View text source at Wikipedia

Template talk:Liberalism

Removal of custom colors

[edit]

I've removed the use of custom colors from this template, as I have also done with the navboxes for Nazism, Neo-Nazism, Anarchism, and Communism. None of these serve any encyclopedic purpose except decoration. -- The Anome (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed custom colors, for the same reasons. This is also an accessibility issue. Grayfell (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not merely decoration. These are the conventional colors for the ideologies and have been so forever. It it well established. In the article for Liberalism, for example, it even states it explicitly: "Yellow is the political colour most commonly associated with liberalism." I urge for re-adding the color. They have been used in these templates for a long time—and for a good reason. Trakking (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder to future editors, this is Template:Liberalism, which is a separate template from Template:Liberalism sidebar.
These colors keep getting removed for multiple reasons. Let's start with a big one, and we can discuss others if necessary.
As I said, this is an accessibility issue. No decorative element should interfere with usability. The yellow background introduced MOS:CONTRAST problems. It may look fine to you, but we have to try and accomidate a broad range of users with a broad range of displays (and screen readers for blind users).
Further, even without contrast problems, a forced color conceals the hypertext link to Liberalism, which is obviously relevant to every single use of this template. To make this as clear as possible, readers will expect to know when text is a link to another page, and also whether or not they have already viewed that link in the past. Forcing the text to be white on a background removes this, and the only purpose is decoration.
So this is different from the use of a yellow flag at Template:Liberalism sidebar. That image, or the yellow border, doesn't introduce problems as long as it doesn't interfere with usability.
One of the other issues is that this template needs to coexist with other templates. For example, at Friedrich Hayek#External links there are eight navboxes. Having only one be a separate color would be editorializing, as it would be implying to readers some special significance. The point is to help readers find relevant information. It is not to promote information. So in this case using special colors is also simply distracting, as it adds visual clutter that makes finding useful information harder. This is not merely my opinion, I believe this is the common consensus when this has come up in the past on various noticeboards. I suspect that's a major reason this has already been removed previously in the past. Grayfell (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schools

[edit]

I object to dividing liberalism into 'classical liberalism' and 'social liberalism'. Right-wing liberalism is not classical liberalism. # In particular, I don't think it's appropriate because Europe mainly divides liberalism into 'conservative liberalism' and 'social liberalism'. That's why I think it's right to divide it into "classical liberalism," "conservative liberalism," "social liberalism," and "other." # --Storm598 (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023

[edit]

Request to add

223.25.74.34 (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Why? Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]