Template talk:Infobox political party

Edit request 30 May 2026

Description of suggested change:

Can Chairperson be changed to Chair and the link be changed to Chair (officer) to reflect the current common name and title? thanks--Tærkast (Discuss) 12:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. The link currently leads to Party chair which is a much more appropriate link. If you establish CONSENSUS for the change you are requesting, then you can re-request this. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's hardly a controversial change necessitating consensus. The title "Chair" is more common and natural than chairperson. You'd actually find that parties use "Chair" or "chairman/woman" more often than chairperson. --Tærkast (Discuss) 12:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I've also read WP:TPECON and the parameter itself wouldn't even need to be changed, unless "Chair" was added as a separate parameter. This is not, in my view, something which required significant consensus. --Tærkast (Discuss) 12:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

You already had one editor who disagreed with you. Now you have two. This edit cannot happen unless consensus is garnered for it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 14:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Your attitude appears prima facie to be disagreeing literally because another disagreed. You have given no substantive reason. At least Zackmann's reply contained no malice or hostile tone. I have attempted to bring up a simple change, but I have no idea what everyone's problem is. Let's open up the discussion, shall we?--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Still not doing this. @TaerkastUA: you made a proposal that has been objected to by 2 separate editors. Do not open a new request for this edit until after you reach WP:CONSENSUS. The purpose of this template is NOT to "initiate a discussion". This template is for making a change that is either uncontroversial or has been agreed to by WP:CONSENSUS. You have neither. Reopening this request over and over is disruptive. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so two people, both template editors, so in a position to affect change, one literally agreeing with the other for no reason, don't want it done, which seems disingenuous but if you want to be overprotective and aggressive (noting you didn't actually address the attitude of Paine Ellsworth, makes me think possible WP:COI, but there is little point attempting to persuade those in a position to make change who have premade up their mind.). Doubtless even if I got consensus, it wouldn't get done unless it was brought up by somebody else. This collaborative effort is working really well. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@TaerkastUA: Facepalm Wow. Way to WP:AGF. I made a very clear reply to you, in good faith, when you opened your initial request that the current link is more appropriate. You made no attempt to reply to that argument. Additionally, this is simply not how edit requests work. You are free to open any discussion at any time, but not to repeatedly open the same request with no change in the discussion. That is, in fact, disruptive. And serious, claiming I have a WP:COI?? What does that even mean? What possible conflict of interest could I have? What possible stake in members of a political party could I have that would make this change a conflict of interest for me. That argument makes zero sense. If you want to lash out at everyone because you aren't getting your way, absolutely feel free to do that, but it will not in any way help your cause. Now if you want to discuss the merits of your proposed change, you are free to do so. Otherwise I will not feed you further. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:12, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Once again, you failed to even address your colleague's "non-reason" reason, and their attitude. "I made a very clear reply to you, in good faith, when you opened your initial request that the current link is more appropriate. You made no attempt to reply to that argument." You were correct in that the actual link was appropriate, however, I had pointed out in my initial subsequent replies why I deemed the overall edit one that does not require consensus, however, this was clearly overlooked. I will not waste further time in a hostile environment. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:18, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't address it because my colleague's comments (whom, for the record, I have never met or know anything about) are the the issue here. You opened an edit request, I rejected the request because you asking for the link target to be changed to one that makes no sense. You have not convinced anyone otherwise and instead are claiming victimhood and that you are in some sort of hostile environment. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

You will not address it or the non-reason reason. I am disputing the fairness, due to the fact that your colleague's reason was basically no reason at all. You may have been against the edit, but your colleage was as well for no reason other than the fact someone else already did. That should not count as a valid point. By the way, the substance of the request was to change "Chairperson" to "Chair", I'm not disputing the actual link is fine. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, I am not basing any of my objection on the other editors comments. I am basing it off of the fact that I objected and you made NO attempt to reach WP:CONSENSUS before opening another edit request. Whether or not another editor also objected is irrelevant to this discussion. I objected and you made no attempt to reach consensus about the change. You simply opened another edit request.

Also, you are now changing your story. Your initial edit request was Can Chairperson be changed to Chair and the link be changed to Chair (officer) to reflect the current common name and title? (emphasis added) so to say that you are not disputing the actual link is fine is disingenuous at best. I advise you to DROPTHESTICK and move on. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

No story changing here, I know what my request was, the first part was the substantive request. The link to party chair was an oversight on my part, I clearly didn't see that it already linked there, however, that does not change the first part of the request, and you have clearly overlooked my own reasons why I didn't think consensus was needed, which again is now a moot point thanks to this now pointless endeavour. Continuing this discussion is a waste of everyone's time. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

RfC on ideologies

There is an ongoing RfC regarding the ideology parameter in infoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties#Ideologies in infoboxes. Input is welcomed. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Split into Template:Infobox ideology

I propose the creation of a new template based off T:Infobox political party (T:IPP) titled Template:Infobox ideology. For a significant while, pages for ideologies and related movements (ex. National Democracy (Poland), Nasserism, Trumpism, Hansonism) have had T:IPP at the top to briefly describe their main points, the same function T:IPP serves for political parties (WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). However, ofcourse, ideologies are not political parties -- some parameters don't fit conscisely, that makes sense since the T:IPP is not intended to describe ideologies. Therefore it would make sense to add a separate infobox template to summarize ideologies. As for whether or not ideologies should have infoboxes to begin with, I believe that discussion was already held on some of the aforementioned ideology pages with established local consensus in favor. polish ✹ kurd 15:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Not sure how to support, but I really like this MsChicanery (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 18 July 2026

Description of suggested change: I think we should add a treasurer section so that party treasurers can be listed.

Diff:

−

+

Treasurer =

MsChicanery (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:42, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - The treasurer is not a notable position in an organization and this opens the floodgates to listing every position possible. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:43, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Depending on the organization, it could be. I do believe it makes sense to have it for most orgs. MsChicanery (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)