Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Party flags in infoboxes

Netherlands

One month ago, "party flags" were added to the infoboxes of a number of Dutch political parties by ThecentreCZ. It concerns the following edits:

• Volt Netherlands
• Farmer–Citizen Movement
• JA21
• People's Party for Freedom and Democracy
• Forum for Democracy
• BIJ1
• DENK (political party)
• Reformed Political Party
• Party for the Animals
• GroenLinks
• Labour Party (Netherlands)
• Socialist Party (Netherlands)
• Party for Freedom
• Democrats 66
• Christian Democratic Appeal
• Christian Union (Netherlands)
• 50PLUS

In all of these cases, the "party flag" is just the party logo placed on a coloured background, and not some special vexillological design. I find the addition of these pseudo-flags highly unnecessary, considering that the official party logos are already shown in the infoboxes. Before I revert these edits, I would like to establish a consensus as to how to deal with cases like this one. Do you agree that a party flag should only be included in the infobox if the design is significantly different from the party logo (cf. National Party (South Africa); Party of the Swedes; Democratic Progressive Party)? — Ætoms ^[talk] 22:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No, these are not "pseudo-flags", but flags used officially by the political parties. And its not "number of" parties but all political parties in the House of Representatives.--ThecentreCZ (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Do reliable sources verify the existence & use of these flags? - Ryk72 ^talk 05:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Ætoms and Ryk72: we need some evidence that these are routinely flown as flags (and don't, for example, just appear as a logo-on-a-bit-of-cloth hung behind a speaker at a conference). I haven't checked them all thoroughly, but as far as I can see none of them appear on the parties' own websites, or on Dutch-language Wikipedia – with one exception, the photo of Christian Democratic Appeal HQ at right, which is hardly compelling evidence that this is the same design that ThecentreCZ has recreated. GrindtXX (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No, user Ætoms didn't ask to provide evidence to any case of these flags, but said he is going to remove all images straight away, by some reasons that he "doesn't like their appearance" although white flags with an emblem of the party are used normally as part of vexillologal designs. These flags were added along with requests by vector files uploaders in Wikimedia Commons which have hundreds of files on Commons. If someone wants to search new flags or finds any one needed for recondition, he can freely supply new version by uploading it or a new sourced information in addition to it. If you don't question any specific issue, you just won't do mass reverts hundreds of pages of political parties on Wikipedia. As far as I can see, Mr. GrindtXX questioned flag of the Christian Democratic Appeal, thats good enough and all right. So I can provide you that this is official flag of the party located at party headquarters Buitenom 18, The Hague. Thank you. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that I am not suggesting to delete the files, but just to remove them from the infoboxes. I think the inclusion of these "flags" in the infoboxes is superfluous, since the party logos are already shown and the flags are basically the same as the logos but placed on a rectangular coloured background. Alternatively, the flags could be moved to the prose of the articles, though I doubt that they make a valuable (encyclopedic) addition to the articles at all (corporate flags are usually not included in articles either; the article Albert Heijn only shows the standard logo and not its flag adaptation, even though it technically exists). — Ætoms ^[talk] 23:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he is basically asking to create an exempt for Dutch political parties not to show flags in the infoboxes, because he "doesn't like it". There are even less graphically advanced flags in the infoboxes, in maybe tens or hundreds of Wikipedia pages of political parties in tens of countries of the world. I see no reason to just exclude the Netherlands from adding flags to the infobox. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a very uncharitable, and inaccurate, characterisation. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) ^talk 02:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, is it really an 'exception'? There are a lot of articles about political parties that don't have a flag in their infobox, even though they use flags. See Democratic Party (United States). PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Ætoms, these flags have no meaning in the Netherlands and add no value to the infobox. Dajasj (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support of removing the flags from these articles. They seem mostly decoration and have no real value in official sense either. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Since there have been no more comments in two weeks, I am going to be WP:BOLD and remove the flags. Multiple users supported removal. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose removal. @PhotographyEdits: United States Democratic Party have no officially defined party flag created by the party, flags sometimes seen were created by third parties. Thats why it is not used there. I do not understand why political party flags are needed to be removed in the Netherlands and not in all other countries. Why parties in the Netherlands have this unique exception? In the first place I do not agree that all flags you trying to remove are so called "not graphically advanced". For example flag of the political party BIJ1 and the Christian Democratic Appeal are very elaborated as it uses multiple colours. But there are also maybe hundreds of infoboxes on Wikipedia which uses even lower graphically advanced flags and are used completely fine for years. I do not agree with this exception. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• Rather oppose I think these flags definitively have encyclopaedic value. Party flags serve a very similar function as nation flags do. As long as ThecentreCZ can proof that these party flags are in use by the party, I would oppose any deletions. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 15:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but so far I have not seen any proof in WP:RS. That needs to be done before including them again. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

What is this? This whole thread was established by the request that these flags are not so called "graphically advanced". Now you are marking sourcing as the problem, which is made same way as all other political party flags in the hundreds of infoboxes on English Wikipedia. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@ThecentreCZ Well, if you claim that the article about the Democratic Party includes no flag because they are 3rd party, that seems logical to me. If I would like to include a flag in that particular article, I would need WP:RS to prove that the Democratic Party has in fact made their own flag. That should apply to all countries. I'm not asking for an exception for the flags from parties of the Netherlands. The fact that the thread was established with a different argument does not mean that nobody can bring new arguments to the table supporting the original argument. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@ThecentreCZ: That the flags are not "graphically advanced" is not the point. In my view, the word "flag" can be defined in two different ways: (1) an official or customary symbol representing a particular entity, and (2) a piece of cloth showing a graphic design. The Netherlands – like many other countries, I reckon – does not have a tradition where most political parties have their own "official or customary flags" (definition 1), i.e. flags that are officially adopted or used to such an extent that they are universally recognised as "the flag of X". While some Dutch parties do have such a flag (e.g. NSB), most of the party flags are actually just pieces of cloth designed to publicly display the party logo (almost as a sort of branding or merchandising, hence my comparison with the Albert Heijn "flag"). In other words, they are an application of the logo onto a coloured background so that it can be printed on a flag and be used as such (definition 2). I'm arguing that these flags are actually just physical versions of the party logos; they serve no purpose in their digital form and have no official or customary status whatsoever. They therefore add little valuable information to the infoboxes, since the official party logos are already shown. If this also applies to flags used by political parties in other countries, I think these should removed from the infoboxes as well. — Ætoms ^[talk] 13:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ætoms: So you are supporting removal of party flags from maybe few 100s infoboxes on Wikipedia. I would of course oppose such move. In my view there is no such definition of a flag as you said. By the definition flag could be of any design. Even a white flag with one letter in the field is simply considered as a flag. In my view it is not possible to create any distinction of flags that uses just a simple logo and a symbol somehow advanced. Maybe you would want to start a Wikipedia Comission that would evaluate all flags displayed on Wikipedia, on which is good and which is not well-balanced. Your definition of a commercial piece of cloth showing party logo in 2:3 aspect ratio, whereas it is accidentally somehow located on a building of a headquarters of a political party, and is not a flag in that way is a interesting though, although I think no one has ever thought of it in that way yet. And thus it is not possible to distinct in that way in my view. Your proposal of changing hundreds of Wikipedia pages I see as very courageous, it would probably needed much wider discussion on Wikipedia than just one intentional removal discussion on WikiProject Politics. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I do want to state that I do fully support the analysis of @Ætoms in this case. @ThecentreCZ If you think this issue should be escalated somewhere else then do so. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to shortly flesh out my argument here. Although I get your point Ætoms, we also would (and should) not delete the flags of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate, just because it is the simply the seal on a blue background. As long as the party flag is clearly a design made by the party and there is evidence for that, we should include it in the article, even if it would be just the logo printed on a coloured background. A stylistic choice of simplicity usually also carries a certain aesthetic and can give important context. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 16:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Icarusatthesun The point of @Ætoms is that these flags lack any official or customary status. That is not the case with the flag of the US senate, which has laws about it: https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Flags_vrd.htm.

There is however not any evicence provided that this is the case for Dutch parties. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits As stated, I concur with you that reliable sources need to be provided to proof their official or customary status. If presented, they should be included. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 17:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Icarusatthesun Okay, I do disagree with that, but even then you still stated: "As long as the party flag is clearly a design made by the party and there is evidence for that, we should include it in the article"

Currently, we don't even have that for the Dutch flags. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. We do agree. I don't think the evidence will be presented after months, so I think we need to close this discussion and move on. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that party flags, especially when very similar to party symbols, are not beneficial to the infoboxes and the articles themselves. --Checco (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Denmark

Recently, ThecentreCZ (talk · contribs) added a number of flags to articles regarding Danish political parties.

• The Alternative
• Conservative People's Party
• Danish People's Party

While they've also uploaded the flag for Venstre, they did not add the flag themselves to the article. An IP did this in November 2022. Though I haven't participated in the discussion regarding Dutch political parties, I did read through it and it seems like there's a similar case with these flags. These all appear to be logos put over some coloured background, though I did not find that as a problem. Like for the Dutch parties, ThecentreCZ did not provide any sources whatsoever to prove whether these flags actually exist. I've tried to find sources myself, though I was only able to find this for Alternativet that resembles something similar to a flag. Considering that I was unable to find sources specifically for the flags that ThecentreCZ uploaded, I've tagged the files with {{subst:nsd}} as the uploader would probably know the exact sources of the flags, if they are real of course. I've discussed with ThecentreCZ on my Commons talk page (see the discussion here) and from what ThecentreCZ said:

• "They exist, thats why are they uploaded on Commons. These simple files are sourced from the logos, which have their sources and are within license of simple geometric shape logos. These were coded by me to SVG vector code."
• "No, these flags are created as adapted logos officially used by the parties. You can upload what you want, if it have licence needed. You can't call anything official on Wikipedia, where questioned information has had to be sourced."
• "Yes, these are officially used flags of the parties. Adapted logos are their license as they are characterized as simple shaped."
• ..."sources of origins of the principal shapes are already there. Images like these are completely normal. No, any of those uploads shouldn't be deleted."

yet there are no sources attached that actually prove that these flags exist. These flags are either real or fictional. ThecentreCZ has said that they exist but they have refused to provide any sources that would prove the existence of the flags. So, do these flags actually exist or are they fictional? If they are actually fictional, I wouldn't see the problem of removing them from their articles as it would be misleading to include "flags" that aren't actually used by those parties. If these flags appear to be real, should they be kept in the infoboxes, considering that they look really similar to the logos themselves? --Vacant0 (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging active contributors, whether regarding general political articles or Danish ones: @Autospark, Braganza, Checco, ValenciaThunderbolt, HapHaxion, PLATEL, Pomchi-Inu87, Marginataen, and DanskPolitikDK:. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

apparently DF used to have this flag in their shop, the link is dead though [1] here its seen Braganza (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

That is at least something, even though it's a paper flag. The blue colour is also slightly lighter than the blue that ThecentreCZ used. Vacant0 (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that party flags, especially when very similar to party symbols, are not beneficial to the infoboxes and the articles themselves. --Checco (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

As the individual hasn't provided sources, yet has been asked to, I would remove them, until sources can be found and ascertained. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I see this discussion has flared up again. Shortly reiterating my points: Disagree with Checco's argument, since party flags serve as important identifiers and symbols. Again, I agree with ValenciaThunderbolt that sources need to be provided, but I would like to accommodate ThecentreCZ by giving him some time to insert them. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 12:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Considering that the {{subst:nsd}} tags were added on 1 May, these files will be removed from Commons by a bot most likely on 7/8 May. ThecentreCZ could have and still could add the sources to confirm the existence of these flags. Sourcing remains a problem for many uploads on Commons, though uploading fictional flags that aren't actually used by parties is even a bigger problem.

Could someone confirm if this:

• File:Flag of the Danish Social Liberal Party.svg exists, as I was not able to find such flags of the Social Liberal Party online. Vacant0 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, ThecentreCZ bypassed the deletions by adding sources that do not confirm the existence of the flags and then removing the {{subst:nsd}} templates. This is beyond disruptive. Vacant0 (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Striking this above as it seems like the template is used "for things where there is no source as to the origin of the file (e.g. who made the file/where the file came from)". --Vacant0 (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I want to point out that user Adamant1 is removing some of the flags, like here in the case of the Conservative People's Party (Denmark), while the discussion thread here have not been closed yet. So his edits should be reverted for now. He said there claims like: user is using Wikipedia to spread miss-information. He also on Wikimedia Commons nominated like 20 files for deletion, while afterwards in discussion he said that he maybe wants to cancel removal request of all files he did nominated. Thank you. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say I want to cancel the deletion request. Going by ThecentreCZ's behavior in this and other discussions they clearly has a serious issue with the facts though. As to if the edits I made should be reverted, I'll leave that up to others to decide. Although from reading through this and other discussions related to ThecentreCZ's "flags" it seems the consensus is that shouldn't be included in articles, at least for now. Of course the question of whether the images should be deleted on Commons' due to their lack of sourcing or not is tangential to that and doesn't really having anything to Wikipedia. Except that Wikipedia doesn't allow for unsourced material either, but that's about it. Although ThecentreCZ will spin whatever narrative they think will result in their unsourced images of fake flags being propagated everywhere regardless. Even if that means straight lying like claiming I nominated the files for deletion as revenges for this discussion or edits they made to Dutch articles when I haven't had anything to do with either one. Whatever. There's nothing to see here except for a dishonest user spreading images of fake "flags" everywhere. That's about it and all I have to say on the topic. Ping me when this and the other discussions get worked out though and I'll revert the edits myself if there's a consensus to. Thanks! --Adamant1 (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Whether they’re real or not, there is no special tradition in Denmark regarding the use of party flags. They’re literally just party logo variations and do not add anything of value to the articles. I think the flags should be removed from the articles about Venstre and the DF, where they're still featured.--Marginataen (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

A couple of people, including me, tried to make that arguement on Commons and it went absolutely nowhere. So I wouldn't waste my breath. Although I would just remove the "flags" from whatever articles you think they should be removed from. Realistically what is ThecentreCZ going to do about it? Get in an edit war with like 5 different people? Probably not. So just do it. There's clearly no consensus to have the "flags" in the articles and ThecentreCZ knows that. They would be swimming in a pool of hot lava to push it anymore then they already have at this point. It seems like most people on most projects are fed up with the fake flag nonsense at this point and from what I can tell ThecentreCZ has no supporters what-so-ever essentially anywhere anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Usage of colors for Green Left and Red-Green Alliance

Currently, the color codes for Green Left and Red-Green Alliance do not match per WP:RS. Our two main brodcasters (DR, TV2) + the site of the official parliament in Denmark Folketinget use orange for Red-Green Alliance and Pink for Green Left. Currently we use the colors of these parties based on their logos, however I think this needs to be updated. I don't think it makes sense to have 3 red color codes for the Danish parties, when pink and orange isn't used on here. Currently the color we use on Green Left is dark red, very similar to Social Democrats in the media, and I fear that this can bring confusion for readers. I also think the 3 red colors look too much alike, and I think that changing the colors would make it easier to seperate each party. Basing colors on logos is also a bit impractical as Green Left for example have 2 logos on their website (different colors) and regularly uses a green logo on their election posters.

Liberal Alliance and Danish People's Party are both parties who has been given their media color instead of logo color, so I don't see why we can't follow the same logic for these two parties.

This has already been discussed in multiple threads, and so far 4 editors have agreed with me, with 2 editors disagreeing with me. I hope more editors will contribute to this disucssion.

To clarify, I'm trying to seek consensus to change the colors of these two parties to fit with the two main brodcasters (DR, TV2) + the site of the official parliament in Denmark Folketinget

Here are the links for the current discussions

Talk:Green Left (Denmark)#Changing the color of Green Left, Amakuru and Gust Justice both supported the change, Number 57, Braganza didn't.

For Module talk:Political party#Edit request 23 April 2023 Red Green Alliance - Request for a color change to Orange (Solution needed) vorrt and Amakuru both supported the change, Number 57 didnøt

Also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC about party colours, here Howard the Duck also supports using the color code from reliable sources instead of the logo, Number 57 don't

Thomediter (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wildrose Party

Wildrose Party has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

lehet más a politika

I think, that used one translation ,,politics can be different" is incorrect. To differ means, as Im convinced to discern something in variety, to differ I think is near to discerning. However the name of party will underline the fact, that the politics could not be corrupted and perverted, linked with falsification, as it has been. I understand this, that corrupted policy is one concept, but in fact the party want to say, that another one concept is possible. And that is that what is differing this party, what is different. But I think party is another, because the idea of founding fathers of party was probably to say: we are not like all that politicians, that you have known before. To support my point of view I would point out German translation ,, Die Politik kann anders sein" .

please, give your comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_Can_Be_Different

Requested move at Talk:Liberal Unification Party#Requested move 12 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Liberal Unification Party#Requested move 12 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:DOMOV#Requested move 18 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:DOMOV#Requested move 18 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mideeye#Requested move 1 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mideeye#Requested move 1 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:NewLabour Party (New Zealand)#Requested move 28 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:NewLabour Party (New Zealand)#Requested move 28 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)