Archives

Archive 1

there is already a black one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CDU/CSU/meta/color . This one supposed to be orange. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Christian_Democratic_Union_of_Germany/meta/color CDU/CSU = Black, CSU Only = Blue, CDU Only = Orange Michaelm (talk)

@Michaelm: Please discuss this on the talk page. Follow the process at WP:BRD, please. You've already made the bold edits and been reverted; please start a discussion. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, I thought it was fine so it would look better with the full party name without splitting up and the German wording is already smaller. By the way, I would like for you to please read and tell me what you think about this discussion. I believe that if my edit was reverted, maybe theirs should be too because they made the infoboxes too large by the unnecessary use of nowrap template. Thank you.--Davide King (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davide King: The issue I had with the edit on the SPD page was that it made the English text the same size as the German text, which isn't consistent with the style in most infoboxes. Regarding the Lib Dem page, I'd like to try a computer with a smaller screen before taking a position. However, I do have a few comments:

• I agree with Helper201's point about the date splitting for Labour. Clearly, it would be preferable for a line break to occur immediately after teh semicolon. However, my understanding is that the date and age is a template, so this would have to be changed in the template.
• I do think that ideologies should generally be nowrapped. However, I don't think it's necessary when only one ideology is listed (though I won't oppose having nowrap if others want it), and I would make exceptions for certain pages (e.g., the South Tyrolean People's Party and the Swedish People's Party of Finland), where the ideologies listed are too long to fit on a single line.
• You're absolutely right that we need to use less references in infoboxes—in fact, MOS:INFOBOXREF says to avoid using references in the infobox. However, it's important to remember that without these citations, infoboxes are more likely to encounter unsourced changes or removals, so it might be better to limit the number of sources used instead (perhaps to 2 or 3 reliable sources per ideology if necessary).

I hope these comments help. I'll get back to you when I use a different computer. Ezhao02 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ezhao02, thanks for your response! That is all fair and well, but I do not see why we should not respect the original size of the infobox. While I do agree about using the nowrap for Ideologies, I only support it to make it just slightly bigger, but both Labour Party (UK) and Liberal Democrats (UK) are way bigger. If this is such a big issue, we should ask for the infobox to be made bigger by default; until then, we should respect its current size.--Davide King (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just checked those pages. I think the Labour Party article's infobox is wayyyyyyyyyy too big. I think the Lib Dem article's infobox is also too big, but it's not as bad as the one for the Labour Party. Ezhao02 (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We should respect the default infobox size and at best use nowrap only for ideologies.--Davide King (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say we should limit it to ideologies, since there may be cases where something that isn't too long needs to be nowrapped. But yes, we should avoid expanding the infobox width by too much. Ezhao02 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But then why not simply ask for the infobox to be made bigger? I do not really see an issue for why nowrap needs to be used so much; there are other ways we can use without using nowrap. Both Labour and Liberal Democrats' ideologies fit just enough well without splitting or using the nowrap, so I hope you can make them both revert to their original size.--Davide King (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I agree with you that nowrap is overused. Perhaps the template should make the infoboxes slightly wider, but not by much: on small screens (especially laptop screens), these expanded infoboxes may take up more than half the width of the page! Pages like the SVP, which I mentioned earlier; SYRIZA; and the two British pages you mentioned are all too wide right now.

I just found out that for the start date and age template, you can add |br=yes to the template to fix the issue Helper201 mentioned. I've implemented this on the Labour party page. Ezhao02 (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know about that; it is good to know, so one problem is out. I agree they should only be slighty wider at best and we can use the template below, as at Labour Party (UK), as comparison. We also need to find a way to add those informations in the infoboxes without making them wider. That is why I proposed to create a few more parameters to accomodate that, because factions are put anyway, so we might as well add a parameter to them; and in the case of the SVP, we have (minority) in the infobox that makes it uselessly wider when that could be avoid by moving it directly to Factions.--Davide King (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, I don't have an universal answer for that, but I've come to use the short URL name (i.e., www.parties-and-elections.eu as you put it) in the website field, then the actual site name as "publisher=". The examples at Template:Cite_web#Examples are weird because, for example, there the one that uses "NFL Football Operations" for the website (which is a made-up name derived from the url itself) then "National Football League" as the publisher. The Template documentation data says on this field that it should contain the title (name) of the website (or its short URL if no plain-language title is discernible); may be wikilinked; will display in italics. Having both 'publisher' and 'website' is redundant in many cases. In the end, I think it depends: you should probably use the 'website' field if you are intent on displaying the sort URL. If not, it may end up as redundant if you also use the 'publisher' field. Impru20^talk 16:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: Thanks for the response. Personally, I prefer using the website name. Any thoughts? Ezhao02 (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions! -Liancetalk/contribs 02:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ezhao02 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Rally, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Front.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vox has been proclaimed and auto-proclaimed liberal-conservative several times. Here you have some references:

• https://www.elconfidencialdigital.com/articulo/politica/vox-declara-liberal-conservador-francia/20190318170647123153.html
• https://latribunadelpaisvasco.com/art/11885/vox-entre-el-liberalismo-conservador-y-la-derecha-identitaria
• https://www.vozpopuli.com/opinion/encrucijada-Vox-partido-derecha_0_1325268653.html
• https://posmodernia.com/resena-de-vox-entre-el-liberalismo-conservador-y-la-derecha-identitaria/

Curiously, I couldn't find any reliable reference in English (though a couple of them said they were neo-liberal), and all the news articles were almost identically, like if all the international information about Vox came from the same agency. --Viktaur (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Viktaur: The first article is saying that Vox called itself liberal-conservative. We try to avoid using primary sources on Wikipedia, especially for things like this. The other three refer to the same source: an essay by Pedro Carlos González Cuevas stating that Vox has to choose between liberal conservatism and the radical right. Clearly, this source is not saying that Vox is necessarily liberal-conservative right now but only saying that it could be in the future. Thus, this source shouldn't be used to describe Vox as liberal-conservative, although it definitely should be mentioned somewhere int he article. Ezhao02 (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Sorry about the revert, I thought you added "populism" to the info box. Per Talk:Progress_Party_(Norway)#RfC and references therein, the Progress Party should not be described as "Populist" in Wikipedia's voice. Not sure if this applies to categories or not. Heptor (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heptor: No worries. Skimming through the talk page, it seems like there's no consensus either way. I hope this can be resolved soon. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you believe that the Progress Party belongs on the radical right? Why? Not like you'll see Siv Jensen marching down with the skinheads in Berlin. She was however criticized for dressing up as a Native American for Haloween. Heptor (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heptor: Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I was just saying that some people do consider the Progress Party radical right, although I recognize that the Progress Party is one of the most moderate of parties with such tendencies. Certainly, the FrP's case is much more complex than, say, the National Rally, since, as I mentioned on the talk page, FrP has the divide between libertarian and more nationalist-leaning members. Ezhao02 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your position Ezhao02. It looks like the libertarian wing had the upper hand lately. At least they seem to be running the home page, it literally says The Progress Party is a libertarian party in the first paragraph. Heptor (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The libertarian wing certainly holds the positions of power within the party right now, but I think the more nationalist-leaning wing is still an important part of the party and should be mentioned. Ezhao02 (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is important, and yes, it is mentioned in the section Ideology and political positions :) Heptor (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina general election, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is currently a debate here that might interested you. --Martopa (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Martopa: Thanks for letting me know. I've added some comments. Ezhao02 (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

parties and elections

Thank you for quality articles around elections, such as 2014 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina general election and Va por México, beginning as a translation, for updating party articles around the world, for adding structured information, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2584 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ezhao02 (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've started a discussion a month ago here, however, so far I only have Bacondrum's approval to make a consensus, do you mind joining in? Thanks! --Vacant0 (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presbyterian Church (USA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ezhao02. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (2020), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(I apologize for the somewhat rude words last time.) Are you willing to participate in the Talk? I opposed dividing CDP articles into two in the past, but now I'm in favor!--Storm598 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

One year!

Hello, Ezhao02. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Cookies!
		GeneralPoxter has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralPoxter: Thank you so much! Ezhao02 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]