Talk:45th Canadian federal election/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 45th Canadian federal election. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Inclusion of the PPC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When the final results of the 2021 election are released, can we agree to include the PPC if they receive at least 5% of the popular vote? I am not aware if there is consensus on this. DrOwl19 (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe we did reach a consensus on the 2021 article to include them if they garnered 5% of the vote, despite winning no seats. Aryan Persaud (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for adding them. DrOwl19 (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can we reach a consensus on Trudeau's image?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There seems to be a small edit war going on over Trudeau's infobox image. Can we reach a consensus on which one to use?
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpeg)
I personally prefer the third one, as it is consistent with the last election page, just like the other leaders' images are. I don't mind using a different one though, as long as we change the other leaders too. I'm not sure why O'Toole's image was changed back, this picture is very nice. DrOwl19 (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- @DrOwl19: Yeah, I liked the O'Toole image too, but I figured as I was changing Trudeau's I would do O'Toole's as well due to people calling me out on possible "hypocrisy". Nevertheless — I'll change it back. As for Trudeau's image, I prefer the current one on the page, because even though the 3rd one is consistent with other articles, the difference in quality is clear between them. Although, if we did brighten up & add contrast to the G7 Image, we can possibly make it work. Aryan Persaud (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Let me additionally note in previous discussions on the 2021 federal election, the image used on Trudeau's main article, (satirically nicknamed "Neckboy") was ruled out, because of previous consensus. Aryan Persaud (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think the best option would be to keep all of the images the same as the 2021 election page for now. I don't like the current one of Trudeau - I think it looks out of place on an election page, unserious is the best word I can think of. DrOwl19 (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with User:DrOwl19, the "laughing Trudeau" is out of place. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- @DrOwl19: @Ahunt: Ok. Well if that's the case, we should change it — however, I feel as though the current image is too "low-toned", so maybe we could brighten it up, add some contrast etc.? Aryan Persaud (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with User:DrOwl19, the "laughing Trudeau" is out of place. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think the best option would be to keep all of the images the same as the 2021 election page for now. I don't like the current one of Trudeau - I think it looks out of place on an election page, unserious is the best word I can think of. DrOwl19 (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Let me additionally note in previous discussions on the 2021 federal election, the image used on Trudeau's main article, (satirically nicknamed "Neckboy") was ruled out, because of previous consensus. Aryan Persaud (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
P.S: By 'current image' — I mean the one used in the 2019 & 2021 articles. Aryan Persaud (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should there be an opinion polling section?
There seems to be some edit warring. Removing and adding an opinion polling section. Instead of doing that, developing consensus here on the talk page should be done instead. So, a simple question: should there be an opinion polling section? Yes or no. 2604:3D09:8879:31A0:5897:AC71:C628:7C89 (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- When there are some polls to report and not just an empty section. - Ahunt (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with Ahunt, we can wait until the posters do a post-election poll. — Eric0892 (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, there should be an opinion polling section... once there are opinion polls to publish. I don't think there is any conflict on whether such a section should exist (which is an unanimous yes I think), but rather, on the merits of having both an empty chart and table on still-to-be-published polls, with edit warring waging on the formatting of such table and on how ugly/pretty does it look. Impru20talk 20:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I checked with the editor who usually maintains our excellent graphing for the opinion polls, @Undermedia: and he has indicated that he will be creating a new graph and keeping the opinion polls in order, once there are any to report. Once there are enough they can be split into a new polling page as well, but not this false start. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Lol, the 2023 Canadian federal election?!? Looks like someone really took Trudeau at his word when he said we'd have another election in 18 months if he didn't win a majority! Undermedia (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure what he was thinking. I sent it for WP:PROD, which an IP removed so I sent it to WP:CSD and an admin moved it to Draft:Opinion polling for the 2023 Canadian federal election. Feel free to ignore it and carry on as normal. - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- And now we have both:
- ...both with nil content...
Facepalm - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- And again, the edit-warring because of Eric0892 unilateral attempts to change the table's formatting to his preferred one (which he has done on BOTH the draft and non-draft articles... lol). I say we should just dump these (or, at the very least, the non-draft version) until there is any opinion poll published. This is a waste of time and efforts, because these two pages have NO CONTENT (I don't know if I can make the font bigger without causing page formatting issues, but it probably should so that someone actually gets the point). Impru20talk 13:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have now proposed the article in the main space for deletion. Any substantive content has been moved into the draft article, which will be moved into the main space once there is any actual content to justify its existence. Impru20talk 13:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! I really think when the page is created it should be User:Undermedia who sets up the table, as it has to be compatible with his methods of creating the graph. Anyone else doing this is just creating a problem. - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, rearranging the table columns would make it more of a headache to create the eventual graph. And I'd also add that the 'alternative' table layout that's been attempted is just plain bad in any case: arguably the most crucial information (i.e. the actual ballot numbers for the parties) was moved to the rightmost columns, meaning that anyone whose computer/device screen is too narrow to view the rather wide table would have to scroll to the right to see the table's key information. That's Lousy Web Design 101. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I do not know why a version in the main space have been created, please propose it for deletion. (As of the current state, it should only be a draft.)
- To be fair, I wasn't trying to create an 'edit war'; I was trying to improve the table. Thanks to Impru20 for their contributions.
- Thanks — Eric0892 (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Undermedia: I would happy to endose a consensus here to have you design and implement the table, if not the whole page, in whatever format you need to make your "R" graphs work and also because I know from past elections, that you will use a format that is logical as well. - Ahunt (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- All right, I would as well. — Eric0892 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the simplest would be to just use the exact same table layout/formatting as before, because then I can just copy & paste the code from the previous graph into the new one and only need to adjust a few numbers & parameters throughout (e.g. dates/timeline). But if there are ideas to somehow significantly improve the table, I suppose we could discuss them. I've already remarked that I don't think it's a good idea to put the ballot numbers in the rightmost columns because readers with narrow screens then have to scroll to the right to see the main information in the table. The only thing I would change—though I don't feel particularly strongly about it—is to delete the margin of error column: for the graph, I only need the sample size, and there seems to be a lack of consistency among the pollsters in how they calculate the MoE (e.g. reporting different MoE's for the same sample size), which I find mildly irksome. Also, the MoE is ultimately redundant with the sample size. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- All right, we can keep the sample size information where it is now. Regarding the margin of error, I personally believe that it can be an useful information. How do we feel about the MoE? By the way, Would it be possible if, instead of just the last date of polling, we do a range of date(s) administered instead? (I.e., instead of just ‘10 Oct 2021’, we do, say, ‘8–10 Oct 2021’.) Thanks for your contributions. — Eric0892 (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- User:Undermedia would know more, but I believe that the use of the single date for each poll is because you can't graph a date range, just a single date, so we have used the poll closing date for each poll. It is essentially a technical limitation. - Ahunt (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- The use of the single date certainly is more simple, I am sure. That is why I am asking them if that is possible. Thanks — Eric0892 (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, the date range would be nice, but unfortunately a single date is required for the graph to work. The only workaround I can see if is we created a new separate column for the start date, and then I could easily get the graph to disregard that column (or maybe even do something more sophisticated like get it to calculate the median date between the start and end, like some of the poll aggregators do). Then again, this already-sprawling table needs yet another column like a hole in the head, so probably best to just keep it as is. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- The use of the single date certainly is more simple, I am sure. That is why I am asking them if that is possible. Thanks — Eric0892 (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- User:Undermedia would know more, but I believe that the use of the single date for each poll is because you can't graph a date range, just a single date, so we have used the poll closing date for each poll. It is essentially a technical limitation. - Ahunt (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- All right, we can keep the sample size information where it is now. Regarding the margin of error, I personally believe that it can be an useful information. How do we feel about the MoE? By the way, Would it be possible if, instead of just the last date of polling, we do a range of date(s) administered instead? (I.e., instead of just ‘10 Oct 2021’, we do, say, ‘8–10 Oct 2021’.) Thanks for your contributions. — Eric0892 (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the simplest would be to just use the exact same table layout/formatting as before, because then I can just copy & paste the code from the previous graph into the new one and only need to adjust a few numbers & parameters throughout (e.g. dates/timeline). But if there are ideas to somehow significantly improve the table, I suppose we could discuss them. I've already remarked that I don't think it's a good idea to put the ballot numbers in the rightmost columns because readers with narrow screens then have to scroll to the right to see the main information in the table. The only thing I would change—though I don't feel particularly strongly about it—is to delete the margin of error column: for the graph, I only need the sample size, and there seems to be a lack of consistency among the pollsters in how they calculate the MoE (e.g. reporting different MoE's for the same sample size), which I find mildly irksome. Also, the MoE is ultimately redundant with the sample size. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- All right, I would as well. — Eric0892 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Undermedia: I would happy to endose a consensus here to have you design and implement the table, if not the whole page, in whatever format you need to make your "R" graphs work and also because I know from past elections, that you will use a format that is logical as well. - Ahunt (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! I really think when the page is created it should be User:Undermedia who sets up the table, as it has to be compatible with his methods of creating the graph. Anyone else doing this is just creating a problem. - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure what he was thinking. I sent it for WP:PROD, which an IP removed so I sent it to WP:CSD and an admin moved it to Draft:Opinion polling for the 2023 Canadian federal election. Feel free to ignore it and carry on as normal. - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Lol, the 2023 Canadian federal election?!? Looks like someone really took Trudeau at his word when he said we'd have another election in 18 months if he didn't win a majority! Undermedia (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I checked with the editor who usually maintains our excellent graphing for the opinion polls, @Undermedia: and he has indicated that he will be creating a new graph and keeping the opinion polls in order, once there are any to report. Once there are enough they can be split into a new polling page as well, but not this false start. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree, I would support the use of just one date. - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- All right. — Eric0892 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
This section should be brought back as we now have 2 new horse race polls from abacus and nanos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemikem (talk • contribs)
Annamie Paul
We should keep Paul in the infobox, until her resignation takes effect. She only announced her pending resignation, today. Example: Pierre Trudeau was stepping down as Liberal leader after the 1979 Canadian federal election. But quickly changed his mind & didn't resign, with the sudden coming of the 1980 Canadian federal election. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, wait until it has actually happened. - Ahunt (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I also concur, people are rushing the brush because she announced her resignation, let's have some patience and wait for it to actually happen.
Aryan Persaud (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Ahunt: @GoodDay: Although, I do believe if we're adding her back we should put in brackets next to her name "resigning". What do you think? Aryan Persaud (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Accepting, but put it underneath her name & then under that, link to Next Green Party of Canada leadership election with the abbreviation TBD. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Ahunt: @GoodDay: Although, I do believe if we're adding her back we should put in brackets next to her name "resigning". What do you think? Aryan Persaud (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I also concur, people are rushing the brush because she announced her resignation, let's have some patience and wait for it to actually happen.
...we should put in brackets next to her name "resigning"
- good idea. otherwise readers will think we haven't heard. - Ahunt (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)- I changed it over to a footnote describing her current status, as Paul hasn't actually resigned. Easy enough to change back if she ever follows through. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Legend of opinion poll
The Conservative should be above the Liberals in the legend if we are to be consistent with the past election graphs.142.161.249.114 (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- The Conservative should be above the Liberal, The NDP should be above the Bloc and the People's should be above the Green in the legend. The legend should reflect the ranking of the parties based on their popular vote of the last election, not the final seat count.142.161.249.114 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Removal of the PPC
As the PPC failed to win a seat and fell short of 5.00% should we remove the PPC from the info box until such time as either an MP crosses the floor or they win a by-election?142.161.249.114 (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- @142.161.249.114: Well, for now, I believe we should keep them. They only fell short by .05%, it's not exactly 5%, but when rounded it certainly is.
Aryan Persaud (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, the consensus was clear: 5 % or a seat in the HoC. They failed to gain one two times in a row and who knows where there will be when the next campaign period starts. If they are at 10 % then, we might discuss including them anyway, but I see no reason to include them as of right now. TBH, I would not include any parties that don't have official party status in the HoC (ie remove the Greens too), but the consensus in many previous elections were diffent (NDP in the 90s and Greens in the 2000s) KamikazeMatrix26Juni (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- @KamikazeMatrix26Juni: Ok. Well, I can agree with you on that one. Cheers Aryan Persaud (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, the consensus was clear: 5 % or a seat in the HoC. They failed to gain one two times in a row and who knows where there will be when the next campaign period starts. If they are at 10 % then, we might discuss including them anyway, but I see no reason to include them as of right now. TBH, I would not include any parties that don't have official party status in the HoC (ie remove the Greens too), but the consensus in many previous elections were diffent (NDP in the 90s and Greens in the 2000s) KamikazeMatrix26Juni (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- We'll add'em back, if any PPC candidate wins a by-election during the 44th Canadian Parliament & hangs onto it until dissolution. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- I suspect until this election is called, this page should probably just follow the decision ultimately made at Talk:2021 Canadian federal election#Should the PPC be included in the infobox?. Usually, the parties listed in the infobox from the prior election appear in the infobox for the following one until the results of the following election are known, and we have some basis to see whether they win seats, and what percentage of the vote they receive.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Going by the way the RFC-in-question is progressing. Any inclusion criteria is being entirely rejected. Any party leader & party will be included, no matter if they have a seat or not & no matter how low their polls numbers will be. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- My 2 cents: Elections in Canada are ultimately to elect Members of Parliament, full stop. So I'd be on board with only ever including parties in the infobox that actually won seats in the previous election, regardless of the share of the popular vote they received. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Going by the way the RFC-in-question is progressing. Any inclusion criteria is being entirely rejected. Any party leader & party will be included, no matter if they have a seat or not & no matter how low their polls numbers will be. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- I suspect until this election is called, this page should probably just follow the decision ultimately made at Talk:2021 Canadian federal election#Should the PPC be included in the infobox?. Usually, the parties listed in the infobox from the prior election appear in the infobox for the following one until the results of the following election are known, and we have some basis to see whether they win seats, and what percentage of the vote they receive.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
In light of this close concerning including the PPC in the 2021 election infobox, I think we should add them to the infobox here as well. Of course, a decision would also need to be made post-election when results of this future election are known.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Alright, I have WP:Boldly added PPC in. I suspect someone will WP:BRD if that is a problem, or preferably note out the code, and discuss.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- As stated before in this section, the PPC currently do not meet the requirements to be included in the infobox, as stated before by GoodDay if they win a by-election or if an MP changes affiliation prior to the election we can add them in. 2015 doesn't include Strength in Democracy in the infobox and they lost their two seats, but did include them before as they had seats prior to the election. If we include the PPC when they don't have any seats whats to stop people from adding Maverick and Free? It is best to relegate the pr-election infobox to only parties that currently have seats and change the box after the election when we know the parties final performance.142.161.249.114 (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- We should have an RFC for this article. But, frustrating as it may be, the RFC result at 2021 Canadian federal election, may have set a precedent for all future Canadian federal elections & provincial/territorial elections. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know why we keep bending over backwards to include PPC when they don't meet the criteria. I'm all for including more info when it's warranted (for example I disagree with the removal of Strength in Democracy from the 2015 info box. The inclusion of the PPC in the 2019 info box further enforced my opinion on that). Since we are adding the PPC to the 2021 info box because in part because their popular vote rounds up to 5% should we be adding the Greens to the 2006 info box because 4.48% rounds up to 5%? Consistency is key if this medium is to be useful for the general public.142.161.249.114 (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- IMHO the PPC should be excluded here & at the 2021 federal election article. But, it's out of my hands. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think the thing is that we don't have a hard criteria for inclusion. The one seat or 5% rule of thumb is just that: a rule of thumb. The decision to include PPC concerning the 2021 election seems to hinge on a number of other factors: 4.94 rounding up to 5%, significant coverage of PPC in WP:RS, that they met the prior debates commission criteria (ie 4%), received more of the vote than the Greens in 2021... etc... etc. I tend to think if we include PPC in 2021 we should include them here before this next election occurs and reassess their inclusion after depending in part on whether they receive a seat and/or 5% of the vote in the next election. At the same time, I am not opposed to an RfC here if other editors think that is necessary (as GoodDay has said).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- TBH, the 2021 Canadian fed election RFC, should've been aborted & replaced by a wider-scope RFC covering all Canadian federal, provincial & territorial elections. A location for such an RFC, could've been at WP:CANADA or any other proper WikiProject. It would've been a chance to 'put in writing', an inclusion criteria. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps. In some ways it is beneficial to have a universal rule/guideline to simply adhere to. At the same time, these decisions are ultimately fact specific. We tend to follow what RS are doing, and as the infobox is in effect a summary, we need to be cognizant of what is relevant and important about a specific election. I tend to see this as one that falls in the 4-5% as an interesting edge case, not necessarily a binding precedent for all future Canadian federal elections. That said, I think it means that we need to treat PPC as a relevant political actor in federal elections, until they prove otherwise. That would be the case if they are excluded from the debates again, fail to elect anyone in next election, and have their vote share collapse. If their vote share increases they will be over 5% and would almost certainly be in, as they would if they elect someone. If they do roughly the same as 2021, then it is likely another edge case. If their support falls significantly, and they don't elect someone, I think it is pretty clear they are out. Anyway I guess, we can leave them in and wait and see, or we could do a RfC here (on the specific issue of their inclusion for this future election), or we could start a broader RfC at WP:CANADA (as you suggest) or perhaps at WP:WPE&R.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree, there are some inconsistencies that are propagating and if we don't address it properly it makes the whole process biased and pointless. If we look at 2006, the Green are not included because they won 0 seats and the popular vote of 4.48% was not rounded up to 5%. 2008, The Green are included not because they had a seat due to floor crossing but because they got 6.78% of the popular vote (and it was a contentious fight for it). 2015, Strength in Democracy are removed from the info box because the consensus was that floor crossings didn't matter and they didn't have 5% of the vote. 2019, People's are added to the info box because of a "floor crossing" even with the less than 5% vote. 2021, People's are included with 0 floor crossing, 0 elected MP's and rounding the 4.94% popular vote to 5%. This is completely opposite of 2006 and should be addressed properly. So I don't believe a 0 seat count, under 5% popular vote party should be in the info box for an upcoming election.142.161.249.114 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- If you really believe that the Greens should be included in the 2006 Canadian federal election you should consider discussing that there. It isn't particularly helpful in this discussion as it is a bit of an "other stuff" argument. If I were you though, I would only do that if I really think the Greens should included there. Doing it to make a point in this discussion could be seen as WP:POINTy or WP:DISRUPTIVE. The Green 2006 question is an interesting one, perhaps it is an edge case. Perhaps, it is one that given the Greens increased their share over 5% in the next election (and lost an MP, that they got right before the election call), perhaps we should reconsider. Maybe, maybe not. But that isn't really relevant to this discussion. As I said, ultimately these are each fact specific decisions.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- My point is we had started with one set of standards and are now changing them arbitrarily, there is no justification to have PPC in the info box at this time unless you can provide a compelling reason that isn't contradicted with previous precedence. Currently the only other case where a party with 0 seats and a popular vote that was below 5% (unless you round up) is from 2006. Since it was not appropriate for that party to be included then it is not appropriate to include it now. If you want to change the previous precedence you can bring it up in the 2006 Canadian federal election discussion or as GoodDay mentioned earlier perhaps we need to start a RFC covering all Canadian federal, provincial & territorial elections. My opinion remains that PPC as it stands currently should not be in the infobox.142.161.249.114 (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- The compelling reasons were set out in the closing comments of the RfC here. I get that you want to strictly adhere to the "5% or a seat" rule of thumb. The effect of that RfC is that in the case of the PPC and the 2021 election, there is consensus not to do so. If that is the consensus there, I think we would need a good reason not to do so here also. Insisting on the rule of thumb is not a compelling reason (as was decided in that RfC).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- My point is we had started with one set of standards and are now changing them arbitrarily, there is no justification to have PPC in the info box at this time unless you can provide a compelling reason that isn't contradicted with previous precedence. Currently the only other case where a party with 0 seats and a popular vote that was below 5% (unless you round up) is from 2006. Since it was not appropriate for that party to be included then it is not appropriate to include it now. If you want to change the previous precedence you can bring it up in the 2006 Canadian federal election discussion or as GoodDay mentioned earlier perhaps we need to start a RFC covering all Canadian federal, provincial & territorial elections. My opinion remains that PPC as it stands currently should not be in the infobox.142.161.249.114 (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- If you really believe that the Greens should be included in the 2006 Canadian federal election you should consider discussing that there. It isn't particularly helpful in this discussion as it is a bit of an "other stuff" argument. If I were you though, I would only do that if I really think the Greens should included there. Doing it to make a point in this discussion could be seen as WP:POINTy or WP:DISRUPTIVE. The Green 2006 question is an interesting one, perhaps it is an edge case. Perhaps, it is one that given the Greens increased their share over 5% in the next election (and lost an MP, that they got right before the election call), perhaps we should reconsider. Maybe, maybe not. But that isn't really relevant to this discussion. As I said, ultimately these are each fact specific decisions.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree, there are some inconsistencies that are propagating and if we don't address it properly it makes the whole process biased and pointless. If we look at 2006, the Green are not included because they won 0 seats and the popular vote of 4.48% was not rounded up to 5%. 2008, The Green are included not because they had a seat due to floor crossing but because they got 6.78% of the popular vote (and it was a contentious fight for it). 2015, Strength in Democracy are removed from the info box because the consensus was that floor crossings didn't matter and they didn't have 5% of the vote. 2019, People's are added to the info box because of a "floor crossing" even with the less than 5% vote. 2021, People's are included with 0 floor crossing, 0 elected MP's and rounding the 4.94% popular vote to 5%. This is completely opposite of 2006 and should be addressed properly. So I don't believe a 0 seat count, under 5% popular vote party should be in the info box for an upcoming election.142.161.249.114 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps. In some ways it is beneficial to have a universal rule/guideline to simply adhere to. At the same time, these decisions are ultimately fact specific. We tend to follow what RS are doing, and as the infobox is in effect a summary, we need to be cognizant of what is relevant and important about a specific election. I tend to see this as one that falls in the 4-5% as an interesting edge case, not necessarily a binding precedent for all future Canadian federal elections. That said, I think it means that we need to treat PPC as a relevant political actor in federal elections, until they prove otherwise. That would be the case if they are excluded from the debates again, fail to elect anyone in next election, and have their vote share collapse. If their vote share increases they will be over 5% and would almost certainly be in, as they would if they elect someone. If they do roughly the same as 2021, then it is likely another edge case. If their support falls significantly, and they don't elect someone, I think it is pretty clear they are out. Anyway I guess, we can leave them in and wait and see, or we could do a RfC here (on the specific issue of their inclusion for this future election), or we could start a broader RfC at WP:CANADA (as you suggest) or perhaps at WP:WPE&R.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- TBH, the 2021 Canadian fed election RFC, should've been aborted & replaced by a wider-scope RFC covering all Canadian federal, provincial & territorial elections. A location for such an RFC, could've been at WP:CANADA or any other proper WikiProject. It would've been a chance to 'put in writing', an inclusion criteria. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know why we keep bending over backwards to include PPC when they don't meet the criteria. I'm all for including more info when it's warranted (for example I disagree with the removal of Strength in Democracy from the 2015 info box. The inclusion of the PPC in the 2019 info box further enforced my opinion on that). Since we are adding the PPC to the 2021 info box because in part because their popular vote rounds up to 5% should we be adding the Greens to the 2006 info box because 4.48% rounds up to 5%? Consistency is key if this medium is to be useful for the general public.142.161.249.114 (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- The sole purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts that appear in the article". Are the People's Party included in the main body of the article? maclean (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- The short answer is no they are not anywhere in the article currently.142.161.249.114 (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- The only criterion for inclusion is weight, which says that we should reflect what reliable sources, such as CBC, CTV, The Star and the Globe and Mail do, rather than some arbitrary number chosen by Wikipedia editors for a u.S. presidential election. Furthermore, none of the decisions made now are binding on editors when this article becomes relevant. We can't for example decide what parties should be included in the 2050 election and expect future editors to be bound by our decisions. TFD (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- TFD to clarify, do you mean that since we don't know if the PPC will even be a registered party when the next election is called we should not have them in the info box as they are not currently represented in the House of Commons? Or do you mean to leave them in until we have results/coverage about them?142.161.249.114 (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- The only criterion for inclusion is weight, which says that we should reflect what reliable sources, such as CBC, CTV, The Star and the Globe and Mail do, rather than some arbitrary number chosen by Wikipedia editors for a u.S. presidential election. Furthermore, none of the decisions made now are binding on editors when this article becomes relevant. We can't for example decide what parties should be included in the 2050 election and expect future editors to be bound by our decisions. TFD (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- The short answer is no they are not anywhere in the article currently.142.161.249.114 (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- They appear in the 2021 election infobox, so they should appear here. Let's keep it simple.
- If there's a significant change in their weight in the next election, the issue can be dealt with then. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Note: Since it's been mentioned a few times. I've opened up a discussion, at the 2006 Canadian federal election article. Concerning the Green Party. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
BTW: I see that Bernier/PPC have been deleted from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm told there's a consensus now. I don't really see it but I don't care enough to wade into this again. — Kawnhr (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have added him back in. If someone wants to start another RfC they can have at it, but otherwise I think we should be following the precedent at Talk:2021_Canadian_federal_election#Should_the_PPC_be_included_in_the_infobox?. Arguments that the result of that RfC are wrong, or that editors "just don't like the consensus reached there", are not reasons that we should entertain here. If there is a compelling reason why this article should be treated different than that article, that might be worth discussing. But rehashing the arguments which were already canvassed well there is not a helpful exercise at least not on this talk page. If someone wants to attempt to overturn the consensus there, again have at it (but that would likely need another broader RfC, probably at WP:CANADA or WP:WPE&R as discussed above).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think it makes no sense to include them in this article at this moment since they have zero representation in the house and they have as much impact in enacting policy as other minor parties such as the Free party. Now if they win a by-election later or someone crosses the floor, sure add them in at that point. I would also argue that relying on a ruling that was specifically for creating a corner case to include a party in an info box for a specific election cycle represents an exception to normal formatting. It is not meant to be carried forward without a proper corner case reasoning for the next article, by which I mean, we need to provide compelling reasons as to why the party should be included when they don't qualify under the "normal" circumstances (having representation in the house of commons, having greater than 5% of the popular vote, having been invited to the debates, etc.).142.161.249.114 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- As I said above, the criterion for inclusion is not some arbitrary stqndard set by editors but we should follow the lead of major mainstream media, such as the CBC, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:TERTIARY. The reason they paid attention to the PPC is they may have taken votes away from the Conservatives, preventing them from winning a victory, they may have prevented the Conservatives from moving to the center and the emergence of right-wing populist parties in any country is interesting. it is not possible to write an informative article about the 2021 without mentioning them, although it would be possible to do so without mentioning the other minor parties.
- In answer to your previous question, we should keep the same info-box information as in the previous election, except that where we do not know the name of the leader we should enter TBD.
- TFD (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think it makes no sense to include them in this article at this moment since they have zero representation in the house and they have as much impact in enacting policy as other minor parties such as the Free party. Now if they win a by-election later or someone crosses the floor, sure add them in at that point. I would also argue that relying on a ruling that was specifically for creating a corner case to include a party in an info box for a specific election cycle represents an exception to normal formatting. It is not meant to be carried forward without a proper corner case reasoning for the next article, by which I mean, we need to provide compelling reasons as to why the party should be included when they don't qualify under the "normal" circumstances (having representation in the house of commons, having greater than 5% of the popular vote, having been invited to the debates, etc.).142.161.249.114 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have added him back in. If someone wants to start another RfC they can have at it, but otherwise I think we should be following the precedent at Talk:2021_Canadian_federal_election#Should_the_PPC_be_included_in_the_infobox?. Arguments that the result of that RfC are wrong, or that editors "just don't like the consensus reached there", are not reasons that we should entertain here. If there is a compelling reason why this article should be treated different than that article, that might be worth discussing. But rehashing the arguments which were already canvassed well there is not a helpful exercise at least not on this talk page. If someone wants to attempt to overturn the consensus there, again have at it (but that would likely need another broader RfC, probably at WP:CANADA or WP:WPE&R as discussed above).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I think perhaps we do need an RFC at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, concerning the inclusion criteria for the infoboxes of all Canadian (federal, provincial & territorial) elections. GoodDay (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think that would be an unwise endeavour, unlikely to change the result here. There have been many discussions and RfC's which have made clear that a rigid, binding criteria is not helpful. Ultimately, an infobox is supposed to become a summary for its article. I suspect many commenting in a future RfC are not going to be eager to go a different way than the recent RfC. You are welcome to try though, if you wish.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
342 seats or more?
We are saying the next election will be for 342 seats, of course the final number is not certain until the Parliament confirms the change. And as others have noted, the government may increase the number beyond that to prevent Quebec from losing a seat. "Macfarlane said maintaining Quebec's 78 seats may require giving the three fast-growing provinces even more seats than currently contemplated." Not sure what the best way to address this in the article/infobox is, or if we should just put it on ice until the government/Parliament confirms the final numbers.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- It should just say 338, with an efn mentioning an expected expansion. As you say, we don't know what the final number will be, but we also don't know when the election will take place— parliament could very well be dissolved before 2024. Given we include interim and outgoing leaders, under the idea that we can't know the future, it makes sense to apply that to the size of the House as well. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Okay. I did that and added an paragraph including an internal link to our article about the redistribution. It could probably be massaged a bit.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Should we include the Green party's Interim leader in the Infobox, once they are selected?
Paul's resignation is due to take place some time this month — when it does, they will appoint an interim leader, with May being floated as an option. My question is.. do we include an Interim leader in the infobox, as according to this article (see citation) [1] it will take a while to choose a new one. It's heavily impossible for another election to be called within 6 months as the parties are exchausted from this result, but hey.. the impossible is still somewhat possible. Aryan Persaud (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think we should list the interim leader once they are chosen, per Undermedia — Eric0892 (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
References
- Sure, I think we previously included interim leaders the likes of Rona Ambrose (CPC), Bob Rae (LPC) and Nycole Turmel (NDP) in the infobox, so may as well do the same for the upcoming Green interim leader. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes we list interim leaders for as long as they hold the post. It won't be Elizabeth May, though as she ruled that out last week in a CTV interview. - Ahunt (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think we should put in TBD (to be determined), since there is little likelihood of the election being called before the Greens have a permanent leader. Also, expect this article to receive more attention from editors once parliament resumes. We cannot make decisions now then argue later that consensus has already been reached. TFD (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- The actual person who is the leader today should be in the infobox, when that person changes we should change the name. - Ahunt (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why? This article is about the next election, which will probably be held between 2023 and 2025. Reliable sources say that the interim leader is unlikely to lead the Green Party into the next election. If we say that they are, then we are providing information we know is probably false. To use the examples of Ambrose and Turmel: we knew that would not lead their parties in the next election, yet pretended they would. TFD (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Good points all around. Two thoughts. (1) This could get a little absurd because what would we do in the case e.g. Mulcair and Sheer who announced they would resign and not contest the next election but continued as leader until a new leader was chosen? They'd have to be removed from the infobox upon announcing their resignation? (2) From an aesthetic point of view, if we set this new precedent, every time a party leader resigns (or dies) we'll have to have a blank portrait and "TBD" for months on end until the party chooses a new permanent leader. I don't think the leaders shown in the infobox at any given time are necessarily implied to be those who will contest the next election, especially if they're clearly identified as interim. So I think it's worth using the dedicated space to show the interim leader vs. leaving a conspicuous blank space. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- When Paul's resignation occurs & the party has chosen an interim leader, then yes we should include. The 44th Canadian Parliament is a 'minority' one & either a snap election (highly unlikely) or a passing non-confidence vote (a little more likely) could occur. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- 2024 United States presidential election has no candidates shown, since none have been chosen, although we know who the two most likely contenders will be. The day that Clinton passed the delegate requirement for nomination, only Donald Trump was listed as a candidate.[1] We didn't have the incumbent president, Barack Obama as a stand in. In fact Obama was not listed as the Democratic candidate between the 2008 and 2012 election, although he was almost certain to be the nominee.[2]
- In the case of the PPC, a number of editors say we should copy practice on U.S. articles. Well why not copy the procedure where they don't include candidates until they are selected to contest the next election?
- We don't need a name in the box because there's a space to put it in. It is more important to be accurate.
- TFD (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- The United States has a very different political system than Canada (and other parliamentary systems), and doesn't have the concept of a persistent "party leader", so what's done for US articles is really not applicable here. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Bringing in the American system is comparing apples to oranges. Being party leader is not the same thing as being a candidate; a party leader can choose not to stand as a candidate yet remain party leader, as at least two leaders of minor parties (CFF and Centrist) chose to do in the election just finished.
- The listing of interim leaders is a well-established precedent; this is not a novel situation. One could grasp at straws and say that the Green Party's current leadership whoas somehow matter to the issue but it would be absurd to take such an argument seriously. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that the U.S. is not applicable, which is why we should not adopt the "5%" rule established for their elections. The argument is that because an RfC on a U.S. presidential election said only candidates that polled over 5% should be included in the info-box, Canadian election articles should do the same thing. But as pointed out, "The United States has a very different political system than Canada." TFD (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- So mentioned here purely for strawman purposes, ignoring that party results are not the same issue as individual candidacy. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that the U.S. is not applicable, which is why we should not adopt the "5%" rule established for their elections. The argument is that because an RfC on a U.S. presidential election said only candidates that polled over 5% should be included in the info-box, Canadian election articles should do the same thing. But as pointed out, "The United States has a very different political system than Canada." TFD (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- By the way, interim party leaders can lead their parties through elections. It's not common, but it does happen: 2020 New Brunswick general election (NDP, Mackenzie Thomason) and 2015 Alberta general election (Liberal, David Swann) come to mind. — Kawnhr (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- The point is that we should not present information that we are 99% confident is not true. Imagine if the criteria used for reliability was a less than 1% chance the information was true. Certainly it would make articles more interesting, but it's not consistent with policy. TFD (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think WP:CRYSTAL applies here. We should present the information as it stands. — Kawnhr (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. WP:CRYSTAL says that we should not report future events unless they are likely to happen, according to reliable sources. I don't see any sources saying that Paul is likely to lead the Greens in the next election. TFD (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- We can replace Paul in the infobox, with the interim leader, when the time comes. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- We have jumped the gun here. Paul's resignation is effective in 30 days, not immediately.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Paul's resignation is effective when pigs fly. Given her track record so far, we should only accept confirmation from the party executive that she has actually left the job. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I put her back in the infobox with a new footnote. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- She sure is dragging it out, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Paul's resignation is effective when pigs fly. Given her track record so far, we should only accept confirmation from the party executive that she has actually left the job. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- We have jumped the gun here. Paul's resignation is effective in 30 days, not immediately.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- We can replace Paul in the infobox, with the interim leader, when the time comes. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. WP:CRYSTAL says that we should not report future events unless they are likely to happen, according to reliable sources. I don't see any sources saying that Paul is likely to lead the Greens in the next election. TFD (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think WP:CRYSTAL applies here. We should present the information as it stands. — Kawnhr (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- The point is that we should not present information that we are 99% confident is not true. Imagine if the criteria used for reliability was a less than 1% chance the information was true. Certainly it would make articles more interesting, but it's not consistent with policy. TFD (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Infobox
Do we have to have an infobox that takes up half the article? Per MOS:INFOBOX it's contrary to the point of infoboxes. Most other stub-sized future election articles (example Next United Kingdom general election) use the smaller Template Infobox legislative election aka "TILE". WanukeX (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- All Canadian federal elections use this infobox. See for instance 2021 Canadian federal election. But don't worry if the infobox seems big and the article is short. The article will get much longer quickly. - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm fully aware of the Canadian precedent, why I'm just stating it on the talk page versus editing anything. My opinion is just that the Canadian precedent of future elections having massive Template Infobox Election "TIE" Infoboxes over stub-sized future election articles probably violates the principle as laid out in MOS:INFOBOX that the purpose of the infobox is "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." It was for that reason the UK uses "TILE" for future elections, "TIE" for Current and Past elections. If you want some reading on why the UK does it like that it was debated a few times, examples include here and here. TLDR, information like leader photos, previous election results, leader ridings, and the date a leader was elected create a far too overstuffed infobox for a stub election that hasn't even been called yet page. WanukeX (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Assuming you're concerned with the width of the infobox. My recommendation for it & preceding Canadian federal election articles, would be to have the party leaders in rows of two, rather then three. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
The Redistribution and WP:CRYSTAL
Got reverted for changing "which will increase the number of seats." to "which may change the number of seats." with the comment "Make a case on the Talk page for ignoring what's legally required", so I will do so. WP:CRYSTAL is (No pun intended) crystal clear on this, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.". Yes, S 51 as it stands at the moment will increase the total number of seats by 4, however, parliament still maintains the power to change the number of seats at the moment, and has done so even after the seat counts were announced before (most recently in the 2011 Redistribution), it's not a rare occurrence. Obviously, the chances of the total number of seats in the house not increasing is very low, but the possibility exists and as such, I don't think the statement "will increase" in this article meets the "almost certain" requirements under WP:CRYSTAL. WanukeX (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- The chance of seats not increasing is vanishingly small, occurring every single cycle since the modern method was introduced in the 1960s; the only dispute this time around is whether Québec loses one of the extra seats Harper gave it through a new mechanism that applies only on a by-province basis. I believe you may be in a minority of one in concluding that such an increase is not "almost certain". G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed that it is almost certain. Not really a question of whether the seat count is going up, just a question of by how much.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)