This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Political colour article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Political colour is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles
This article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.ColorWikipedia:WikiProject ColorTemplate:WikiProject Colorcolor articles
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Political Colour
Do not move again. On wikipedia the American English spelling is used. ~~ Frvwfr2 19:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ENGVAR before making similar changes. VMS Mosaic 20:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. (dot)com is US... US commerce, so all on (dot)com should remain US standard. Enough of the imperialistic rhetoric... we are not ruled by the empire and never will be again. History is history and it should not be changed or redefined by an online "encyclopedia" AmerIHCan (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to get the talk page back but it still has one redirect. Perhaps someone else can clean it up? VMS Mosaic 20:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that we don't move pages between varieties of English, but please do not correct a move by simply copying the article back to the old location and creating a redirect. Doing that breaks up the article's history. I'm straightening up the move now. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I messed up trying to correct the move before discovering the right way to do it. VMS Mosaic 23:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]