Template talk:United States political party shading key

Libertarian?

How about the Libertarian part? I've had this issue in the California State Assembly/Historical page. Cmdrbond 01:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• This template is designed to be used for elected members of congress. As no Libertarian has been elected to congress, a color key is not required. I have every confidence that as soon as a Libertarian is elected, the color key will be modified accordingly. --G1076 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Opposition Party

Can someone add an entry to the party shading key for the Opposition Party (United States) and the matching party shading template?. There seems to be about 100 members in the 34th United States Congress. Thanks. --G1076 03:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Can do... From looking at the New York delegation, the Opposition party appears to be proto-Republican; I'd guess they're the "Opposition to Slavery" party.--studerby 04:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. If you don't like the color, pick a better value from this color chart and either hack up the template yourself, or add another talk line here and I'll do it.

The other thing someone needs to do is stub out the page... --studerby 04:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking care of the new color key so quickly. I have nominated Opposition Party (United States) for the Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Congress/COTW and also trying to do a little research. --G1076 14:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Socialist Party and American Labor Party colors needed

Both the Socialist Party of America and the American Labor Party have sent Representatives to the U.S. Congress in the 20th Century.

• Socialist Party: Victor L. Berger and Meyer London
• American Labor Party: Vito Marcantonio and Leo Isacson

According to the Category:Party colours templates (United States) The Socialist color is |- |bgcolor=#999999|. Sample: Socialist Party of America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:American_politics/party_colours/Socialist

This is the same as the Independent color |- |bgcolor=#999999|. Sample: Independent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:American_politics/party_colours/Independent

This is misleading. The politics of the SPA are very different from that of an Independent like Bernie Sanders, Virgil Goode or Jim Jeffords. I'm proposing the red color Socialist Party of America

I believe this will satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Color_coding

The American Labor Party does not yet have a color on this page. Since it is a party that included many former Socialists, the color should be the lighter shade of red, Salmon: American Labor Party

DJ Silverfish 02:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why just congress?

Why is this just for Congress? If we're calling it the Party shading key (rather than the U.S. Congress Party shading key), why aren't we including (at minimum) the U.S. party colors listed in Category:Party colours templates (United States)? --Tim4christ17 ^talk 09:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Because this template is transcluded to as many as 150 articles which only list members of Congress. If we added all the parties that are not in Congress, then it would be too big.—Markles 11:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What is this?

Who came up with these colors? Why is there a self-reference at the bottom of this template? Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 02:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• These colors were being used before this template was created. I don't know why these colors were used back then, however. The semi-self-reference is there because users often leave out the abbreviations because they think the colors are sufficient. However, color-blind users or users with certain browsers will not be able to differentiate the colors.—Markles 10:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I get it... I came to this template from an article about one of these minor parties. This template makes sense in the tables of who served when (it doesn't matter what colors are used-- they can be arbitrary), but in the articles listing the minor parties it looks like it's someone's original research about colors, wholly unrelated to the article. I guess we need a separate template for those articles. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 18:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What color is or should be the Crawford Democratic-Republicans?

The Crawfords in my opinion should be green like the Democratic-Republican color because the Crawfords are more similar to the orginal Democratic-Republicans than the Adams and Jacksonians. I could add the Crawford Republican (C-DR) to the Party shading key template in the Democratic-Republican column if there is no objection.Farkas2029 03:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, I wouldn't add them to the key. They should just use the green D-R shading of {{Party shading/Democratic-Republican}}. We've done that with other affiliated partymen. For example a "Silver Republican" would still use {{Party shading/Republican}}.—Markles 14:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Furthermore, if you wanted, you could make {{Party shading/Crawford Democratic-Republican}} and redirect it to {{party shading/Democratic-Republican}}.—Markles 14:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Color blindness

[1] On the greyscale some of these colors are very similar, most notably the Democrat and Republican shades. Example Perhaps a slightly darker shade of Democrat blue or lighter shade of Republican red? --maclean 07:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose you could be right — I wouldn't really know if there's a problem. Can you make the changes subtly but effectively?—Markles 12:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I adjusted the Democrat color one from DDEEFF to CCEEFF (Proposal 1), one shade more blue. Use the tools linked to above to view these possibilities in the grayscale:

Existing	Proposal 1	Proposal 2	Proposal 3
Republican	Republican	Republican	Republican
Democratic	Democratic	Democratic	Democratic

The Republican color is left the same as FFE8E8 because adding more pink or peach would have no effect on the grayscale. Instead the Democrat color can be made darker (the above are progressively darker). As you can see in the articles (using the tool above) there is a little better contrast. The Proposal 2 and 3 would make better constrasts. --maclean 04:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Color Similarities

The Republican, Unionist, Jacksonian, and Know-nothing shades are all very similar and sometimes difficult to tell apart. The Democrat-Republican and Populist colors also have the same problem since they are nearly the exact same shade of green. In addition, the Non-Partisan League appears to not even have a color because the chosen one is so light. I made changes to several of these templates yesterday and many of them were changed back. I know some of you may have spent a lot of time determining what colors are "best" but I really think new colors are in order.Padfoot714 06:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Template:United States political party shading for a broader audience.Dcmacnut 14:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed a new color scheme for the key at Template_talk:Party_shading#New_color_scheme. If anyone's interest, please comment and make suggestions.Dcmacnut 20:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Adams Party (United States)

Hi.....Comments I've sent to Markles, what do you think??????

• • I've read some more about the era around 1824 and have finally figured things out, I think. Adams-Clay Repubs should be identified with the D-R's since the party hadn't fell apart yet. After 1824, the D-R's fell apart and were distinguished by factions (instead of parties) of which Adams was one. I apologize and shouldn't have called Adams as an Adams Republican. I should have simply ID'ed it as Adams. Since the National Republicans haven't been formed yet, I think the Adamses should stand alone as a seperate group (similar to the Pro and Anti-Admin Parties which also weren't official political parties). The Adams faction was pretty large with a base in the Northeast, but with allied members in every state at that time. Does that work? And what about a seperate party shade?????? Thanks for any commentsPmeleski 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Will respond on Markles page.Dcmacnut 02:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC) I guess I would have no problem with Adams having their own party color, since the Jacksonians have their own, but I think it's better to assign all three the same color, and just make the appropriate notation in the text. All three (Adams, National Republicans, and Anti-Jacksonians) had one common purpose: opposition to Andrew Jackson. Party organization changed, but not the underlying political beliefs. Another point I've made is that National Republicans technically never elected a member to the House, according to the party statistics for the time period. They may have ran as National Republicans in their respective states, but according to the House historical record, they are Adams or Anti-Jacksonian. In this regard, the Wikipedia articles for the 19th through 24th Congresses that list Democrats and NRs are wrong, and I'm working on fixing them. Anti-Jacksonians first appeared in 1829 with the 21st Congress, and ultimately became the Whigs starting in 1837 (25th Congress), which is when the Democrats also first appeared.Dcmacnut 03:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • I dont mind keeping the party color for the Adamsites the same for the Anti-Jacksons or the National Repubs. I thought the National Republican article needs to be updated (slightly) to explain the Adams affiliation just a little bit better. Otherwise you have the Adams faction affiliated with the National Repubs prior to the party organizing. It could leave someone confused. So I changed the article sightly which I think clears things up. It makes the party affiliation work, the party shading key work, and the timeline work. I also think the National Repubs had more to their agenda then simply opposing Andrew Jackson. They did have a platform as the National Repub article states. My suggestion, then, is to call the party shade National Republican, and leave the Adams and Anti-Jacksons out of the shade box. The tie in for both would be their inclusion in the National Repub article. If you leave it as it is now with no changes,it leaves the Adamses out there, and risk someone being confused how they fit. What do you think???????Pmeleski 22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good changes. That's one reason I moved the short Adams party article into National Republican. However, I think as far as the party key is concerned, we need to still say National Republican"/Anti-Jacksonian. The Anti-Jacksonians were the main opposition party after the National Republican Party disbanded, and since there's a key for Jacksonian, we need that additional piece for clarity. I've added specific mention of Adams and Anti-Jacksonian in the opening sentence.

One thing I recently found that throws a wrench in all of this is while the House doesn't list any National Republicans in office, the Senate does. See the 22nd Congress heading here. However, it only lists two NRs and 22 Anti-Jacksonians. But the Wikipedia article for 22nd Congress lists 22 NRs and 2 Nullifiers (which must be the what the Senate site references). So in the end, there's no one good source to use. But the one thing I think is that for our purposes, National Republicans had a limited official "party" presence in Congress, and Adams, Anti-Jacksonians should be part of the main article, but they shouldn't be the primary identifier for the party in the key. Does that make sense?Dcmacnut 01:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If it was up to me, I would identify the National Republicans as the party of choice for the Party Shading Key. Thats the article you are referred to when you try to access through the key. The opening line highlights all the coalitions to hopefully avoid further confusion........What do you think???????......Pmeleski 19:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree. No member of Congress is listed as "National Republican," and the purpose of the key is to easily identify the member's party. Including Anti-Jacksonian addresses that. If you're suggestion were followed to its fullest extent, then technically there shouldn't be a "Jacksonian" party key either, since Jacksonians were technically "Democrats." But that wouldn't work, since Democrats were a later creation that evolved from Jacksonians. The same applies to Anti-Jacksonian/National Republican.Dcmacnut 20:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't where I was going with my argument. My argument was the article the Anti-Jacksonian key forwards to is the National Republicans. I think the key should reflect the aticle it refers to, not name the key after how many reps are with a particular faction. For example, the Jacksonian key forwards to Jacksonian democracy, the Democratic-Republican key feeds to the Democratic-Repulicans,etc. I'm expecting to be led to the Anti-Jacksonian Party rather than the National Republican Party (as the large header title indicates) if I access through the key as it stands now . (How many people are actually going to do that is another question-probably not many). Now I know the National Republican group doesn't fit into any tightly organized grouping as the other parties do, and there will always be some ambiguity. And from my previous post that this group includes more than simply people who were against Andrew Jackson (The Adamses had reps FOR JQA and his platform). The National Republican term kind of serves as that all encompasing middle ground term which sort of includes both the Pro-Adams and Anti-Jacksonians agendas ..........But it's not worth getting into an edit war over since its pretty small potatoes we are disagreeing over. Just letting you know I prefer something else based on the above argument. Mind if I move this whole discussion over to the National Republican discussion page?.....Pmeleski 11:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and move it. I've love to see what others think. You may want to cross post at Template_talk:Party shading key as the party key folks may have other views to share. I definitely understand where you are coming from on this, but the key is more than just a link back to individual party articles. It's a color coded identifier of "this color=this party." Anti-Jacksonian was separate from National Republican in that the National Republican party only lasted from 1828 to 1832 by some accounts, but Anti-Jacksonians were in Congress long after that. Mentioning Anti-Jacksonian's in the National Republican article helps avoid duplication. I've added National Republican back to the party key alongside Anti-J to reflect the dualism of both parties.Dcmacnut 15:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Disussion transferred to allow for broader discussion. Feel free to add comments...Pmeleski 10:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I have now is that both the Anti-Jacksons and National Republicans are listed, but the key doesn't list the Adamses which were pretty significant (as significant as the Anti-Jacksonians I believe). You may have some confusion going forward if the Adamses aren't listed on the key if you decide to keep the other 2 there......Pmeleski 11:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Constitution Party shading template

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 BAM ("tripodics") (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (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))

States Rights Party

Before adding another party to the mix, I thought I'd add a discussion point here. It appears many of the southern states just prior to the Civil War elected States Rights representatives to Congress. The Biographical Directory lists them as a separate party from the Democrats. The Unionists are referenced as a unique party, so I'm guessing we should reference the States Rights Party as such as well? It should also be distingushed from the States Rights/Dixiecrat Party. Ideas?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am generally reluctant to proliferate, but if you think they are significant enough then go ahead and add them. That said, I've added a related discussion, below. —Markles 12:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Standard for inclusion

By what standard should parties be included here? At least, we all should agree, a party must have at least one member of Congress (House or Senate), and not just compete unsuccessfully. However, we need to decide if one is enough.

• Should we increase that baseline to 5? 10? 50?
• What happens when a member is elected under a vanity party name (e.g., "Connecticut for Lieberman").
• Should it be different for House/Senate? (See Conservative Party of New York which only elected one Senator.)
• Should those who aren't included be collected until a catch-all "Other or Third Party" color (different from "Independent / Unaffiliated or changed during term")?

I have some opinions, but I want to hear from other people first.—Markles 12:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The colors we choose are somewhat arbitrary as it is now, are are mainly for quick comparison in tables. As far as minimum standard, Prohibitionist is listed, but there was just 1 Representative ever elected on that ticket. Only 2 official Socialists have been elected.

So what about applying the same colors to similar parties. We use Free Silver for Silver Part as well as Silver Republicans. Same for the Adams/Anti-Jackson/National Rep parties and Unionist, Unconditional Unionist, and Constitutional Unionist. So States Rights (above) could use the Nullifier color, as both parties were founded on some sort of states rights platform. Most of the various parties didn't serve in the same congress, and we are required to actually list the name of the party when shading tables, so there shouldn't be too much confustion.

For Conservative Party and Liberal (Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr) use the Republican and Democratic color, but use the text.

As far as Indpendent Republican, Independent Democrat, or other minor third parties, we'd continue to use Indpendent. Same for any other subset of Independent X, like Indpendent Whig or Independent Populist (of which there are a few).

Just my thoughts.DCmacnut<> 01:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Since it's a key, should the standard of inclusion be use on any of the congressional delegation pages? -Rrius (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That's my thought. My above points were about avoiding creating new colors and making the key even larger. We could reuse colors for multiple, similar parties, since we are also required to put (Party) after the name on delegation pages.DCmacnut<> 15:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to Merge Pro-Administration with Federalist?

Does anyone have any objections to eliminating the Pro-Administration Color, and instead using the Federalist color? It matches more with the views of the so-call Pro-Administration Party, and the color is much easier to read over links. Or would it cause too much confusion down the road. I only ask this, because 3rd Congress uses both Pro-Administration shading and Federalist shading the same party. Another option would be come up with a more subdued color than currently being used.DCmacnut<> 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

States' Rights Democratic Party vs. Nullifiers

I recently was trying to find the right color for the States' Rights Democratic Party and realized that there was not an apposite choice on this template. I considered the "Nullifier/States Rights" option but I rejected it because the Nullifier party was active in the 1830s and the States' Rights Democratic Party contested the 1948 Presidential election. In between those periods the parties had no continuity. Obviously, there is a similar ideology in the two movements, but that doesn't appear to the be the standard here as most political parties have antecedents in other parties but we don't include the Whigs and Republicans in the same color block, neither are the Democrats united with their progenitors in the Democratic-Republican party.

I welcome a discussion here of these thoughts so that we can make this template useful and not too bulky. Argos'Dad 12:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The key is not about colors matching parties with continuity, but rather assigning a color to a party to help the visual display in articles. There was some discussion along these lines, and adding States Rights to Nullifier was a compromise to avoid having dozens upon dozens of colors/parties represented. The fact that both parties held similar views, and operated at different times meant we could use the same color for different time periods. The color you chose was identical to that for independent, so why not add States Rights under Indpendent? This issue applies primarily to minor parties that elected a handful of members to Congress. Major parties like Whig, Democrats, Republicans, Democratic-Republicans get their own shading because they elected hundreds of members. If we had a separate color for every minor party, the key would be come too large and lose its usefulness.

A more important item, however, is that this political party key is only for parties that elected a senator or representative to Congress. The "States Rights" party originally included applied to the short-lived party in Georgia from the 1850s that elected two members to Congress. No Dixiecrat was ever elected to Congress according to the House Clerk's website and Congressional Bioguide. Strom Thurmond may have been the Dixiecrat candidate for President, but he was elected to the Senate as a Democrat and later became a Republican. Moreover, in his later years he repudiated the segregationist views once held by him and his former party. The key is meant for displaying parties of which members were formally elected or publically identified themselves as in the official party rosters in the House or Senate. It is fine to have a stand-alone Dixiecrat shading template, but it should not be included in this key., but since no Dixiecrat was elected as a Dixiecrat to Congress, or served as a Dixiecrat, then I would argue the party should not be included here.DCmacnut<> 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You make excellent points and I agree with your reasoning. I didn't realize that this template was only for parties with congressional representation. Should we make that clearer in the title? I assumed that these colors also applied to the Presidential election results...Argos'Dad 17:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The colors apply to Presidential races, yes, but as the template states "This is a key to party COLORS and ABBREVIATIONS for Members of the U.S. Congress" and areu used primarily on the various Congressional delegations from State X articles. The colors listed at Template:United States political party shading are the primary source for other colors other political parties.DCmacnut<> 01:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Conservative Party of Virginia

The Conservative Party of Virginia should be on here. They won six House seats, which easily makes them as worthy for a spot on the template as the Prohibition party or Socialist Party. -LtNOWIS (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)