Talk:List of political parties in the United States

RFC on US political party disc logos

Should unofficial United States political party disc logos (a party’s logo or a symbol associated with the party in a circle) be used?RiverMan18 (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Examples of disc logos:

File:Libertarian Party (United States) Banner Logo.svg (common party symbol:)———

File:Liberal Party USA logo.svg———File:Liberal Party USA election disc.svg

——— (based on a previous logo of the party)

More examples can be found on the List of political parties in the United States article. RiverMan18 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that these logos, although based on/derived from official logos, are almost always unofficial. Just modified the RFC to address this. RiverMan18 (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose No, the porcupine is not widely associated with the Libertarian party, and the yellow disc should also be removed from the party article's infobox as it is not the party's "election symbol" (we don't use those in the US). Some members might use it as an unofficial symbol, but it should not be portrayed as a logo this way. The bison does match their official logo design, but stars shouldn't be added to all of these just because the donkey and elephant are often depicted with stars. For WFP, why the would there be a symbol using a previous logo? I also recommend deleting the discs for most of them – Yes the Independent Party of Oregon has an elk and the Vermont Progressive Party has a bird in their official logos, but I don't think it's appropriate to make up our own designs here. Just take the original logo and put it in a circle, nothing more. Anything else is original research, Wikipedia presenting something not based on. The flower for the Green party matches the one from Template:Green politics, but isn't connected to the US party. Reywas92^Talk 16:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Would you be ok with the symbols remaining as long as they are merely used to represent parties with disclaimers that they are not actual logos and if they are simply the original logos (or parts of them, in the case of the bison) in a circle.

The comments about the previous logo and the stars make sense—if we keep the logos (obviously with some changes) I’ll go through and edit them to make them match the current logos and remove the stars.

I think the reason that the Libertarian symbol is the porcupine in a disc is because it matches (in some way) the Democratic and Republican ones, but, again, I see where you’re coming from.

I’m sorry—this is my first time ever doing something like this and I kind of want to keep them. I do understand where you’re coming from though. RiverMan18 (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This is purely decoration. There's no point to mere decoration whether or not there's a disclaimer. I'm okay with minimal modification of legitimate designs that are in fact used by the parties to represent themselves, i.e. putting the actual logo in a circle, but they should not be changed just for the sake of having pictures – the article should be informational. Other countries actually use electoral symbols for parties, like to assist people who can't read the language, but not in the US. Reywas92^Talk 21:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - if they're unofficial or inaccurate logos, I'm not sure why we would want to use them, unless they're notable in their own right for some reason? Generally speaking when we discuss political parties we use their actual symbol, where available, not an edited version or our own interpretation of it. (Since that would generally be considered WP:FORUM or WP:SYNTH.) When it comes to using them with a disclaimer that they are merely used to represent parties with disclaimers that they are not actual logos, it makes even less sense, since the parties already have logos that are used to represent them, why would we use completely different ones? Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok—I see where you’re coming from, but what if the party logos aren’t free? Using the logos allows us to get around that (ex. see the political parties list—non-free images aren’t allowed there). RiverMan18 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Confused - this and this aren't allowed on the party list page? They have to be disc-shaped, even if the party has an actual logo which isn't? WP:LOGO includes the line, "Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearance. This does not mean that unnecessarily high resolution images should be used, but it does mean that resized logos should not be used if their appearance differs significantly from the original. Usually, the current logo should be the logo presented." Based on this, I support using the actual logos of political parties to represent them where logos exist, and oppose making our own versions. Even if they're not discs. Safrolic (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that party logos are allowed on the list page as long as they are free to use. Party logos don’t have to be disc-shaped, but I was thinking it might be useful to have disc-shaped versions for a “standard format” for pages such as election pages. RiverMan18 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Reading further, I might be wrong; there might not be a valid fair-use case for official logos on this list article, per WP:NFLISTS. I don't know whether creating unofficial emblems is then acceptable; it may be that this article doesn't get to have images. Equivalent articles for Canada and the United Kingdom don't; Mexico's list includes both official and self-created emblems, but their laws apparently don't allow political party logos to be copyrighted in the first place. I've linked this RfC to WP:IMAGEHELP for editors with specific knowledge to weigh in. Safrolic (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok—thanks for linking this RFC.

What would you think about disc logos as sort of a “standardized” way to represent parties (as seen on election articles)? Such logos would only be cropped versions of the original logo in a circle (ex. the current Liberal Party USA logo, just without the stars). RiverMan18 (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think if you're modifying the logo enough to avoid non-free-use restrictions, you're running into OR/SYNTH. I believe the answer here is that we cannot use icons in this list. Safrolic (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

In addition, the logos could be useful for a sort of “standardized party logo” type which could be useful on things like articles about elections. RiverMan18 (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I'm missing something here. Why do you want to replace the existing logo files (where they exist and we can use them) with these other ones? There's nothing stopping you doing this on your own website. But I don't understand why we need them here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is WP:SYNTH at its worst, apparently to create a bogus consistency and achieve a certain decorative consistency. We don't DO "decorative" in articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for weighing in. Could you take a look at the logos in List of political parties in Mexico? It appears to be a mix of actual and modified/self-created images, most created years ago by a blocked user. Safrolic (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - we have colors to distinguish parties, and they have official logos. Making these new logos is clearly WP:SYNTH. If it's a fair use case to use real logos, we can include those (that question seems unresolved), but not these invented discs. This list (and others) might just have to be picture-free. Most other possible uses for these (e.g. on elections' or politicians' pages) are effective with standard party colors. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 22:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I take it that the general consensus is that we should remove the discs and use official logos or colors instead. I’ll start this process tomorrow my time (the first time I’m able to do it).

Thank you. RiverMan18 (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Based on the responses, I believe that the better way to identify parties in a “standard” way might be through party color. As a result, I have created an edited version of the political party infobox template which features party color more prominently.

What do you guys think?

Template:Infobox political party/sandbox RiverMan18 (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

We already do this. On this very list! Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I know, but I just changed some of the templates on a couple pages (NOT by editing the main template) to better “showcase” the party color. See the Libertarian, Green, Liberal, etc. Party pages for examples. If you don’t like it, please let me know—I’ll change it back. RiverMan18 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I recently added new templates to minor US party pages to better emphasize the color (as it seems that is how we will primarily be representing the parties instead of the disc logos). What do you guys think? Please let me know if I should revert them.

ex. Liberal Party USA RiverMan18 (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - As a;lready pointed out, as an encyclopedia, we should not be using unofficial, made-up, or altered logos. And to be clear, that includes turning them into discs by putting a circle around them. As for use of the actual logos in the list, any non-free logo would need to have a non-free usage rationale provided to explain why it must be on that list article and I doubt very much that any usage would meet WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose This should have ended when the word "unofficial" was used. Please withdraw this RFC. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ok—thank you. RiverMan18 (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Possible page rewrite for consistency

Should this possibly unnecessary information be removed from this page? 2600:1702:5870:5930:6DF5:19A8:3F0F:8F5 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

To @RiverMan18 and any other editor who comes across this discussion tread. Please refer to the original tread by the same name for more detailed context. The overall question that is trying to be answered is should this article be rewritten for consistency. Thoughts are appreciated. 2600:1702:5870:5930:6DF5:19A8:3F0F:8F5 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

For people who might be concerned that the editor did not follow the proper RFC format: The overall question is as follows:

Should this page be edited in various ways to remove possibly unnecessary information?

Some examples of this possibly unnecessary information include:

• The Republicans and Democrats having 14 table columns while the other parties only have about 8. These table columns include such info as the amount of governorships each party has and how many trifectas they have. I believe that the RFC's poster wishes to truncate the Republican and Democrat entries to just include information such as Electoral College, popular vote, and Senate and House of Representatives.
• Non-electoral organizations being included. These organizations, while they did function like political parties, were not political parties.
• Including essentially every political party in the country. The poster of the RFC believes that the list should only include the "most notable" parties.

RiverMan18 (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RFC (Summoned by bot): per WP:BADRFC Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded and short. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?". The question "Should this page be edited in various ways to remove possibly unnecessary information?" does not conform to the instructions given. Secondly I can't really see that any serious attempt at WP:RFCBEFORE has been attempted as the above discussion between two editors is brief. I don't see that there was in any dispute that couldn't have been resolved with further discussion. Ping me, if and when things change. TarnishedPath^talk 22:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath I changed the question—do you think it’s better?

  For the WP:RFCBEFORE thing, I personally think that an RFC might be the best way to answer this question—the proposal which the user wishes to enact would greatly impact the page, and as such I think that doing something like seeking a third opinion would not be enough. I might be wrong here (I’m relatively new to Wikipedia)—please correct me if this is the case.

  Thanks! RiverMan18 (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  @RiverMan18, the root problem with the RFC question is the phrase "unnecessary information". It presupposes the concussion and is thus not neutrally worded. Secondarily RFCs shouldn't be written with a statement to see elsewhere for what the question actually is. Thirdly in regards to RFCBEFORE, I saw some room for agreement between yourself and the IP. I don't see that was fully fleshed out prior to starting the RFC and if it was then you/the IP might have been able to implement what was agreed upon and then ask a much narrower RFC question on what wasn't agreed upon. TarnishedPath^talk 21:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ok--thanks. I'll remove the RFC and try seeking a third opinion on the matter. (Although the IP and I do have some agreement on the proposed edits, I think that seeking a third opinion might be better due to the changes possibly greatly impacting the article). RiverMan18 (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath Thanks for letting me know about RFC’s status. I believe your right there probably is a better way to get more involvement with other editors on this discussion. The main purpose of which should be to decide whether or not the changes mentioned by me or @RiverMan18 are a good idea, and like I said before on the other thread. Let me know if there are any other ideas because I really do believe that this page could benefit from trimming out some of the unnecessary information. (and as a reminder I am an American who does keep track of this page). 2600:1702:5870:5930:0:0:0:38 (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  You've already got some agreement with RiverMan. Be WP:BOLD and implement what you have indication is fairly uncontroversial. TarnishedPath^talk 03:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Forward party has a third state senator

https://www.abc4.com/news/politics/sen-dan-thatcher-leaves-republican-party-for-utah-forward-party/amp/ 2600:4041:3C87:A500:B4E3:3FD1:9134:2770 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Just updated it—thanks for the heads up! RiverMan18 (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)