Module talk:Political party

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Political party module.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This module does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: Political parties This module 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 This module is supported by Political parties task force.

Module:Political party is permanently protected from editing as it is a heavily used or highly visible module. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. 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.

This edit request to Module:Political party/F has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Forward Party (US) colour from to #182742 to #480D67. This is the colour described on Forward Party (United States). It is also more prominent on Forward Party media than the current dark blue colour that it is. DerpyRainbow (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the module's sandbox first. See WP:TESTCASES.

more like not done for now to be honest. Nugs T·C (they/she) 16:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe i've done that now. I don't seem to be able to make a sandbox for the documentation, though. DerpyRainbow (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — chrs || talk 22:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the Portuguese Socialist Party, I think a less vibrant pink would fit better the party, since it doesn't really use bright pink in its visual identity or propaganda, so to be closer to it's actual visuals, and to keep it diferent from other left wing parties that use red like PCP, I recomend this Brilliant Rose tone: #EE4B9D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyeme (talk • contribs) 21:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now':' There is an ongoing discussion on this matter at Talk:Socialist Party (Portugal), which should be resolved before changing the color here. — chrs || talk 04:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Description of suggested change:

The addition of Saisei no Michi, the Path to Rebirth Party. You can find Saisei no Michi's Japanese wikipedia page here. I have taken the colour from there.

Diff:

−

+

["Saisei no Michi"] = {abbrev = , color = "#490f73", shortname = "the Path to Rebirth",}

Notconnor (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've used the color #6E126F which is being used in 2025 Tokyo prefectural election. — chrs || talk 04:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Political party/F has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: Please change the colour of the Farnham Residents Group from pink to #78be21 (which is the one they seem to be using on their website). Thanks!

Diff:

−

["Farnham Residents"] = {color = "pink"},

+

["Farnham Residents"] = {color = "#78be21"},

Amberkitten (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 00:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

change Nationalist Congress Party to #FFC0CB and #00B2B2 to Nationalist Congress Party (pre–2023) 4774அப்செ (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Already done I see you've handled this yourself. — chrs || talk 03:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi So I'm moving an earlier discussion to this talk page, concernign the color of the party Liberal Democrats UK. So sometime last year, the color of the Liberal Democrats was updated to match a new branding by the party. This resulted in the party now having 2 colors in the module. Both of these are being used at the moment, where pages concerning the parties before the branding, are colored another color. ["Liberal Democrats (UK)"] = {abbrev = "Lib Dem", color = "#FAA61A", shortname = "Liberal Democrats",},

["Liberal Democrats (UK, 2025)"] = {abbrev = "Lib Dem", color = "#FF6400", shortname = "Liberal Democrats",},

I believe this is bit too much, and confusing. Why have 2 colors for the party, instead of just one. This can cause some confusion, as to whether an orange LD is the same as a yellow LD, as they look different. Thomediter (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Political party/S has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add "TPSL" as the abbreviation for "Social Democratic Union of Workers and Smallholders". ~2026-82979-8 (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 🍅 fx (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Political party/W has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the Working Families Party from #f598e2 to #f4563b. I'm not sure why the listed color is pink (#f598e2) when the Wikipedia page lists the color code as orange (#f4563b). Assuming that the Working Families Party listed here and the page are the same party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Families_Party JProcino (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 🍅 fx (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Political party/J has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To give a party colour for Janata Unnayan Party based in West Bengal. The party colour is #8AB800. Kindly add it to your database. ~2026-86170-4 (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Never mind, the color is listed at Janata Unnayan Party. 🍅 fx (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 🍅 fx (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Political party/L has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To change the colour of Liberal Democratic Party (Japan). It has changed its colour to red. Hence change it. ~2026-86170-4 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Already done - the color is listed under the name Liberal Democratic Party (Japan, 2017) 🍅 fx (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to open a discussion regarding color handling, specifically for historical party names and branding. I am not requesting an immediate change or addition of colors, but would like to seek consensus on how similar cases have been handled and whether a comparable approach may apply here.

As a point of comparison, in South Korea’s People Power Party, the party displays a red color when the current name is used in election infoboxes. However, its former name, United Future Party, is assigned a separate pink color in the module, even though it does not have a standalone article and only exists as a redirect. The infobox reflects the historical party name used at the time rather than retroactively applying the current party’s color.

In this context, I would like to discuss a similar scenario involving Lakas-NUCD, separate from Lakas-CMD (1991). Although Lakas-NUCD currently redirects to Lakas–CMD, its branding during the 1991–2004 period notably differed. Contemporary campaign materials from the 1992 Ramos campaign and the 1998 Jose “Joe” de Venecia campaign show consistent use of yellow, which was closely associated with People Power-era imagery.

The powder blue color currently used for Lakas-CMD (1991) appears to have been introduced later, during the 2004 campaign of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, following the party’s renaming to Lakas-CMD. Given this distinction, I would like to ask whether it would be appropriate to consider a separate module color entry for Lakas-NUCD, similar to how other historically distinct party names are handled.

Links: https://gulfnews.com/uae/arroyo-de-castro-plan-grand-start-to-campaign-1.310108 [Earlier, she expressed a preference for powder blue (instead of dark blue)]

https://rigobertotiglao.com/2022/05/16/the-people-have-their-reasons/ [The crushing of the RAM-led coups right after EDSA in 1986, however, intimidated the nation to accept the three Yellow regimes (Cory's, Ramos' and Aquino 3rd) and their narratives.]

[Image shows Secretary Ramos wear yellow while campaigning with then-President Corazon Aquino]: https://media.gettyimages.com/id/898204642/photo/manilla-philippines-philippines-presidential-election-candidate-fidel-ramos-calls-for-support.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=8BhJC66CrZqH3CRkj-hN8-ko-6d8bfpylYPeSdjRrno=

Please add an entry for: "Left Front (Tripura)" = "#FF0000", This is required to display properly in election templates. The colour is consistent with CPI(M)-led Left Front usage in Tripura.

Thank you. Bdm166 (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Primefac (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Description of suggested change: Adding a new entry for the People's Party (Myanmar), after it won a significant number of votes during the recent election.

Diff: ["People's Party (Myanmar)"] = {abbrev = "PP", color = "FAFA0C", shortname = "People's Party",},

YoungArkas (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done phuzion (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Description of suggested change: Adding a new entry for the Alternativa (Kosovo), after it won a significant number of votes during the recent election.

Diff: ["Alternativa (Kosovo)"] = {abbrev = "Alternativa", color = "D0A153", shortname = "Alternativa",},

 Done with the exception of removing the abbreviation. phuzion (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

phuzion, please check and fix {{Party color|Alternativa (Kosovo)}}, as the color #D0A153 is still not displaying. BalkanianActuality (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should be good now, thanks for the heads up! phuzion (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Political party/S has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: Change the abbreviation of Serb List (Kosovo) from 'Serb List' to 'SL'.
(phuzion, can you change?)

Diff:

−

["Serb List (Kosovo)"] = {abbrev = "", color = "#173968", shortname = "Serb List",},

+

["Serb List (Kosovo)"] = {abbrev = "SL", color = "#173968", shortname = "Serb List",},

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BalkanianActuality (talk • contribs) 11:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Paine Ellsworth, please review it again, as the abbreviation “SL” is still not being applied, meaning it is still being displayed as “Serb List". BalkanianActuality (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At the link you provided the abbreviation in the infobox is "SL". Where are you seeing it displayed otherwise? Be sure to purge your cache to draw up a fresh rendition of the page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Paine Ellsworth, the change is not being reflected in “Cabinet of Avdullah Hoti#Composition” and in any of the variants of Template:Party name with color that I use, it still appears as “Serb List” rather than “SL,” even though I cleared the cache before rechecking. BalkanianActuality (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Cabinet of Avdullah Hoti#Composition link works correctly now. Let me know if you still see a problem. Seems the way to fix this was to eliminate the "short name". Apparently templates look for a short name first, and then look for the abbreviation if the short name is missing. Hope this helps! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 03:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

​ Please don't just go eliminating shortnames; {{Party name with color}} and other templates that wrap this have an |abbrev= parameter that can set the desired value. Primefac (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Primefac: self-reverted – now how do we fix the ones at the link above, Cabinet of Avdullah Hoti#Composition, where the {{Cabinet table minister}} template is used with parameter |ministerx_party=Serb List (Kosovo)? These use the short name over the abbreviation unless the short name is eliminated. I can't find an |abbrev= parameter anywhere in that. I looked at a bunch of these in this module and found none that had both an abbreviation and a short name. They either had one or the other or neither. Couldn't find one that had both. That's why I took out the short name when I added the abbreviation, and that made the {{Cabinet table minister}} template at the above link use the abbreviation, "SL". To editor BalkanianActuality: want you to be aware of this issue. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 00:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the short term, let's just leave it as-is. From the looks of it, a lot of these "short names" are just removing the parenthetical disambiguator. I don't know of any situation where we want that content to be included in the invocation, so I'll see if I can get the module to strip out those bits. If that works (and I don't muck up 50% of extant transclusions) then those minus-parens shortnames can be removed, hopefully solving this issue for any similar party that doesn't have a shortname. If I can't get it by the week's end, I'll restore the lack of shortname for this specific use case. Primefac (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and thank you much for that! Sounds like it's way above my pay grade. ;>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 00:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple examples of parties having part of their name in parentheses (e.g. Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) and Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist)), so automatically excluding it would not be a good idea.

The issue here has arisen due to the problematic nature of how information was migrated across to this module from the predecessor templates; there were previously templates for displaying party names to be used in tables ('abbrev' templates) and templates for displaying party names in infoboxes ('short name' templates). The names of those templates were not descriptions of the contents, just a convenient template name. However, when the modules were created, rather than create two fields with contents that matched the two sets of templates, the party names were mixed up, so if the content of a 'short name' template was an abbreviation, it was moved to the 'abbrev' field, and vice versa. Number 57 00:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting removing the parens from any |shortname= I was suggesting removing it from any potential invocation where there wasn't a shortname. For example, if we had Party Party (Geneva) with no shortname or abbrev, a shortname call would return just Party Party. Otherwise, we would have to add |shortname=Party Party to the line. Primefac (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was referring to though – what happens if there is a party currently without a shortname but with parentheses in their names. For example, Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre) or Communist Party of Spain (Marxist–Leninist) currently do not have shortnames in the template. If you set up some sort of automated process, it would remove it from these two parties' names if they were called in some context. Number 57 01:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57, the comparison with Nepalese party examples does not seem applicable here, as the “Kosovo” parenthetical in Serb List serves only as disambiguation from similarly named defunct parties in Montenegro and should not be treated as a functional shortname. BalkanianActuality (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; no one (that I know of) is using this module to link to parties, just to display a name; from the uses of the counterexample above I am only seeing colour calls (not names). To restate what i said above, I don't see an instance where someone would be looking for the name of a party and wanting to include the parenthetical (unless it is hardcoded into the stored shortname or abbrev). That being said, I have no issue being wrong, and if things get broken monumentally (I will of course sandbox fist) I will revert. Primefac (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be talking at cross purposes here. My concern is that if you create a piece of code that automatically fills in the shortname field with party names minus bits in parentheses, should a party that has part of its proper name in parentheses be listed in an election infobox or certain types of table (which call on the shortname field), it will be listed in that infobox or table without the bit in parentheses; for example, Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre) would appear as Communist Party of Nepal, which is clearly not what we should be wanting to happen. Number 57 20:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see (and understand) your concern, and it's not unreasonable. What we have here, as mentioned above, is a module that was built to be a repository of information but with existing templates using that information in different ways. We built in a safeguard to deal with most of those issues, which is having the module return basically "whatever is available" so that (for example) if a shortname is asked for but not present, we assume that an abbrev is desired, because in "the old days" before this module that very well might have been the intention. That unfortunately backfires when both are present and abbrev really was the intended value.

In this particular case (and I suspect, a large number of similar ones based on what I've seen over the years) we have a shortname that is present whose sole purpose is to remove the parenthetical disambiguator, meaning that it is occasionally blocking the appropriate/desired abbrev being returned. For these cases, it makes more sense to remove the shortname and strip the () automatically. I genuinely don't know of, but I have yet to see, any case where a political party with a disambiguator is displayed using this template without removing that dab or otherwise shortening the name (see e.g. most of the other Communist Parties of Nepal). In other words, your concern is a perfectly valid one, but if it doesn't actually happen it's like prepping for snowfall in the middle of the summer.

Now, I have no issue being wrong here, but on the balance of how I see this going I genuinely don't see the proposed change (stripping the parens if there are no abbrev/shortname) causing any significant change to the visual display in the articles. If it does, however, I will of course reverse the edit, and we can reevaluate the situation here (which, in fairness, may be as simply as just removing the single shortname that prompted this whole mess). I'd rather clean up the code here, though, than try and nitpick every template out there, and this seems like a reasonable way to do it. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Paine Ellsworth, thank you for the clarification. The edit had a practical purpose: to display the abbreviation “SL” in usages such as {{Cabinet table minister}}, where shortname currently overrides abbrev. The “Kosovo” parenthetical is only for disambiguation and should not function as a shortname. Until a broader module-level fix exists, restoring the configuration that displays “SL” would be reasonable. BalkanianActuality (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. Editor Primefac has assured us above that if the issue in the module can't be solved by the end of the week, the edit I self-reverted will be reinstated. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be implementing shortly; it will probably be a good few hours before the module change shows up across the project, and I'll be unavailable for a few hours after making said edit, but unless things are actually breaking I would please ask that you hold off if things show differently so that any issues can be discussed. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, and thank you very much! and to editor BalkanianActuality, hope this edit resolves all the issues you mentioned at the start. Good hunting! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Political party/N has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change colorcode of National Alternative Movement: #0F7B61 to #0D7B60 Mold Edits (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: I'm seeing multiple different conflicting colors for this party. Would you be able to provide a source for which shade is most accurate? — chrs || talk 23:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Political party/C has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: Correct the party color of the Communist Party of Germany to #8B0000 as it is the correct one, and also the one used by parliament diagrams in the English wikipedia and widely used as the KPD's color in general on other Wikipedias.

Ceedii1234 (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Primefac (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Political party/L has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: change the color of the Liberal Party of Chile from #FF432C to #FF03B2, color that appears in the party's logo and social media graphics. liberaleschile.cl/

Diff:

−

["Liberal Party of Chile (2013)"] = {color = "#FF432C"}

+

["Liberal Party of Chile (2013)"] = {color = "#FF03B2"}

Andresiinho (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Have a nice day! SomeRailfan (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edit below, but was reverted by Impru20 due to the number of articles using these parameters. This slightly alters the shades of blue and red for the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties based on the colors used in their respective logos and other web materials. I do not think this is controversial because there is barely a perceptible change, but am glad to discuss.

Democratic:    →   
Republican:    →   

Diff:

−

["Democratic Party (United States)"] = {abbrev = "D", color = "#3333FF", shortname = "Democratic",},

+

["Democratic Party (United States)"] = {abbrev = "D", color = "#003CBA", shortname = "Democratic",},

−

["Republican Party (United States)"] = {abbrev = "R", color = "#E81B23", shortname = "Republican",},

+

["Republican Party (United States)"] = {abbrev = "R", color = "#E9151E", shortname = "Republican",},

WMSR (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I can confirm the Democratic colour change, but it seems (from gop.com, archived at the Internet Archive on 2026-01-05^[a]) that the Republican Party webpage accents are   #D71F27:

−

["Republican Party (United States)"] = {abbrev = "R", color = "#E81B23", shortname = "Republican",},

+

["Republican Party (United States)"] = {abbrev = "R", color = "#D71F27", shortname = "Republican",},

Where does #E9151E come from?

SomeRailfan (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It came from the SVG of the logo on Commons, but your shade makes more sense. WMSR (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disabling the EPER until a clearer consensus can develop; "I do not think this is controversial" is incorrect given that the edit was reverted. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I did not initially tag this as an EPER. WMSR (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did, seeing the other EPER tags above and not actually thinking about what tagging it implied. Please Trout me if you see it fit. SomeRailfan (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this user unilaterally change a number of well-established colours into cherry-picked ones of their choosing. Some of these colours are used by dozens, if not hundreds, of articles, together with maps and diagrams using these same colours as a basis. Normally, and due to the implications of the change, changing a well-established colour of a major party is done only when significant reasons exist for it; and even when a party changes its colour (not its shade, but its colour altogether), we don't replace the previous one but create a new row so as to preserve the previous colour for the articles in which it was used. Changing these just because one user's preferred shade is a different one is highly disruptive, and I cannot think how someone could think this would not be contested. It is me who did it in this case, but someone would have done it eventually since this affects articles within a contentious topic area (post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people). Impru20^talk 08:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note about the general practice for if a party changes its color. That said, I have not yet seen any user, including yourself, raise an objection to this specific edit. Characterizing this proposed edit as one user's preferred shade and highly disruptive frankly comes off as a personal attack more than anything else. What is your objection to this edit? WMSR (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"I have not yet seen any user (...) raise an objection to this specific edit" Probably because the edits were short-lived and because this is not a talk page that is typically frequented by editors of election, party and/or politics articles. If you want to seek input on this, you should probably go to each party's individual talk page (Talk:Democratic Party (United States) and Talk:Republican Party (United States) for these cases, respectively) and probably put a notice in each of the linked WikiProjects there.

"including yourself" Yes? Read again because I think I have made my objection clear on the practice of unilaterally changing well-established colours, in general.

• On the specific selection of colours, picking the colour of a specific logo and/or campaign material is a really bad idea for major political parties, which typically tend to have frequent changes in their imagery from time to time. Why that logo and those campaign materials? Why not others? Should we keep changing a party's colour whenever a party changes the specific shade used in their logos and/or campaign materials? Do you think this would be tenable for Wikipedia? Would we have to retroactively apply the colour change to charts, maps and the such? Please elaborate.
• Then, on this specific case, I have not seen you explain why a colour change is needed for these parties. Do the currently existing colours fail to fulfill their work? Do they misrepresent the parties in any form? What is the justification for this specific change, considering that the current colours are well established? Please elaborate.

On subsequent claims: isn't this your preferred shade? So why did you change these then? How can pointing out that be framed as a "personal attack"? Did you conduct these edits against your will? Please illustrate me. And pointing out that this change affects dozens if not hundreds of articles and that, as such, it is disruptive just because of that, is not a "personal attack" either; that is a fact. It is disruptive, even when you are assumed to act with the best of faiths if not proven otherwise: disruption can be accidental as well. I have not accused you of malicious intent, which would be a personal attack. Be careful of making accusations of misconduct without evidence. Regards. Impru20^talk 18:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that changing the shade of a color to match that party's official materials should require an RfC? We are not talking about any user's preferred shade here, but instead the actual hex code that the party uses. The idea that we should not make a change because it could change again in the future is simply not how Wikipedia works. For a change as small as the one I proposed, nobody would suggest that it would require changing charts and maps.

Regardless, surely there is a way, perhaps using Wikidata, to be able to keep these things up to date. Perhaps any places where the color should be updated can use a Wikidata template, while others continue to use this module? WMSR (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that changing the shade of a color to match that party's official materials should require an RfC? Yes? Did not you read what I just said? Which material? At which point of time? Should we keep changing a party shade every time it has material with a slightly different colour shade? Make it darker red, then lighter red, then pinkish, then normal red? Having four (just an example number) colour changes per year? Affecting hundreds of articles? Just on the volition of one user? Please, answer: you have not done so, despite seeking my objections to your edits.

The idea that we should not make a change because it could change again in the future is simply not how Wikipedia works We are not talking about major changes here, but slightly different colour shades of the same colour. If the party has a full rebrand (i.e. Austrian People's Party, which had a full colour change from black to turquoise in 2017), then that's a different case (and even so, that meant adding a new row, not replacing the previous colour in use for pre-2017 articles). We are not talking about a rebrand here, but on picking which specific shade of blue and red should be used. If the Dems/GOP change their material and logos in the near future to a different shade, should we keep changing them, distorting consistency for hundreds of charts and diagrams? That is simply not how Wikipedia works.

perhaps using Wikidata Using Wikidata would only mean you will wage endless edit wars with editors from other wikis. Good luck seeking a consensus with Japanese or Italian editors over the preferred colour shade for a party. Impru20^talk 08:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We also come to some absurd conclusions by sticking to the "we should use the specific shade of the material". For example, you proposed changing the colour of the Democratic Party (United States) to   #003CBA. You did that based on their logo, but the currently uploaded logo actually uses a very slightly different shade, which is   #003EB8. And that logo is, in itself, sourced to a Facebook post which actually uses   #0044C9, not any of the two previous shades. In their website, the party uses the latter shade, as well as   #7FC8F9. Their 2024 party platform (currently shown in their website) uses   #0041C8 and   #7DC8F5. All of these are different from the specific shade currently used by the en.wiki, which is   #3333FF. So, I count seven shades already and we have just started; I have not even delved on the specific shades preferred by the various media sources and others. Recent materials released by the party (as recent as February 2026) use   #094BC3. The DNC's X account uses   #004378. And we could delve into state branches: the Texas Democratic Party uses   #003A70,   #A4C8E1,   #80C8F0,   #009CDE and   #003057 in its website, the California Democratic Party uses   #013D66,   #00416C or even   #EC8520 (!), the New York State Democratic Party uses   #142279 or even   #FFE60A (!) (among others)... and so on.

So, which one should we pick, according to you? Please explain.

And you will find the same sort of problem happening to any other major party; in the end, it's clear that a specific party may use "red" or "blue" as their main colour, but the specific shade may vary from source to source and from time to time, and parties may (and will) sometimes use varying shades of their colour over time. Impru20^talk 08:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We should use... the primary one? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. It's okay if it changes, and the color used here should certainly be one of the first three shades you listed, rather than a completely separate one. As you said, we are not talking about major changes here (which seems to run counter to your previous assertion that making any change is highly disruptive). Some states parties do use different colors than their affiliated national party – I don't see how that is an issue (no reasonable person would argue that the NY Dems' primary color is yellow or that CADems's is orange). WMSR (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We should use... the primary one? I think we should not get confused here. The Democratic Party's primary colour is blue, and blue is used. The Republican Party's primary colour is red, and red is used. The current shades used in the en.wiki have been used for many years across so many articles, charts, diagrams and even maps without controversy, so they can be assumed to have a strong consensus. Nothing is unchangeable and, of course, consensus can change, but here we have questions on why (do the parties suddenly use significantly different shades so as for us to change the ones already in place?), and how (which specific shade should be used? On what basis? What is the "primary" shade within a colour? If the party keeps releasing different logos and/or material with slightly different shades, should these be changed? Also note this is about the third time I make these questions and you are not answering them).

the color used here should certainly be one of the first three shades you listed "The first three" on what basis? Did you unilaterally decide to exclude all others? Why? What is even the source for even the two first shades I listed? The one you used is not even the one used in the logo you claimed to use as a source and, in turn, the one in use in that logo is not the one used in the source it claims to extract it from.

As you said, we are not talking about major changes here (...) You seem to have got me wrong. I was referring to changes in the party's logos and materials (so minimal and common that it is too time consuming for us to even discuss changing a colour every time some party uses a slightly different shade of their primary colour), not in-wiki changes. Even the most minimal of changes to a template that is used in hundreds of articles will have a major impact and potentially cause major disruption. These are two different things.

Some states parties do use different colors than their affiliated national party And would these not justify using those colours for state parties? Because there seems to be an agreement that these can use their national party colour (which makes sense, btw), but for some reason we do have to use a specific shade of that colour for the national party, or else it seems to be a major drama. According to you, when should we decide to stick to one colour or the other? What are your criteria?

no reasonable person would argue that the NY Dems' primary color is yellow or that CADems's is orange Yeah, but the concept of what is "reasonable" may actually vary from person to person. I would say no reasonable person would argue for replacing a well-established shade by another one that is not even supported in the sources it is claimed to be extracted from, but here we are. Impru20^talk 09:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is a personal attack. Clearly we need somebody else to weigh in here. WMSR (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is a personal attack? It is the second time you accuse me of attacking you personally without any evidence, which in itself can be regarded as a personal attack. I am asking you clear, simple and key questions on the issue and this is the third time in a row you explicitly refuse to answer them. If you are unwilling to engage in constructive discussion, I do not know what are we even doing here, really. Impru20^talk 22:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this discussion in the relevant WikiProject talk page and nobody has joined the conversation. You are asking questions to which you have already received answers, but I will try again. Generally the main color used in logos or the main accent color on a party's website would be the party's "color". In the sample case above, the first three colors you listed were the most recent used in official sources. They are also similar enough that most readers will not notice a difference. The other light blue shades were clearly secondary colors. I still do not see your point about changing the shade of a party causing a "major disruption". I am personally ambivalent on the matter of whether state parties should use their own colors. Two state affiliates of the Democratic Party (Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party and North Dakota Democratic–Nonpartisan League Party) use different shades than the national party across Wikipedia. This does not seem to cause any confusion or problems. You've rebuffed a good-faith compromise, and the fact that you don't consider your comment above to be a personal attack (I would say no reasonable person would argue for replacing a well-established shade by another one that is not even supported in the sources it is claimed to be extracted from, but here we are.) is concerning. WMSR (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this discussion in the relevant WikiProject talk page and nobody has joined the conversation I told you that the way to go for a party colour change was to seek consensus individually for each party in their own article. Also, note that mechanisms such as WP:RFC are typically more useful to gauge consensus than a notice on a WikiProject talk page that almost nobody may become aware of (note that, historically, this would have been discussed at each party's meta/color templates (Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color and Template talk:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color), but since 2021 these have been deleted as a result of the module system being adopted).

You are asking questions to which you have already received answers Can you please point to me where did you answer each question? I think I missed that. Please, the exact answers you say you provided to my questions.

Generally the main color used in logos or the main accent color on a party's website would be the party's "color" The colour shade you used (  #003CBA) is not sourced nor is present in the party's website. The colour from the logo that has been uploaded to Commons (which is not the same shade that you used, but a different one,   #003EB8) is not sourced either. I told you this already and you did not answer.

In the sample case above, the first three colors you listed were the most recent used in official sources Can you please provide me a source for the first two shades I mentioned? Because I have repeteadly told you that these are not sourced. On the third one, you have not even used that one. Again, I told this to you already and you did not answer.

They are also similar enough that most readers will not notice a difference. So what's even the point on going through all of this ordeal? You are just acknowledging that it is "similar enough that most readers will not notice a difference". Ok, cool, but the point is that charts and maps use the "current" colour, not the one you propose. If it is not a big deal, why changing it anyway, creating conflict with lots of already existing resources?

I still do not see your point about changing the shade of a party causing a "major disruption". A change in a single module may affect a lot of articles if that module is used in so many articles. That is the case for colours of major political parties. In this case, it also involves a lot of articles belonging to a contentious topic area. That is the point; it is similar to the below thread's topic about the colour change to CDU/CSU (reported by another editor). It is the exact same situation.

My comment on state parties was, precisely, to make you reach that same conclusion: these do not cause any confusion or problems, even if they use different colour shades in their logos. Why? Because the Democratic Party is already associated with blue, and blue is used. This exact same shade used in the logo and/or website-criterion is not (nor has historically been) strictly enforced in Wikipedia, because it is pointless (the specific main shade used by a party in their logo/website may change, even if slightly, but their overall use of blue/red/etc. will frequently be more stable). If we had to change the specific shade for a political party based on the specific shade they use at their website at any given time, then we would have to re-review the issue every once in a while even if the party itself still uses the same colour overall. State parties do exemplify this because you are not calling for them to use a different shade of blue (with good reason). The current shades in use in Wikipedia do not cause any confusion or problems, as far as I have been able to notice.

You've rebuffed a good-faith compromise You made an edit. I disagreed and reverted you. Me not agreeing with your edit is not "rebuffing a good-faith compromise". I cannot even see where is the "compromise" part there.

Now, on the PA-bit: my comment that I would say no reasonable person would argue for replacing a well-established shade by another one that is not even supported in the sources it is claimed to be extracted from, but here we are was a direct reply to your comment that no reasonable person would argue that the NY Dems' primary color is yellow or that CADems's is orange. It is not even close to anything mirroring a personal attack. But if you consider it to be, then you would have to consider your initial comment (to which I was replying) as a personal attack itself as well since it was you who started using the "no reasonable person"-bit. Then, there is the problem that accusing other people of personal attacks without evidence is in itself a personal attack. But even if someone had attacked you, what Wikipedia recommends you to do is to 1) ignore it, 2) if persistent and/or problematic, report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Throwing baseless accusations in a discussion is not helpful nor constructive and, as a result, I would prefer if that is stopped here. Otherwise, this specific bit about PAs would have to be moved onto another, more appropiate venue. Thank you. Impru20^talk 09:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikidata solution would solve for this – it could be used in places where it would have no other wider-reaching effects if the color is updated. That said, I think a third opinion is warranted here, at very least. WMSR (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A "Wikidata solution" would not only leave the problem of chart/map/graphics inconsistencies unsolved, but would actually pose an additional problem by creating inconsistencies across multiple Wikipedia projects. It would also be very shaky because anyone (from any country, from any Wikiproject) can randomly change a wikidata colour without notice, justification nor discussion (there are reasons why colours in the en.wiki are shown in protected modules). You would also have to seek cross-wiki consensus to determine a colour for a party; good luck discussing with Japanese, German, Spanish, French or Italian editors from their own wikiprojects on that (and note that these are not required to speak English in their wikis, so even if a serious attempt at seeking consensus at such scale was made, you would also have the problem of automatically limiting the number of users being able to participate based on language limitations). Btw, I do not know why you need a TO to source where does the   #003CBA shade you used come from, or to explain what is the problem with the current shades at use (two specific questions I made, among others, and which still go unanswered as of this reply). Impru20^talk 16:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source of the current color? I am glad to concede that   #0044C9 is a better choice, and adjust my proposal accordingly. For my initial proposal, I used the color picker on my browser.

Wikidata templates have been in use in European political party infoboxes for quite a while with no apparent problems. WMSR (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, you used a random colour you yourself cherrypicked, then came here complaining on why others opposed it. Fine. This still does not answer why is the change needed

There has been edit warring in wikidata templates over inter-wiki party colours. So yes, there have been problems. And here you do not explain how that would "solve" the problem, i.e. using wikidata does not pertain the actual colour shade used, nor inconsistencies across charts, maps and diagrams currently in use (these do not use wikidata because these are .svg files). This still does not answer why the aforementioned concerns are left unaddressed. Impru20^talk 22:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, it's just you raising opposition here. WMSR (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And also to be clear, no one else seems to care or think that there is any urgent need to change colours that have been stable for many years. These shades, at the very least, have a wide implicit consensus by being used in hundreds of articles together with their charts and diagrams without issue up until now. You were not able to gauge support for your change, not were you clear on its alleged need, nor were you even clear on the exact colour changes you intended (throughout this discussion, you have resorted to a colour shade I myself mentioned, rather than the one you initially intended, which happened to be unsourced in the first place). I repeteadly asked you multiple questions, and you came up with very few answers. On top of that, you proposed changes to wikidata that would solve nothing related to the changes you intended (and, funnily enough, would imply imposing new colour shades to other language wikis that currently use the en.wiki shades!).

And it's astonishing to me that, rather than attempting to make a convincing case that could see people like me being swayed in support of the change, the furthest you went was to ignore all of my (legitimate) concerns, accuse me of personal attacks and, now, say that "it's just me raising opposition". Ok, if that is going to be the line we are going to draw, then equally, it's just you pushing for your colour change as of this date. So?

Forgive me if it feels like I'm truly lost on what you actually intend here or on why this is still going at this stage. Impru20^talk 16:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page you linked, implicit consensus exists until someone makes an edit. WP:CONTENTAGE is not an argument against an edit. Furthermore, there was support from another user for my initial proposal, while nobody else has chimed in on behalf of the status quo. If we are going to talk about consensus, there is ample

To be clear here, I don't owe you an explanation for every edit I make, and I object to your characterizations of my actions. With regard to the specific shade I proposed, you suggested a different one, and I agreed. That's not "resorting to a shade you mentioned", that's just how discussion is supposed to work. Which questions haven't I answered? I have not proposed making any changes to Wikidata nor would anything I've proposed have impacts on other wikis (unless they also use templates that call Wikidata values). What degree of color changing would merit a change to the module in your opinion then? How would this be measured? WMSR (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

implicit consensus exists until someone makes an edit Oh, but you must keep reading the sentence and not stopping at the part you like: "Should another editor revise that edit, the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement". You reverted a years-long implicit consensus; should no one had reverted you, your new edit would have attained new presumed consensus. But since you were reverted back to the previous version, the onus was on you to seek consensus for your new version, something that you have (so far) not achieved. Of course, you don't owe me an explanation, but if you seek to change a well-established version of a template, module or colour, it is all but natural that you must be willing to defend your case, something that you can hardly achieve by persistently ignoring reasonable doubts presented to you about your edits.

you suggested a different one, and I agreed Just to be clear: I did not "suggest a different one". Firstly, I did not suggest changing the colour. Secondly, I mentioned many colour shades used by the party as an example of how the party itself uses many and varying shades, as well as to refute both 1) your proposed shade, 2) the shade used in the commons logo of the party (which is not sourced). I guess that, once you were noted on your error, you resorted to one of the shades that could actually be sourced but, ironically, that made your case even weaker since it proved you did not even do a previous homework when it came to presenting a solid and coherent proposal that could obtain enough consensus to replace one that had been in (wide) use for many years. And we are discussing just one party here: you aimed at changing the colour shades of several other parties as well.

What degree of color changing would merit a change to the module in your opinion then? How would this be measured? My view (based on what I have seen so far in the wiki, in sources and in the functioning of political parties) is that the masurement comes by the importance of the political party using it (and its prevalence in sources). Minor parties can typically see their colours changed and/or adapted to their logos without much issue, both because of their limited use and because there will likely not be a prevalence of sources that determine otherwise. For larger parties, it is slightly different: these colours will typically be used in a wider array of articles and charts, sometimes the parties themselves will tend to use/be represented in sources by colours different than their "official" ones, and even daily practice and common sense may advise to use colours different from their strictly official ones (for example, Die Linke uses purple as its customary colour despite their official and logo colour being red, because sources tend to represent it that way, and because using red would conflict with the SPD in charts and maps). There is no absolute rule to determine when it is easier or harder to modify a party's colour shade, but common sense would typically advice for seeking input and/or explicit consensus when changes affect larger parties. Impru20^talk 17:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Political party/C has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: Change the color of CDU/CSU back to #151518. The color that was added today morning is nonsense, it's the color of the CDU/CSU logo, yes, but it has never been used as a color for CDU/CSU. Ceedii1234 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Incidentally, the change from #151518 was conducted by the same editor than, in the discussion above, has been questioned on other unilateral changes to party colour templates affecting major parties, so this may be an extended issue. Impru20^talk 08:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to revert if I am wrong. Thanks for flagging! WMSR (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good day! I would kindly like to have the following Philippine political party colors changed:

• Nacionalista Democratico from #191970 to #0000FF and Nacionalista Democrata Pro-Independencia from #B22222 to #FF0000, as the recent change of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) party color to a darker shade of blue (#002868) led to visual similarities when the two party colors are used in an article or graph, such as the List of presidents of the Senate of the Philippines and the graphical timeline therein (I have preemptively changed the Democratico shade already to #0000FF to avoid confusion). The #0000FF will become a better representation of two rival parties alongside #FF0000 as they are historical factions of a previously-united Nacionalista Party. Other shades of blue are used in political lists such as Philippine legislative periods which include more or less three shades of blue:
  • Example:

	Nacionalista Democratico	LDP	Democrata
Original	#191970	#002868	#1434A4
If changed	#0000FF	#002868	#1434A4

• Kilusang Bagong Lipunan from #FE0000 to #CE1126, as featured in its party logo.
• Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino (PMP) from #FFA500 to #FE7E00 (adapted from a previous party logo), as it shares a similar color to Laban ng Makabayang Masang Pilipino (LAMMP), an associated political coalition. When both are used in graphical timelines, it poses some issues in identification of the specific party or coalition such as in the Presidents of the Philippine Senate timeline.
  • Example:

	PMP	LAMMP
Original	#FFA500	#FFA500
If changed	#FE7E00	#FFA500

Furthermore, I would like to request to have the following party colors added:

Political party name	Color	Abbrev.	Short name
Nacionalista Colectivista	#0000FF	–	–
Nacionalista Unipersonalista	#FF0000	–	–

Thank you very much! FiveGeekabytes (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

​ Go for it. Primefac (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks,

For perhaps the past year or so the SDLP has used red (#FF0000) as its primary colour and can be seen on its website (www.sdlp.ie) and on its social media (www.instagram.com/thesdlp).

Can a user with edit access please update the entry? Crabbyspiders (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done, under Social Democratic and Labour Party (2025). WMSR (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Political party/R and Module:Political party/W has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add ["Rising Sun for Latvia"] = {abbrev = "ASL", color = "#9E1D32",}, to the R section, and add ["We Change the Rules"] = {abbrev = "MMN", color = "#77343D",}, to the W section. maemolol, arbiter of æ (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by PLATEL (with slightly different colors than you listed). — chrs [talk] 02:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request that Flintshire People’s Voice be added to the party colour module.

Party name: Flintshire People’s Voice

Suggested colour: #06605f (teal used in branding)

This party is represented on Flintshire County Council and is being used in election result tables (e.g. Leeswood by-election, January 2026), where it currently defaults to a white/blank colour.

Adding it to the party colour template would ensure consistency across election articles. Purge of the Peach Juice (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, using the #08BF63 color in use on Flintshire People's Voice. Let me know if there's a reason the teal color you proposed should be used instead. — chrs [talk] 06:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Political party/W has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

'Working for Sidcup' is a political party registered (https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/political-registration-and-regulation/political-party-registration/party-registration-decisions) in the United Kingdom 12 February 2026 and is contesting local elections in 2026 (see https://www.bexley.gov.uk/about-council/democracy-and-elections/voting-and-elections/elections/local-elections-7-may-2026). The logo is black and white, so #FFFFFF or #000000 both work for colours, or a similar shade.

add in a new political party with the following values: ["Working for Sidcup"] = {abbrev = "", color = "#E81B23", shortname = "Working for Sidcup",}, LaosyLucy (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: #E81B23 is red rather than black or white, please clarify. I'm also a bit skeptical of giving using a solid black or white color when I can't seem to find any branding material beyond the logo found in the registration log you linked. — chrs [talk] 06:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I forgot to replace the colour hex code.

The electoral commission page has a black and white emblem that I mistook for their official colours, which is not the case. However, I can't find any official colouration at the moment. In their election leaflet (which you can see here: https://bexley-is-bonkers.co.uk/blogs/2026/mar/3002.php, although its not a reliable source) they seem to use #009CD9 as their colour, a sort of light blue, although they never show their logo with this colouring. They do show their 'sister' party Chislehurst Matters (already in Module:Political_party/C) which uses #7BB52C which could also be used. LaosyLucy (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — chrs [talk] 14:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ætoms: what is the reason about the merging? Panam2014 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The entry "People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (2020)" was added by me when the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy changed its logo (and shade of blue) in 2020. By now, the new shade of blue has become the party's customary color, so that's why I merged the two separate entries for the VVD into a single entry (with the 2020 color hex). — Ætoms ^[talk] 22:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PLATEL: I think we should have both colors (pre and post change) for Popular Renewal and Popular Force. Panam2014 (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Political party/W has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please could you change "Wessex Regionalist Party" to "Wessex Regionalists" as this is the registered party name, as in use by the party and registered with the Electoral Commission

The party colour is officially web sea green #2e8b57.

There is no short name, and the party should appear as simply "Wessex Regionalists" (plural) in election boxes. Rho9998 (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I've changed the (short)name and added the previous name as an alias; color has been kept the same since the difference is imperceptible. — chrs [talk] 21:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]