedia pages, some with shading).
The URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Party_shading/Constitution
I hope it was'nt TOO BOLD of me to do this!
(P.S.  I will be out of the country and probably off-line for more than a week.  Feel free to fix what I've done, but I won't be able to respond to comments, etc. until I return. BAM ("tripodics") (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitution party 

message: I created Template:Party shading/Democratic/block and Template:Party shading/Republican/block, but each time I use the template, the respective page (example: Template:Alabama House of Representatives and Alabama House of Representatives) are being added to :Category:United States Republican Party color templates. Is there a way to stop them from being added to said category? Frank0051 (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I fixed them.  Did my fixes work?—Markles  01:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, see :Category:United States Republican Party color templates...they are still there, unless my browser cache is not updating. Frank0051 (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: NOW it's working, I think.  OK?—Markles  16:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, gracias. Frank0051 (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Slight Problem with categories

message: What's the difference between Template:Party shading/Constitution and Template:Party shading/ConstitutionUSA? Aren't they just the same party? I prefer the former, since it's more easily distinguishable from the Republican shading. -LtNOWIS (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitution vs. ConstitutionUSA 

message: The color contrast in this template is very low, which is a problem for people with poor vision or color-blindness; or those using monochrome devices such as Kindles. Technically, it fails WCAG AA luminosity tests, and thus breaches the relevant section of our manual of style. I'd suggest using colored squares or bullets before or after the names, or colored borders; or dropping the colors altogether. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite true; none of this Red state/Blue state stuff is good; it's American political rancour spilling into this project. Far better to use words and judicious use of colour; say a bit of left-border a few pixels wide. (Remember when "Reds" were Communists?) Alarbus (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

text: For the sake of accessibility, editors do not use color alone, it is merely decorative.  Party names or abbreviations, often linked, are required.  The colors need to be light so they remain a subtle background.  When darker shades are needed, a different color scheme is used, denoted by Template:American politics/party colors/….  Please see  and  for fuller collections of the templates.—GoldRingChip  13:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of using colour alone (which would be a separate accessibility problem) but of making the text unreadable. The WCAG standards have an unambiguous metric for measuring the readability of colour combinations, and the current colour combinations fail this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I think we need to ditch the pastel pallate for darker colors.  I know some ppl think non-pastels hurt their eyes, but pastels look too much like each other, or like white Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to either ditch coloured backgrounds completely, or find background colours which have a measurably acceptable contrast to the foreground text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

text: When they are background colors, they need to be light so the text can still be read.  There are too many shaded parties (in this case, 30), to eliminate the pastels and just keep the darker ones while maintaining a visual distinction.—GoldRingChip  14:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

text: My preference would be to use the existing colours, but in front of the text (as an icon or a wide margin or border) rather than as a background to the text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the colors at all is really silly. Just because the tv networks do it is no reason for WP to do so. Also: A color symbol indicates that the Republican Party of 1862, for example, is the same as the Republican Party of 2012, which is just not true. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

text:  These are intended for and very widely used as background colors..  If, as you say, they aren't accessible as backgrounds, then it defeats the purpose of having them.  The scheme of an icon or colored margin/border is used by Template:American politics/party colors/….—GoldRingChip  01:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes.  They are used in thousands of pages.—GoldRingChip  19:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you propose that we resolve this, then? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  —GoldRingChip  21:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accessibility 

message: Why did you make this change to ?  If you're going to make such a change to such a widely used and thoroughly discussed (not to mention fully protected) template, you really need to give a reason and/or discuss it first. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care which color is ultimately used, but would like to know the reason it was changed. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed it because its former color, gray, looked too similar to vacant, or hold.  Like you, I'm not bound to a specific color, but on United States Senate elections, 2012, for example, yellow looked good.—GoldRingChip  12:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just a little concerned about tables where it appears next to a Libertarian, since both are on the "gold" side of yellow.  Your point about the similarity to "vacant" is well taken, however. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a good point.  I forgot about the libertarian yellow.  So could we switch the libertarian to a different color, brown perhaps?—GoldRingChip  16:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please don't.  Libertarian being "gold" is not only fairly established on Wikipedia, but in various "real world" sources as well (see, for example, Iowa House 45's official results here and the Libertarian Party's own logo), so it really shouldn't be changed.  Perhaps use a yellow that's less gold and more brown for the Independents?  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Independent color looks now almost the same as the Whig color. There were not many Independents around during the Whig era, so I suppose it's not really conflicting, but aren't there more colors in the rainbow than 30, or so? Besides, I think the grey color was originally selected because "independent" reminds one of indistinct, hazy, non-classifiable, neither white nor black but somewhere in the middle, or some such thing. Kraxler (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not almost the same, it is the same.  I blatently copied Whig colors when I recoded the Independent colors. Pretty lazy of me, frankly.  That does, of course, create a conflict.  I think we used gray for the reasons you state, Kraxler, but perhaps a primary or secondary color like yellow or green (which are often used in mass media) would look better.—GoldRingChip  14:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any personal preference which color should/could be used. But I'm curious now, is there some historical background to use yellow for the Whigs? And, could you give a link to the mass media which use colors for parties, having yellow or green for Independent? Kraxler (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have very occasionally seen yellow for incumbents, but gray is more common by far.  At this point, I think it should go back to the original gray until we've reached a decision for a replacement color here.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with green for independents is that it is already used for the Green Party (which makes sense IMO). Grey is also not necessarily the best choice, since it tends to indicate null and we also use it for instances of "other" (for example, write-in candidates). I concur that the two yellows are still close enough to one another to cause some degree of run-toegther / confusion. Perhaps we could agree to use a distinct color for independents that can be differentiated from the currently used colors? Purple perhaps? Elcid89 (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did you change the color? 

message: Why are the Democratic and Republican colors lighter than on Template:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color and Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color? CTF83! 03:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope you don't mind, but I've forked your comment out for clarity of discussion (since it's really two discussions). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I remember reading that the different colors are for different usages, but don't remember which was for what or which talk page the discussion(s) were on.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

text: They are lighter because they're intended to be shading behind text, whereas the …/meta/color templates usually fill in color in a table without any text on top of them.—GoldRingChip  20:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, that makes perfect sense, Gold. No problem, Philosopher. CTF83! 02:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existing color variances 

message: The Liberal Republican Party (United States) of 1872 that nominated Horace Greeley against Ulysses Grant - does not have a color shading. On the United States presidential election, 1872 page it has been assigned "colour2 = C154C1" but there is no official color yet... Polifollower (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal Republican Party of 1872

message: The Libertarian colour is yellow or gold, not this golden-brown colour that is currently in use.  How did it get this way?  Here's how:  On December 10th, Jack Cox darkened the colour.  Then, SnowFire undid Jack Cox's edit (see reversion here), admonishing Jack Cox to "Please discuss potential changes over at Template talk:Party shading first."  Literally two minutes later, without discussing it here at all, Jack Cox again darkened the colour (see re-darkening here).  The shade has remains uncharacteristically dark since then.This must be rectified.  Golden-brown is just too dark.I believe we ought to replace this (#DCB732) with this (Gold).  Please let me know if there is any problem with this.Cheers,allixpeeke (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Eleven days have passed, and no one has suggested that she or he has any problem with this; thus, I am making the change.Best,allixpeeke (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just wanted to let you know that I made a very subtle change from "Gold" (which Internet Explorer renders as #FFD700) to #FED105, which is the shade of gold used in the png logos and the CSS style sheets on http://www.lp.org. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 20:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahecht, I think that was a wise decision.  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Party shading/Libertarian]]

message: Any particular reason why the Federalist Party is salmon-ish? Bjengles3 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federalist Party