Talk:2021 Canadian federal election/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. 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

Common Ground between the party leaders

So, the leaders are meeting Trudeau this week and after each of their meetings with him, they've highlighted areas of common ground. We have many reliable sources that show this. We also have the meetings already mentioned here. I'm just hesitant about where to put it, which is why I'm asking. It's either in the Timeline or in the Background section. I think the Background section is the best place. We should probably add a sub-heading though. It feels important to me, since this is a minority Parliament so these areas of common ground will have impacts on the longevity of the Parliament (i.e. it will have impacts on when this next election could happen). What do you think Doug Mehus, GoodDay and Ahunt?

- MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Add in any manner you see fit. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, I think maybe I'd added it to the new Canadian Parliament page (43rd Canadian Parliament), if and when it's established, possibly by adding it to Justin Trudeau as well. Doug Mehus T·C 22:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Doug Mehus, I'm not sure it should go there, since there really isn't a place for it there. It would kind of feel out of place. I feel it has a place here, because if they didn't have areas of common ground, it would trigger an election. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, Oh, sorry, I thought the 44th was referring to the election just held. Yes, it's probably fine here. My reason for thinking the Parliament article might be better is similar to yours as the idea of political common ground related to whether that Parliament could be both stable and functioning. If it was not, it wouldn't trigger an automatic election. The Governor General would, most likely, seek Andrew Scheer to try and form another minority government, provided the Trudeau Liberals fell within 6 months (give or take a couple months). Do we always make Wikipedia articles on future federal elections this early? Doug Mehus T·C 01:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, yeah, another example is the next MB general election page, which has been running since the aftermath of the recent election. As for the 6 months threshold I doubt the government will fall before then, which is why I didn't mention it. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, True; however, it may be worth noting that the Liberals may have the luxury, unfortunately, of the NDP's financial house being in disarray (there's the very real possibility they could go bankrupt, I think). So, Mr. Singh will likely have to do back flips trying to explaining why he won't oppose a Liberal budget even when it gives them nothing. Doug Mehus T·C 01:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, even though we know they're broke, Singh said this in the last two days: (yesterday) https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/jagmeet-singh-says-he-ll-vote-against-throne-speech-if-ndp-requests-not-met-1.4683750 & (today) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/singh-trudeau-meeting-1.5359037

I should maybe add it to the timeline. P.S. Sorry for taking so long, I'm having problems with the script, it's giving me an error... - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, True, but I suspect they may have that luxury in that one of the other parties will likely support the government on the throne speech (probably the Conservatives). If the Conservatives don't, then all bets are off and we could yet see a Conservative minority government. I'm not convinced of that.

As to script errors, if related to reply-link, you can use Ctrl+Shift+J and copy+paste any JS errors into User talk:Enterprisey/reply-link, and he's pretty prompt about fixing them. :) Doug Mehus T·C 01:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, Blanchet seemed very happy about his meeting with Trudeau, so I doubt we will have a CPC government. LPC + BQ > NDP + CPC. I fixed the error so it's all good. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, True...I just can't see the BQ voting in favour of the throne speech on principle. However, they may well abstain from the vote. Doug Mehus T·C 01:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The situation was resolved and the file was removed. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Jo-ann roberts.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2019 (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.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The situation was resolved and the file was removed. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

20190925 NDPCampaignTour2019 BTS-1737 (cropped) (cropped) (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2019 (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.

Scheer in the infobox.

Discussion

I recommend we keep Scheer in the infobox until he's replaced as the Conservative party leader. Note, he's said he'll remain as party leader, until successor is chosen. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, yeah I think that's what was done for Mulcair right? MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, Ahunt, Dmehus (tagging users that edit CDN poli pages) Also, someone should probably add that in the background, I think we should also mention the reason for the resignation : using caucus money for his kids education

Here are some sources that confirm both of these things:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/andrew-scheer-is-resigning-as-conservative-leader-1.4727310

https://globalnews.ca/news/6288286/andrew-scheer-resignation/

I would do it myself but I'm not able to. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't fuss over the reasons for his pending resignation, concerning this article's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, I would put it in the background no, or is that better for Scheer's page? MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, would be better in Scheer's article. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, it seems Scheer has been named the interim leader... https://twitter.com/JPTasker/status/1205258890243444737 https://twitter.com/HannahThibedeau/status/1205257849380786181 or is this just weird wording? Since Thibedeau seems to be the only journo to say this. Katie Simpson from the CBC also echoes JPTasker :https://twitter.com/CBCKatie/status/1205258535367565312 and we have the two previous articles saying he stays on MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Scheer's still the leader. Thibedeau is a tad confused, getting interim mixed up with lame duck. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, so, essentially it's a wording issue. Thanks for the info. Btw, I tried making a page for the CPC's current shadow cabinet, but it kind of broke so I just deleted my draft. I should honestly have made a sandbox instead...

P.S. Should we archive journalists' tweets in case they retire (i.e. their bio wouldn't show them as journos)? I'm asking this, because in some cases where info was only available in tweets we used a journalist's tweet (consensus was for it due to the fact that they worked for reliable publications like the CBC, CTV & Global, it's not like we would use The Rebel lol). Although, as you know, most of the time we use news articles. MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not overly knowledgeable about which sources to use or not use. I'll leave it with you. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, I think things look good now (we use reliable sources), my only concern is that we should archive some of them. MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you think best :) GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, there has been an increase in publications calling Scheer interim leader. Are they all making the same mistake? Even members of his own caucus are calling him that right now : https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/bergen-rempel-garner-aren-t-ruling-out-conservative-leadership-bid-1.4729729

I'm honestly confused as to why they would call him that. Mulcair wasn't an "interim" leader. He just stayed until his successor was chosen. MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but he's not an interim leader. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, I know which is why these articles are weird... MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

According to CBC news, he resigned on December 12 (effective immediately) as leader of the party & then party caucus (who thus had to chose an interim leader) chose Scheer as interim leader. Anyways, I've posted about this at WP:CANADA for further input. It appears that unlike Mulcair, Scheer had resigned immediately, rather then wait until a permanent successor was chosen. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, can you send me the source that said that please? I missed it. MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems the sources contradict each other... Some mention that he's just staying on as leader and others mention he's the interim... https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-andrew-scheer-resignation-conservative-leadership-race-explainer/ https://nationalpost.com/news/andrew-scheer-resigns-as-conservative-leader https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-resigns-1.5393803 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-dec-13-2019-1.5395163/tone-deaf-to-keep-scheer-as-interim-leader-after-private-school-revelations-conservative-strategist-1.5395239 (along with the three others I mentioned earlier. MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind there are more sources mentioning him as interim leader than anything else. It seems that's the correct term.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/canada/scheer-resigns-amid-allegations-of-misappropriation-of-party-funds-387442/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/andrew-scheer-stepping-down-as-conservative-leader-staying-on-until-replacement-chosen-1.4727310?cache=yes/5-things-to-know-for-friday-november-15-2019-1.4687011

https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/12/12/after-swatting-away-calls-to-step-down-scheer-resigns-as-party-leader/228282

They are also more recent. So I guess, he is the interim. MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup, it appears he immediately resigned as party leader on December 12 & shortly after, was picked as interim leader. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, I just found another contradiction... https://ipolitics.ca/2019/12/12/tories-opt-to-keep-scheer-as-leader-until-successor-chosen-despite-private-school-controversy/ MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm adding other sources that show the contradiction : https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/he-was-good-for-the-west-sadness-surprise-in-saskatchewan-over-scheer-1.4728601

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/12/12/andrew-scheer-to-step-down-as-conservative-party-leader.html

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/sarnia-lambton-conservative-mp-not-ruling-out-leadership-run-1.5396090

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/12/13/scheer-facing-an-internal-audit-over-use-of-conservative-party-funds.html

https://www.macleans.ca/news/andrew-scheer-is-stepping-down-as-conservative-party-leader/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-andrew-scheer-resigns-as-conservative-leader/

MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be some contradictions on Andrew Scheer's current status. Some sources mention him as the interim leader, while others do not. Examples of those sources are above. What do you think we should do? Keep each page as it is (i.e. he's staying on until a successor is chosen, since some sources say that) or should we mention him as the interim leader, which other sources say. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I would go with Interim leader, since December 12, 2019 as Scheer's current status is interim leader. He resigned as party leader on December 12, 2019 (effective immediately) & afterwards, the party caucus chose him as interim leader. A rarity in Canadian politics, but there it is. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, what about the contradiction? Some just mention that they allowed him to stay as leader until his successor is chosen just like Mulcair essentially. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

That may be, but the CBC news seems to be the most reliable in these situations. It appears like Elizabeth May of the Greens, Scheer resigned as party leader of the CPC immediately. It would've been much easier for us, if the CPC had chosen somebody else as interim leader. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, even the CBC contradicts itself above... MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Even so. There's no denying that the party caucus did indeed 'chose' Scheer as interim leader. This wouldn't have been necessary, if his resignation as leader didn't take effect until the next leader was chosen. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, some reports are just saying that they allowed him to stay on as leader until his successor was chosen though. Based on all the sources I've collected, this seems more like a Mulcair scenario actually. It just seems that some outlets call him interim leader instead of just leader. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite the confusion, indeed. I suppose someone could contact the CPC & get clarification. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2 and GoodDay, I would call Andrew Scheer Leader of the Official Opposition and Parliamentary Leader for the Conservative caucus. He only resigned as Conservative Party Leader. His status is the same as Elizabeth May except he's also still Leader of the Official Opposition (a parliamentary role). You could add, in small text, "interim" following, but I would oppose adding interim in normal sized text preceding. Doug Mehus T·C 17:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, As for the Conservative Party Leader, leave that position vacant. Doug Mehus T·C 17:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, I think this looks more like a Mulcair scenario based on all the sources I found now. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, also could you bold your vote please. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, Thanks for the reply. It wasn't technically a !vote, but I'll add a subsequent !vote below in a sub-section of this one. Doug Mehus T·C 19:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, sorry, I just meant that you should probably bold the relevant part. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, No worries, I made a separate "Opinions" section to cast !votes. Doug Mehus T·C 19:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Although it is a confusing situation and sources initially were contradictory, more recent sources provide a definitive answer: Scheer is interim leader. The Globe story linked above is explicit in how the transition works: Mr. Scheer says he will remain party leader until a successor is chosen, but the Conservative constitution actually says that decisions about interim leadership fall to caucus, not the incumbent. This is further confirmed by the National Post (Scheer needed the support of the Conservative caucus to stay on as interim leader and members met in an emergency meeting Thursday night to confirm that.) and the CBC (Following the resignation, the party caucus voted unanimously to keep him on as interim leader.). I think the confusing is stemming from Scheer's stated intention of staying on as leader (even though he didn't have the ability to decide that), and that caucus granted that. Practically speaking this can be seen as "staying on", but formally he resigned and was then named interim leader.

As for how to handle this in the article? I would clarify this in the body, but leave the 2017 date in the infobox (with a note). So under #Timeline it would say something like "Andrew Scheer resigns as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada; he is subsequently chosen by caucus as interim leader". But the infobox, I think it's best to keep the leadership convention date, because that date gives a better impression of when and how long Scheer has been Opposition leader, especially since his stint as interim leader is effectively a continuation of his previous leadership (what with all the sources, and the man himself, saying he'll "stay on" until a successor is formally chosen). A note to say "interim since December 12, 2019" would be ideal. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Kawnhr, Yes, that's what I suspected, but your note at the end of your first paragraph on practically speaking says it all. As such, since he has never left his position, it's not like he is serving in two different offices. I'd favour leaving as is, with an "interim" qualifier in small text and the date on which he was interim leader from and to in parentheses. I'd also favour a footnote using the "efn" template MikkelJSmith2 used at Senate of Canada that explains the dates and technical changes to his status. Doug Mehus T·C 19:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, I'm open to your idea as well as Kawnhr's idea - MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we have a visual example of Dmehus' proposal? GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, it's the same proposal, we both misunderstood Dmehus - MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Opinions

Support maintaining Andrew Scheer's status as Leader of the Official Opposition and Conservative parliamentary caucus leader as is, until the appointment of a new permanent leader. If the caucus has indeed appointed him interim party leader, per discussion with Kawnhr above, I don't favour naming him as Interim Conservative Party Leader from that date, but rather we should noting that he simply opted to continue on in an interim capacity with his caucus' express wishes. This should be done via an "efn" footnote and, optionally, by noting in small text (in the infobox) as interim (from-to dates). --Doug Mehus T·C 19:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Support Kawnhr's suggestion (i.e. indicate "Andrew Scheer resigns as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada; he is subsequently chosen by caucus as interim leader" for the timeline and background as well as adding a note that says interim leader since December 12, 2019 for the infobox). Sorry, Dmehus but after thinking about it Kawnhr's suggestion seems better. Also, Kawnhr, GoodDay you should probably vote too. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
MikkelJSmith2, I think Kawnhr and I are indicating the same thing, no? Doug Mehus T·C 19:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Dmehus, you are correct, I misread what you said, sorry again. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Neutral - I'm willing to accept whatever this Rfc result is, as for the moment there seems to be a lack of clarity in the sources, as to whether Scheer is still the party's leader or is now the party's interim leader. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Support my and Dmehus's suggestion. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Kawnhr, interestingly enough it seems iPolitics still mentions him as just leader. They posted a new story about it today. I think the Globe has the best summary of events though and the party members as well as strategists have called him the "interim leader", which gives more credence to it. Like you said it was really Scheer's announcement that caused the confusion. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, do you mean this story? It does look to muddy the waters, but buried within is a couple of paragraphs that say what the Globe at al are saying:

Mike Van Soelen, a former Conservative staffer, said the party is focused on who’s running to be the next leader, not Scheer. He said people actively involved are excited about the different names that could be put forward and that the Conservative caucus is comfortable with Scheer acting as interim leader meanwhile.

“I don’t really believe people are fussing about whether Andrew Scheer continues to be interim leader,” he said. “I can’t see how that would have any impact on ultimately what’s going to happen and where this party goes.”

Emphasis mine. Granted, that second line is ambiguous and could be interpreted as "I don't believe people are concerned that Scheer is continuing on as interim leader" or as "I don't believe people are really concerned about trying to figure out whether he is the interim leader or full-but-outgoing leader", but the former interpretation tracks with the previous paragraph— as well as the other reports. This is definitely a confusing situation, one that has not only stumped us but also actual journalists, but IMO it seems to come from a combination of 1) people not being intimately familiar with the CPC constitution; 2) Scheer announcing he would stay on as leader until a successor is chosen; and 3) the practicalities of the situation leading to more idiomatic phrasing. But I do think the Globe, the NatPo and the CBC lay out the reality of the situation that we can interpret it properly. Well, IMO. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

If he's still leader of the party. We have to wonder, what did the party caucus vote on. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Kawnhr, I think I read it too fast the other day or maybe I was too tired. I've been working a lot recently. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the emphasis. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries! It's definitely a confusing situation (and AFAIK unprecedented in Canadian politics), and that iPolitics story didn't help by calling him "leader" throughout. I hope I haven't come across as condescending here; my laboured explanations are because I'm working this out myself and 'showing my work', so to speak. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Kawnhr, you don't sound condescending, it shows that you're trying to explain the situation. It is a weird one. I'm not sure a leader ever stayed on to be interim. Clark didn't and he ran in the next leadership. MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

So, the Hill Times have just reported there wasn't a vote... "Conservative sources told The Hill Times the caucus did not hold a vote, but that an overwhelming majority of members expressed their support for Mr. Scheer, to maintain stability in the day-to-day functions of the party" MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's the link btw :https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/12/20/some-conservative-mps-upset-disappointed-in-wake-of-reports-raising-questions-about-scheers-family-office-expenses/229205 MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Well this just got a whole lot more convoluted. So according to this, Scheer announced his resignation, the caucus convened to select an interim leader, Scheer said he'd like to stay on actually, and they just acquiesced to that without a vote? I'm not an expert in the CPC constitution, but since they didn't follow the proper procedure, that would suggest to me that Scheer did not formally resign and is in fact still full leader (albeit in a lame-duck, outgoing capacity). Oy. I guess I'll change my !vote to support the status quo and current wording as the best option. As GoodDay puts it below, the question is whether he's leader or interim leader, and absent any de jure confirmation we're left with a confusing story and conflicting information, so I think it best to describe the situation as it fits de facto, which is that Scheer is continuing on until he's succeeded. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Kawnhr, I'll have to go for status quo now too. This is honestly so weird. This has been the most bizarre story in Canadian politics recently. I've never seen so much contradictions. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe the same situation occurred earlier this year, concerning the UK's Theresa May's resignation as her party's leader. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, you seem to be right. There's a similar discussion to this one in the archive of her talk page. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Just want to clarify. We're not questioning whether Scheer is the Leader of the Opposition or that he's the party's caucus leader. We're only concerned with whether he's Leader of the Conservative Party, or just Interim Leader. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not certain that the Rfc was closed properly. I believe you need to request a review & closure, at the appropriate place. GoodDay (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay sorry, at the time, I didn't know the rules about closing properly. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe an Rfc runs for a full month & then a request for an administrator to review it, is made. Otherwise, it merely expires after a month. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It appears as though the consensus is that Scheer is still leader of the Conservative Party & not interim leader. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, that does seem to be the case. It's exactly the same as what happened with Theresa May then. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the news media has stopped calling him 'interim leader'. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Graph colours

The depiction of the Liberals as blue and Conservatives as red is wrong. The national party colours in Canada are Liberal red, and Conservative blue. Reversing it produces entirely the wrong impression. I am removing the graph as misleading, until it is fixed.174.3.236.243 (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We have already removed it at Opinion polling for the 44th Canadian federal election for the same reason. A new graph will be created once some more polls have been collected, enough to make trend lines work right. - Ahunt (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Ahunt, pretty much agree. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Scheer's status as Conservative Leader Revisited

Friendly pings to the previous discussion participants (MikkelJSmith2, Kawnhr, GoodDay, and Ahunt)

I wanted to briefly revisit the previous discussion on Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer's status as party leader. First, I'm fine with the resolution of dropping the "interim" moniker - that was my main issue, as I recall. Nevertheless, it occurred to me that, in the context of this page, Scheer will not be the Leader of the Conservatives in the future 44th Canadian federal election—unless said election occurs within the next 2-3 months, which seems most unlikely given the positions of the BQ, NDP, and Liberals. Thus, for 44th Canadian federal election, we may want to list the Conservative leader as "vacant". Scheer should still be listed as Conservative leader in related party and parliamentary articles as he very much is, but we know he won't be leader in the next election, no?

Likewise, Jo-Ann Roberts should not be listed as the Green leader as she is only interim party leader and has no formal role in policy development. She is a mere figurehead until such time as the Greens elect a new leader.

Basically, this is an article about the future, which I'm not sure we are creating articles about future events to be honest, but if that's our practice, then I think the infobox should at least reflect what we know will not likely happen or who will not likely be the leader at a given future date. Bearcat, have we always done this? It seems odd that we create articles for future events, so am pinging you for your expertise. Perhaps a move to the Draft namespace might be better?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 19:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It's been the practice to not change party leaders or interim leaders in an election article's infobox, until the party leader or interim leader has been replaced by their respective party. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, Okay, I do see that we've created an article for the 2020 presidential election, although in that case, we actually have a fixed date. In this case, it's all very much in flux and doesn't seem very encyclopedic. I get the thinking in trying to prewrite much of the article so it's good to go when the writ is dropped, but a lot of the article is speculation and crystal ball gazing, which I'm not sure is helpful outside of the talkpages. Anyway, I'm fine if you guys want to keep this article in the main namespace, but just thought I should throw these comments out there. Doug Mehus T·C 19:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Our usual approach has been for the infoboxes to reflect the leaders "now" and just update that as it changes. That approach is probably even more appropriate in a minority situation as we don't know when the next election will come. Even though the government is unlikely to be toppled soon, historically minority governments don't go to term. - Ahunt (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Ahunt, True, although, in British Columbia, with one of the smallest minority governments in Canadian history, it seems likely it's going to run to the fixed election date of fall 2021—when many pundits (except me and some others) didn't think it'd last to the end of 2017. Doug Mehus T·C 19:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice that we do have a notes next to Scheer and Roberts, pointing out that they're in the process of being replaced. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, No, I didn't, but that's good. Anyway, I still stand by my comments in that I find it a bit odd, but like I said, I am fine with leaving them in. Doug Mehus T·C 19:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I fully understand your concerns. It's odd to have Scheer & Roberts in this article's infobox, when in all likelihood they won't be leading their respective parties into the 44th general election. That's always been the trickiness about Westminister-based elections. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The practice of listing leaders until the moment they are formally succeeded is one that makes sense with our democratic structure: because leaders serve indefinite terms (cf presidential nominees, who are chosen for precisely one election at a time), and because an elections can be moved forward by events (government falling/PM dissolving parl early), it is possible that an election could happen at any time and an outgoing or interim leader would be thrust into an election campaign. This isn't purely theoretical, either, because that's exactly what happened in the 1980 election: Trudeau had resigned after his '79 loss, but when Clark's government fell before the Liberals had elected a new leader, Trudeau rescinded his resignation and fought the election (and won, of course). In a more recent example, interim leader David Swann lead the Liberals through the 2015 Alberta general election (though that wasn't an accident). So, although I agree it is very unlikely that we will see an election in the next six months, that our system leaves that possibility open means it's best practice to track information as it stands… and at this point in time, it's that Scheer and Roberts are the leaders of their respective parties. I think the notes explaining that they are expected to be replaced in due course is enough clarification. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Kawnhr, Yeah, I get that rationale as well, which is probably why I'm fine with leaving it as is. Speaking purely hypothetically, it makes me wonder, in such a scenario, if the national council of either the Conservatives or Greens would, respectively, install an interim leader (in the case of the former) and have Elizabeth May again lead the Greens (in the case of the latter)? I can't them letting an interim, non-elected, and twice (or thrice) defeated candidate lead the party prominently in an election campaign. I suspect they'd either install Ms. May or Ms. Atwin as interim leader. Anyway, that's unrelated to Wikipedia but fun political speculation. ;) Doug Mehus T·C 22:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

So, I kind of have nothing to add. Everyone else pretty much mentioned what I wanted to mention. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

When do we start listing candidates?

The Conservatives have started tweeting their candidates for the next election. At what point should the riding-by-riding list of candidates be created? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

And now the NDP have started tweeting their candidates. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Multi Day Polling Period

With Bill C-19 having been proposed by the federal government, there is a possibility that the 44th Canadian federal election is held under the act, with a three day polling period. In that event for the purpose of the election date in the article, I am assuming we will use the precedent of the 1867 and 1872 Federal Elections and use that format on the 3 day polling period. Would that be correct? --WanukeX (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Where exactly would we have to put this in the article? - Ahunt (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Candidates nominated, and eventually "results by riding"

Just wanted to discuss this good faith edit by Ahunt. I think it is correct that listing every candidate on the main page is likely WP:TRIVIA, but it is appropriate to include it in a riding by riding nomination/results page like was done for 2019. This should likely not be done on the main article though, as 338 riding will create a table far to large for the main page. I expect it is likely fine for editors to begin a page like that filling in candidates that have been nominated in each riding (of course party nominations will not be official until Elections Canada confirms their registration). I note candidates are also often listed on the riding pages (see Papineau (electoral district) for an example). This is often done both before an election and after. So, I think the issue is really more one of "should all candidates be listed on the main page?" not "should they be listed anywhere in the encyclopedia?".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh I agree that a dedicated page is fine, but not here in the main article, as it will dwarf it very quickly. - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I added the section to illustrate how early candidate confirmations started. I only intended it to note the first confirmation for each party, not every one that occurred. I assumed that would be obvious but I was wrong.

I will point out that party nominations are official as soon as the party confirms them; candidate registration is a different beast. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I had a feeling that was your intention, but then some other editors took it and ran with it. Perhaps re-instate it as a general statement with no candidate names with a hidden note? - Ahunt (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@G. Timothy Walton: - Yes, party nominations are "official" with respect to the party as soon as a party announces them. They are not official with respect to Elections Canada (EC), and the election itself, until EC confirms their registration. For example, if a candidate has some sort of scandal or changes their mind about running, the party could withdraw that candidate and name a new one. If the candidate fails to qualify to appear on the ballot (ie not enough signatures, doesn't pay fees or complete forms) then they would also not be the candidate on the ballot. Once a candidate has been confirmed by EC though it is final. That candidate will be on the ballot. This doesn't matter too much for our purposes, but when we are listing candidates in the lead up to an election we sometimes put them in tables in italics or something until they are confirmed by EC. That way readers know who is on the ballot, and who has simply been announced (or if several people are all competing for the nomination).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

A mere quibble about terminology. Markup sequence is Pick Me (nomination contestant) → Pick Me (party nominee, commonly called candidate) → Pick Me* (when registered as candidate with EC) → Pick Me (after final list released and those who failed to register have been removed).

I think given the long lead time this cycle and the increasing number of bozo eruptions each election that we might need to add some symbol to indicate where a previously announced candidate (as most people would use the word) has been ejected or replaced. The wingdings character set might not meet WP:NEUTRAL so we'll need something else.

Considering how many candidates the Conservatives and NDP are announcing lately it might be time to create the appropriate by-riding page. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, that is a good description of the various distinctions. Yes, I think it would be fine to start a "Candidates" section in the article. That should be brief and say something like The Conservatives and NDP have nominated about a hundred candidates... The following incumbents have stated they are not running in the next election:... Then there should be a link to the article about the "Candidates by riding" page.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't got a script that can handle the job and it would take me hours to brute-force it. Anyone else? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Still nothing? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to brute-force this either. Perhaps, someone else does. If not perhaps, we could just add this case by case, where candidates have actually been announced. I expect the number of editors willing to spend time on this, will increase the closer we get to the election. I am not sure there is a rush to do it now, unless someone wants to volunteer.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Incumbents not running for reelection

I've been ordering this by surname of the incumbent. Previously this was done as bullet lists by party. I'd like a consensus on how to order the incumbents in table form. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

By party. - Ahunt (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Same precedence as the regional party columns? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIIW, I don't think it is appropriate/neutral for us to list the retiring MP, and then only the nominee from the same party that will be running (but not the nominees of other parties). This somewhat assumes a hold for the party, when in reality a retiring MP can create a competitive race (and encourage other parties to run high profile candidates there). I would rather just leave that field out and include all the candidates in the Candidates nominated, and eventually "results by riding" when we get that section going.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I was looking at the table recently and thought that the incoming columns should be tossed. I don't know why they're there at all. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed the columns in question. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I notice that this page uses a table format for the section, while the section on the 2019 election's page uses a plain list. Similarly, 2019 Alberta general election and 2019 Manitoba general election both use tables, but 2020 British Columbia general election and 2019 Newfoundland and Labrador general election use plain lists. I guess it's not really a big deal, but I think it would be best if there was a consistent approach to this (whichever it may be). — Kawnhr (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a plain list is the way to go. The only information that really needs to be conveyed is the name and riding of the person that will not be running again. We have a full list of candidates in this sub-page. Readers can look there for more information if they want it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the plain list, personally, for the reasons you said, but I don't really mind either way. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What's noteworthy as a controversy?

The leader of one of the single-candidate parties last election was charged with a hate crime last month.

Is this noteworthy? Should we ignore the fringe parties in general or just those whose controversies are a surprise to noöne? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, that case. It is always a trade off between providing coverage of key events and giving extremists any oxygen. I would say in this case, since this party and its leader will have exactly no effect on the election's outcome it should be omitted from this article. It is really a criminal matter and should just remain in that party's article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Candidate articles in draft space

Hi everyone. I have a draft I am working on for a candidate article (Draft:Phil De Luna) that was moved out of article space before the candidacy had been noted. I have been asked to take it to AfC, which I don't mind, but I understand that can take months. I don't want to cause a problem by moving back to article space prematurely but the candidacy does add notability to an already fairly strong bio and I'd hate to miss the election.

Any thoughts on how to proceed? Is there an admin editor here who might help me with AfC? I am a Green volunteer but not in any official capacity for the party. I've edited sporadically over the years but am unfamiliar with some of the newer procedures. Thanks. Greenbound (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Governor General

Perhaps, we should be pointing out that since January 22, 2021, the governor generalship has been vacant. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

If we do we should also mention that the Administrator can perform the duties of the G-G's office. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

A by-election was cancelled.

The by-election was never actually called (no writ) so it couldn't be cancelled. I'm drawing a blank on a simple way to word the distinction between cancelling the by-election and rendering the requirement moot. Anyone? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

How about: an expected by-election was rendered moot by the commencement of the general election? - Ahunt (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Ahunt, yeah that's really good. MikkelJSmith (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Leader Image Update?

I figured since the campaign's officially kicked off, there will be some new images uploaded. Should we update the images of various leaders, once these are released?

Also, just a quick side-note: The only reason I created this section is because I have a bit of OCD and like to make new things once something's began or ended and also because I found a pretty good looking image of O'Toole. xD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan Persaud (talk • contribs)

It's a good image but it violates our consensus that a leader should not look at another one. MikkelJSmith (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith That's a fair point, but then again, Trudeau is craning his neck into O'Toole's image, so..

So let's talk about Trudeau's photo

There seems to be some sort of mini conflict over Trudeau's image in the infobox.

I myself think that this photo fits better with the rest of the leaders. Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

We love a good edit-war don't we? I honestly think that image is a bit crappy, but its the best we've got to work with right now. Hopefully some new images get uploaded during the campaign, so we resolve this once and for all. Aryan Persaud (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Editors getting tired of reverted an image that doesn't fit the page is not the same thing as a consensus supporting use of the image. The craned-neck photo is not neutral and gives the appearance of him looking at O'Toole.

Ahunt, MikkelJSmith2, anyone else got the energy to handle this neverending story? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a gallery here of the options would be helpful? - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Just for completeness' sake, here's all the images that have been used for Trudeau lately (if I missed one, feel free to edit it into the gallery):

Date: June 23rd 2019
Date: December 24th 2019
Date: August 12th 2021
Date: August 25th 2019; used on 2019 Canadian federal election

— Kawnhr (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I say we either use the latest one (no suit coat) or the 2019 image. The other two to put it in the words of a three-year-old "doo doo" Aryan Persaud (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

IMO the 2019 one is the best choice. It avoids the "craned-neck" problem of the first, while also being a high-quality, professional-looking photo unlike the second and third options. It's not the most recent photo, but it still reflects Trudeau's appearance (and it wouldn't even be the only photo on the page to not be exactingly recent— Singh's photo is from 2018). — Kawnhr (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree, we could move to the 2019 image and end this once and for all, but obviously.. we need consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan Persaud (talk • contribs) 19:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Kawnhr, I'm also partial to the 2019 image, since it satisfies the past consensus criteria better. For reference, in the 2019 election talk page, we established through consensus that the picture of a leader should not look at another leader, should be high quality and not include flags (p.s. if you're looking for that information it's probably archived). Based on that, I prefer the 2019 picture. It's recent enough and captures the PM's current look. That and unlike the Christmas picture, it's in HQ. It also doesn't look at O'Toole like the blue suit picture.

My second choice would be the Christmas one. Then, the one with no suit. I'm less partial to those since they are screenshots from announcement videos... They're not in HQ.

Finally, the one in the blue suit doesn't work with the criteria we established before.

I hope this helps.

MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

2 and 3 seem best-suited to reasonably matching other party leaders in pose and lighting, 4 at least doesn't look like he's interacting with O'Toole; I'd say 1 is the worst for pose and eyeline and has the least neutral expression.

I think 3 and 4 would need some cropping to bring his head size in line with the other leaders. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Someone forgot to sign right above me hence why I left a space atm. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's a link to the original version of 3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prime_Minister_Trudeau%27s_message_on_International_Youth_Day.png [Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8]] (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The thing about the current image of him (Prime Minister Trudeau delivers a message on Christmas.png) is that its quality is bad like most video stills. My subjective opinion is that its blurriness creates too much constract with O'Toole's high definition photo. Maybe newer and better images will get uploaded as the election campaign goes on. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I just wish we had a new, HD photo of him. But unfortunately, everything I've seen on Flickr is either outdated or has all rights reserved to the original author. 🙁 Aryan Persaud (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The 2019 photo is probably the best we have there. - Ahunt (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Well lads, looks like we've reached consensus. 2019 image it is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan Persaud (talk • contribs)

/* Incumbents not running for reelection */

Does Michel Boudrias belong on the list? He was refused the nomination by his party rather than announcing he wouldn't run again. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

We should probably note that, but it could be a separate section: "MPs not nominated by their parties" or similar. - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I like that option.Raellerby (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Blanchet Picture

After searching again, I have found a recent Blanchet Picture but I was wondering if it was good since he was smiling. It was found on French Wikipedia. For reference, we established in 2019 through consensus that the picture of a leader should not look at another leader, should be high quality and not include flags. There's also the neutrality of the picture rule we had that was established before that.

Granted, I'm not sure about that last rule...

File:Yves-François Blanchet à l'été 2021.png

Then, I remembered that one of the PET pictures we use has him smiling and I saw that O'Toole is smiling, which confused me.

So, I'm asking here.

Would this one be appropriate to use for the 2019 and 2021 election infobox? It is more recent than the 2009 picture.

What do you think Ahunt,GoodDay,G. Timothy Walton,Kawnhr, Aryan Persaud (I'm asking people that were involved in the Trudeau picture consensus above)? - MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, I say we go with it because the one on the article is very outdated. Aryan Persaud (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - the proposed image. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Better than I'd hoped. A bit of cropping and it should fit right in. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. If "no smiling" is a rule that has been set in place then we should really toss that. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Since the photo has received unanimous approval, I went ahead and added it to the page. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Kawnhr, I was about to do it. You beat me to it lol. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Page protection

This is be the third time I've had to revert anonymous attempts to shift the Liberal and Conservative positions to the left or remove the Liberals entirely. I don't expect this to stop, given the boost social media gives to fringe beliefs. Once was on the Canadian political parties page.

Am I overreacting or can a case be made for page protection? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Since this is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and this is a high-public-interest page that may bring us new recruits as editors, I would prefer to leave the page open and just be vigilant and revert vandalism on sight instead. - Ahunt (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we just remove the "position" column? The equivalent table on 2019 Canadian federal election doesn't list their relative positions, just ideologies. — Kawnhr (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That's logical and easily the least work for anyone. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 Election not official yet

The page has been moved after the election was officially called. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

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.

With multiple reliable sources confirming that the PM is going to Rideau Hall on the weekend to dissolve Parliament and that the election will be held on Sept 20, should we rename/move the page?

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-pm-trudeau-is-planning-call-snap-election-sept-20-sources-2021-08-12/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-call-trudeau-1.6138794

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1816186/elections-scrutin-federal-gouvernement-trudeau

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2021/08/12/liberal-government-to-call-snap-election-report/

MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

No, see WP:CRYSTAL. He does not have to do what the newspapers say and can easily change his mind. It should be moved when the writ is actually dropped and not before. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Ahunt, I just learned about that sorry. Had no clue that policy existed. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I support the name change, as these reliable sources have confirmed the matter. Rushtheeditor (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't have the option to do so: WP:CRYSTAL is a Wikipedia policy and we have to adhere to it - no latitude there. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. These media sources are speculation, nothing more, quoting "unnamed sources", not presenting facts. - Ahunt (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I would support changing it now if Trudeau made a public statement of his intentions, but AFAIK only sources say Trudeau will do it. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if the PM made a public statement of intentions, that does not mean an election will be held - that is the GG's purview to grant it or not. "Dissolution of Parliament is not automatic and Gov. Gen. Mary Simon could say no — although that would be a rare move out of line with parliamentary tradition." We still need a dissolution to change the article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

There's no big hurry. Let's wait until the governor general dissolves the 43rd Parliament & sets the federal election date. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

There's no requirement that we wait for formalities to occur(which, though technically the G-G could refuse, by tradition she won't). We posted when Joe Biden won the presidential election not when it was formally certified by Congress, but when reliable sources said that he won. I do think, as I said, Trudeau would need to state his intentions though, which hasn't happened. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I think another reason to wait until the GG actually grants the dissolution is that the leader of the NDP has asked her not to grant it. Will she listen to him over the PM? Unlikely, but it introduces enough doubt to wait for the formal dissolution and actual election call. I also agree with User:GoodDay - there is no hurry to immediately rename it. Even after the election call it is still the 44th federal election. - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair point, as usually the opposition wants an election. I believe standard practice is to title with the year once we know it, though, so people can find the article. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we need a template at the top of the page telling people to refer here before making changes. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

There were some recent edits to the text of the article claiming a 2021 election, which have not been officially announced by the government. As a result, I renamed this section from name change to 2021 Election not official yet to make the discussion easier to find — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.127.186.124 (talk • contribs)

Everyone should follow WP:NORUSH and wait for an election to be called. It's likely to be in September - but they can still decide not to call for one. Nfitz (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I wonder who'll be the one to change the article title. The rush for the Cabbage Patch Kids, won't even compare. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Rushtheeditor is our winner for the article title change! WanukeX (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Rushtheeditor, you da man. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, fellow editors! Rushtheeditor (talk) 15:55, 15 August 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.

Consensus Change?

I just up-scaled this image. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prime_Minister_Trudeau%27s_message_on_International_Youth_Day_(Cropped).png.

Now, I know an agreement was just reached over the image dispute at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_Canadian_federal_election#So_let's_talk_about_Trudeau's_photo but that was before I up-scaled this image so I'm requesting a consensus change.

I just want to know should the current image be kept or changed to this? (Proposed image on right of page)

- Editor50545 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

My main concerns with the current image is that it is the same one used in the 2019 election. The image you are proposing is good and I could see it being a viable image Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll quote myself from Talk:2019 Canadian federal election, since there was a similar proposal there: I guess the suggested image is fine, but I don't see why this needs to be changed in the first place… I don't think it's an issue for the same image to be used across multiple elections in instances where the person in question looks basically the same. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok but the image is more recent and now better because of the up scaling, which solves the issue of the blurriness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:e263:a900:b9d8:f3f:a994:3e2c (talk • contribs)

The image is recent and doesn't have much blur anymore, however, the only problem is that it's still low quality compared to the other images. I think we should keep the 2019 one until we get something better, being completely honest with you. Aryan Persaud (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Aryan Persaud, same thoughts ultimately. Hopefully something better will get released during the campaign. For reference, the current Scheer pic for 2019 was not used before the campaign in 2019 if I remember correctly. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Image from Aryan Persaud for Consensus Discussion

An anon 2607:fea8:e263:a900:b9d8:f3f:a994:3e2c (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has tried to unsuccessfully link to https://www.flickr.com/photos/193295580@N03/51377085135/, however that source is not legally disseminating that work. I ran an search on the image itself, https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51377085135_fbcb604768_h.jpg, and it was previously published. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Fine, I give up. 2019 image is fine and it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:E263:A900:B9D8:F3F:A994:3E2C (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

New Trudeau Image

So, I know we were talking about the Trudeau image earlier, however.. after checking around on Flickr, I found numerous freely licensed images of JT (Justin Trudeau).

Here's one that I already uploaded, and is awaiting review from an Admin, mainly so I can crop it.

Ahunt MikkelJSmith What do you think lads?

File:Justin Trudeau at Rideau Hall 2021.jpg

Image I Uploaded

Aryan Persaud (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It is clear and good resolution, but the photo caught him in mid-word and so the facial expression is not great, really. - Ahunt (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it's a commercial image. I did a TinEye search and found it at https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021-08-15T155152Z_1901882450_RC2N5P9K0JEX_RTRMADP_3_CANADA-POLITICS-ELECTION.jpg?resize=570%2C380 as the oldest, multiple on Wall Street Journal, and multiple other sources. Look at https://tineye.com. The image has been tagged in Commons: "the Flickr user is known to upload images with possibly problematic license information". Other images at that Flikr account are copy vios. I would suggest avoiding them for our use. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't even looked at the EXIF data until I nominated it for deletion there: "Copyright holder: REUTERS". DOH! Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, dammit.. really had my hopes up for at least one of the three I uploaded. Oh, well! Guess we have to bare up with the 2019 image (which I was really hoping to replace sooner rather than later). :( Aryan Persaud (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

If only he were travelling around the country in a well-publicized election campaign where individuals with cameras could attend the events and take an appropriate photo. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Aryan Persaud, there will probably some pics from the campaign trail that can be used. I know that last time Scheer's pic changed like during the campaign or just before it. So, it's happened before. One of the photographers just needs to make the pictures Public domain/Creative Commons. MikkelJSmith (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice

A discussion related to this article, is occurring. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

PPC

CLOSED

Discussion rendered moot by the decision of the Leaders' Debates Commission that the PPC does not qualify to participate.

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.

The fact that the PPC is not listed just proves how easy the politically biased moderators can push their agenda on Wikipedia. This is why I stopped donating to Wikipedia years ago. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Under what criteria should they be included? In the 2019 Canadian federal election they were listed because they had a seat, which they lost. This year they are not listed because they have no seats. So for what reason should they be included? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The PPC is not expected to play a significant role in this election, as shown by how they've failed to qualify for the debates (which has an extremely generous inclusion criteria, IMO).[1] Which is not to say that Wikipedia must abide by that same set of rules, but if they aren't getting coverage, what reason do we have to include them? You may as well include the Marxist-Lenninsts at that point. — Kawnhr (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The public polling Canada is skewed and biased (as in many other countries). It doesn't matter. It's Wikipedia. Few will check this page before the election. You'll have to add PPC once they've won at least one seat and they are sure to do so this time around. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Walter and Kawnhr are absolutely correct. Including the parties with elected representatives in parliament is an unbiased way to fairly cover the major players in an election. Further to that point, we should really refrain from political debates on "how a party will do" in a talk section. CanadianCon2020 (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@NoWikiNoLife:, FWIW, I've never donated to Wikipedia. PS: Would you please sign your posts, properly? GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, if the party DOES qualify for the debates, then you will HAVE to add them. The decision will be made tomorrow [2]. And it is clear from this article that Kawnhr's assertion that, 'The PPC is not expected to play a significant role in this election' is dead wrong. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@NoWikiNoLife: - you have made it quite clear you are hear to promote this one particular minor political party, so I suggest you read WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kawnhr, the most we can expect from the PPC is vote splitting of the extreme right vote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

One point further, in the last election, they gathered 1.70 percent of the vote in ridings where they ran. Other than Bernier, no one broke 5 percent of the vote. See Results of the 2019 Canadian federal election by riding. This is the basis of my opinion. What is the basis of your opinion that they will make any difference in the election? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

No, Ahunt, I am not promoting any party, I am just fighting for equality/equal treatment of parties. And Walter Görlitz, if you had read the article which I had linked, you would have seen that PPC currently enjoys around 4% to 5% support in most polls, which is sufficient to consider them an important party in this election. As for your comment about 'splititng the extreme right vote', it just proves you don't know much about Canadian politics. The Conservatives are now a mostly centrist party, and the PPC can be considered a party on the right, but there are no extreme right parties in Canada worth mentioning, so please educate yourself a little before you make such statements. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

And we all know how accurate the polls have been. The Conservatives are trying to be perceived as a mostly centrist party. Their candidates are ruining that for them. So, please don't tell me to educate myself and stop pushing your PoV. What next; you want to include the Maverick Party in the same way the BQ is? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-election-debate-decision-participant-leaders-1.6148751 Are we done with this? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, there's 19 federal political parties registered with Elections Canada. That would really clog up the infobox, if we included all of them. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@NoWikiNoLife: AFAIK, we established a "gotta have a seat" inclusion criteria, some time ago. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, then at least show some consistency and on this page [3] delete all PPC columns and add PPC candidates under 'Other'. You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the reason the PPC is separated from other parties there is to avoid clogging the "other" column with parties running in most of an area's ridings. There are a couple examples in Results of the 2019 Canadian federal election by riding's Quebec sections of even more minor parties (Rhino and Marxist-Leninist) having columns. Being on the ballot everywhere does not guarantee national importance. Username 6892 20:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you can move the goalposts all you want. PPC currently has more declared candidates than the Greens and will likely have a candidate in every single riding in Canada, proving that they are a large party with serious intentions. But you still claim that when it comes to national importance, the Greens have it and the PPC doesn't? LMAO!! NoWikiNoLife (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss it at the other article. Each one stands on its own merits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Correct. Merits called double standards. Which Wikipedia moderators can use as they please. It doesn't matter. I'm done. I've proven my point and, as I've said before, once the PPC have won at least one seat on September 20, this page will include them as well and the biased moderators will have to add their platform (currently not included on this page) and go back to sources to dig up data so that they can include how the PPC was doing in the polls at each stage (currently, they are not included on the second graph). NoWikiNoLife (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I think I know what you mean by "this page will include them", but the kind of inclusion you're seeking will not be here then. If they win a seat, their leader would be included in the next general election article's infobox, and their policies will be listed there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Wrong again, little buddy. In 2011, Greens had no seats of their own before the election and two after the election and they are included here [4]. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

IF the PPC win a seat on September 20? Bernier & his party will be added to the infobox. Just like May & the Greens were in the 2011 Canadian federal election article's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@NoWikiNoLife: The reason the PPC get columns in most ridings is the sheer number of candidates, not any comment on the merits of the party. Two related articles, two different policies. I provided more detail on the Candidates article's Talk page. Short form: it's a policy specific to that type of article that predates the existence of the PPC.

As for any bias I might have, I openly admit to donating money to the Rhinoceros Party last year, the only time I've ever given money to any of the parties. I also donated to Wikipedia last year. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Following the announcement that PPC are not going to be at the national debates due to not meeting any of the criteria necessary, are we in a position to archive this thread given that the point has reached a conclusion?

- CanadianCon2020 (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I would think so - it is all moot now. Closed. - Ahunt (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

IP identification

I'm rather concerned about the 'strange' fiddling around with posts in this discussion, by 50.67.13.101 IP. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This may be the first time I've seen a Talk page in need of semi-protection. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Baseless accusation. I have not tempered with one single word of anyone's posts, so stop with your pathetic attempts of slander. And if I added an indentation or two to make posts clearer to see and be more distinctive in terms of which post is a response to which previous post, that's called technical editing and not fiddling. But I guess you just love making s**t up. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

No, but if you edited while signed out, that's a problem for you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

By your response, I gather that you were/are the IP. In future, please sign in, before posting or editing. GoodDay (talk) 04:47, 22 August 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.

Platforms

Given the fact that the Conservative plaform has been released today, should a platform table similar to that found in 2019 Canadian federal election#Platforms be added now or should we wait until other parties release theirs? Username 6892 01:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd say add them as they appear. No sense waiting for the Rhinos to finish theirs. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Username6892, I believe the NDP also released theirs, so that might be a good idea. MikkelJSmith (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

On this matter, should we put it (the "Platforms" table) in its own section or do we put the table as a subsection under "Campaign"? — Eric0892 (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a few matters of concern, the platforms are rightfully very long and dense. It'll take a lot to accurately and unbiasedly parse down and summarize the platforms but what we can do is have a campaign timeline which mentions and links the platform. I remember this issue surfaced during the 2020 Conservative leadership. I'd be happy to help summarize platform points but I don't want to be the only one

- CanadianCon2020 (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

A table format for campaign promises or "platforms" is not consistent with MOS:TABLE's Appropriate Use. maclean (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Listening to Erin O'Toole on the radio, it sounded like he wants to encourage the private sector to build 1 million homes, not that the Federal Government is going to build 1 million homes over the next three years. I think this more detail is needed on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.140.177 (talk)

The Foreign Policy row for the Conservatives lists "Boycott World Conference on Racism in 2021." It cites page 154 of their platform, however I don't see anything on that on that page, which is about online media. (It's entirely possible that this is a position of that party, but it's definitely not on the page which is cited.) - MagikM18 (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Just noted that the part about recognizing Israel also cites the same page; nothing about foreign policy is present on that page. - MagikM18 (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It turns out the editor cited the wrong page. I've corrected the page number. As for the "World conf. on anti-racism", it's referred to in the platform as "Durban IV". Not sure exactly which title would be preferred, but I felt Durban IV was more neutral so I replaced the title (feel free to revert this change if you disagree). Username 6892 22:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

That change was made https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Canadian_federal_election&diff=1039918902&oldid=1039890958 here] by Traincoats (talk · contribs). Please confirm the other details as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I just want to state for the record that the Green Party of Canada has opted to release their platform positions in stages and then compile them into a final document before voting begins. Thus, their platform positions will not be filled all at once. Here is the source: https://ipolitics.ca/2021/08/20/green-party-to-release-its-platform-in-pieces/ MPen92 (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Parties and standings: Position

What say we just kill the column, already? If we leave it in it's going to be a neverending reversion battle. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected, that should cut down the vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

(1) The Conservative Party immigration policy in the large table should be amended. It reads that the Tories want to amend the Safe Third Country Agreement to prevent "Americans" from seeking asylum in Canada. Reading the source (CPC manifesto), the policy is aimed at asylees passing through or landing first in the US and then crossing illegally into Canada. (2) Why is every article locked these days? Editors are out of control. 2601:5C6:8180:BAD0:25C6:C7AB:6E22:FCE8 (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, anon editors are out of control. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2021

This edit request to 2021 Canadian federal election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add "Maxime Bernier" from the PPC ( people's party of Canada) to your list. He is the only one who got left out. Thank you. 68.146.36.202 (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe there was a consensus before to not include him due to his party's poor performance in the 2019 elections. Aryan Persaud (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done: See discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

More specifically, the section titled "PPC". Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead

I have edited the lead paragraph to conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, namely WP:REDUNDANCY and WP:AVOIDBOLD. I changed it from

The 2021 Canadian federal election will take place on September 20, 2021, to elect members of the House of Commons to the 44th Canadian Parliament after Governor General Mary Simon dissolved Parliament on August 15, 2021, at the request of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

to

Members of the House of Commons of the 44th Canadian Parliament will be elected on September 20, 2021. Governor General Mary Simon dissolved Parliament on August 15, 2021, at the request of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

In the edit summary I pointed to the Manual of Style and wrote that links are more useful than boldface for the sake of boldface. (The guideline supplement Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained is also pertinent.) The edit was reverted by Ahunt, who claims that it "serves no purpose". I am curious about what is meant by that. Surtsicna (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The standard is WP:BOLDLEAD If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence. You need a good reason to not follow that and use the alternatives. MOS:AVOIDBOLD says If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy, but that is not the case here, since the standard bolded lead reads fine as it is. As far as filling the lead with links goes, see WP:OVERLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE. I am interested to read what other editors working on this page think, since I was "thanked" for reverting your change to the lead. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

But the article's title is not a "formal or widely accepted name for the subject"; it gets only 48 Google search hits. It is merely a descriptive term. Boldface is not standard in such situations, and the wording is indeed distorted to include the title because we end up with an absurdly redundant definition of the 2021 Canadian federal election as an election in Canada in 2021. WP:REDUNDANCY warns against that: Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article. The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead if the article title is descriptive. I believe Member of Parliament (Canada) and List of Canadian federal general elections are essential topics and that links to them do not qualify as overlinking; but I care more about the structure of the lead sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

"2021 Canadian federal election" is not the widely accepted term for the 2021 Canadian federal election??? I would not give any credence to Google for that, see WP:GHITS for why why ignore Google search results. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:GHITS refers to deletion discussions. No, "2021 Canadian federal election" is not a widely accepted name. That is evident from the sources cited in the article, the sources available online, and the printed sources. It is a term of convenience, a descriptive term, and sources use countless variations. MOS:LEADSENTENCE: If the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text. Why should the article state that the 2021 Canadian federal election is an election in Canada in 2021? How do readers benefit from that? Surtsicna (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Well you have stated your case and I have now received several "thanks" for reverting your change. Now let's see if any other editors here agree with you.- Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

There's still the 1980 to 1997 & 2019 elections, which need to be restored to their status quo. I've already done that once & got banged over the head for it. Somebody should take up that task. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Done - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Recommend an RFC on the topic, concerning all international elections. Federal level, provincial/state/territorial, mayoral levels, etc. Otherwise, we'll end up with said-articles out of sync & likely more reverts (thus a 'red box' with a high number on each of our user talkpages). For example: I'm guessing there'd by some resistance at the American & British election articles, to start with. Best to find out now, then the hard way later. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

PS: Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, would be an ideal place for an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Applying Surtsicna's logic, there are a lot of articles that need to have their leads rewritten simply to misapply a principle nobody else seems to think applies. Much like the editor who tried to reorder the Candidates article, it's possible to make things worse by following what seems to be the right guideline at first glance. I'm with Ahunt on this. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are indeed a lot of articles that need to have their leads rewritten. Is it surprising that Wikipedia is not perfect? Wikipedia has a boldface fetish problem, as elaborated on at the Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained guideline supplement. Neither of you has explained how exactly the Manual of Style "makes things worse" or why defining the 2021 Canadian federal election as an election in Canada in 2021 is the best Wikipedia can do for its readers. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

What's being said is that either you've misunderstood the application of the MOS or thousands of other editors have. Which seems more likely? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree that those are the only two options. The supplement explains how superfluous bolding happens. Can you please tell me how you interpret the Manual of Style? And can you please (finally) explain why the article should open with a tautology? Surtsicna (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You'd be better off following my RFC advise. What it all comes down to is numbers. Would you have enough editors supporting the changes you propose, in order to get a consensus for said-proposals. There's no point in making such changes across many articles, without that consensus being obtained. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:GoodDay here, so far there is clearly no support for your proposal, regardless of your interpretations of the MOS. So you can either drop it, or else start a much wider scope RFC for general editor input. I should note that the RFC will probably not be a good use of your time either, as it will take a lot of effort and is very unlikely to be accepted, as it would basically change a huge number of articles. - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Just trying to save you from bigger headaches. If you were so upset, when I reverted your changes to the other Year Canadian federal election articles? Think how overly discouraged you'd feel, if down the road hundreds of such changes by you ended up being reverted by other editors, all because you didn't require a consensus first. Admit it, it would be a total waste of your time & effort, if that occurred. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Surtsicna's proposal

I'll leave the RfC discussion aside, and address the two MoS issues and COMMONNAME concern. We do not need to AVOIDBLUE if we can work the title of the article into the lede, and that seems to be case with this article. However, if 2021 Canadian federal election is not a common name, is it at least recognizable? What would you call the election? What do you see RSes calling it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, they are all calling it a variation of that. Elections 2021 (iPolitics), Vote 2021 (Toronto Star), Elections 2021/Federal Elections 2021 (CTV News). I can't find anything on Global News. But, the CBC uses Canada Votes 2021 in their news broadcasts. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, Surtsicna hasn't been around Wikipedia, for over a week now. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Party positions column should be removed

You can't categorize parties objectively into a political spectrum especially in Canada. Party leaders and party platforms change over time and unless a trusted reference can be provided it should be removed. Sn1ker12 (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You're right, we cannot. We should have reliable sources do so for us. Do we have refs? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, one can categorise parties, it's been going on for decades. The real problem is the number of people who think conservative/liberal/right/centre/left/etc. require set menus of positions, many of whom have a distorted view of where they and their party of choice fall on the spectrum. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, keep deleting everything your Party employers don't want the public to see. Wikipedia really should up the standard for moderators/editors. User:NoWikiNoLife 04:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Yves-François Blanchet à l'été 2021 (cropped).png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't believe I got tricked by a non CC picture... I should have been more thorough when checking wikimedia. MikkelJSmith (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2021

This edit request to 2021 Canadian federal election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can I please request that the Liberal PDF Platform be linked in? The PDF can be found here: https://2019.liberal.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/292/2019/09/Forward-A-real-plan-for-the-middle-class.pdf and it has been released for public view. It is currently not listed in the box showing all party platforms. Alovell44 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That is the 2019 platform. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That response does not make sense. I would say not done because that is a 2019 document. It's not clear that it is their 2021 platform. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This just hit my RSS feed: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-platform-2021-election-1.6160235 . The headline reads, "Liberals to release platform on Wednesday amid tightening polls and looming debate" so this link is clearly not their current platform. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Election results map problem

Ummmm it still shows the names of Elizabeth May and Andrew Scheer..........lol. Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup, it needs updating, for sure :) GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I forgot to update that! I’ll do so soon. — Eric0892 (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

All right. Done. Thanks everyone.

P.s. I might need help filing in all the results after the election. Thanks. — Eric0892 (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Results

Template:Canadian federal election, 2021 traditionally goes in the Results section. It seems reasonable to make it visible on this page now that it's ready. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I just created a new discussion on this matter. I’ll remove mine. — Eric0892 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe we should include it, since it provides the information on the number of candidates per party. — Eric0892 (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

And you're right. The tables usually show up a few weeks in advance. — Eric0892 (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Same opinion here. --Aréat (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I was the one who "commented it out" in the article, but if the consensus here is to include it now, even through there are no election results yet, I can live with that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyone against adding the table into the article? — Eric0892 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

By all means, add it in. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2021

This edit request to 2021 Canadian federal election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add all other Federal parties that are participating in this Election, under "Federal Parties". IE. VCP, Veteran's Coalition party of Canada, etc.

Its not respectable to keep hiding smaller ,non mainstream parties from the eyes of the public.

Thanks

Matthew Correia VCP Canada 2605:B100:71C:EE90:A5D4:6C9D:A1E6:959E (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The "Results" section now does that. — Eric0892 (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to promote smaller, nonmainstream parties artificially. They must establish themselves. I know US election articles have a threshold for inclusion (I think it's 5% of the vote/in polling but not sure off the top of my head). 331dot (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: Closing request under discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Predictions three weeks before the election

Does this breach WP:CRYSTAL? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I have seen similar on UK election pages (for example), but I'm really not a fan. I certainly think it violates CRYSTAL, as well as just being unnecessary (surely it's not worth documenting every single prediction and commentary about the election). — Kawnhr (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed it. It certainly does run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. Does not belong in an encyclopedia. We will report the election results after the election is over, not before. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I added the same type of section to the 2019 Canadian article based on the templates on the sections in [UK 2019 Article], those have been on that page for several months now. In terms of documenting every single prediction, the UK Pages only document 1 set per week then the final as you see on that page. I agree this violates WP:CRYSTAL at the moment until potentially after the election since they would no longer be speculation at that point, but that's a discussion to have then.WanukeX (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Almost every article about a US election(governors, US Senate, president, etc.) has a section of reputable news outlets or universities predicting the outcome of the election (2022 Maine gubernatorial election#Predictions, 2021 California gubernatorial recall election#Predictions, as examples). It doesn't predict the future to report on the opinions of experts as to how the election will turn out. The citations typically include the methodology or basis- it's not unverifiable. I see no problem with reporting on how various outlets think this election will turn out. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

What possible use could adding these after an election serve? If you want to address the accuracy of polling versus the actual election result that is a whole different topic on the technicalities of polling techniques, perhaps in an article like Accuracy of Canadian federal election polling. I contend that this does not belong in these articles before the election due to WP:CRYSTAL or afterwards because they become moot and irrelevant at that point. - Ahunt (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It would be crystal to put in Wikipedia's voice "based on polling and analysis, the Liberals will win X amount of seats and be Y seats short of a majority". It is not crystal to report on how others predict the election. It's beneficial to readers both now and in the future to know how it was thought the election would turn out versus how it actually did. Usually there aren't enough predictions to warrant a separate article either before or after the fact. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say that we are here to report the facts of the election, not people's guesses and especially not wrong guesses, which most will be. - Ahunt (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I can certainly accept that the way Canadian election articles are written may be different from how US election articles are written, but these predictions are prevalent in the latter.(also 2020 United States presidential election#Predictions) 331dot (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure the way that US election articles are handled on Wikipedia is a useful precedent for how to handle Canadian election articles. I think we have at least agreed here that WP:CRYSTAL applies before an election, asn, as I have contended above after the election they are moot and irrelevant.

Unless anyone can show a reason or benefit to include these, either before or after the election, I think we can close this as "consensus to not include". - Ahunt (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I've given a reason and benefit; you don't agree- which is fine- but it's not a reason to close this. Others may comment one way or another the other. If it is to be closed, I would ask that someone uninvolved do so. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It had been four days without further comment, but we can certainly let this discussion run longer in case anyone else has any thoughts on it, or someone else can close it, if it is thought that we have taken this to conclusion. - Ahunt (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The national vote is mostly irrelevant, as it doesn't completely decide the federal election. The federal election is actually 338 simultaneously occurring elections, in which a party has to win the most votes in 'each' riding. See 2019 Canadian federal election, concerning the national popular vote. Note then, the party with the most votes, didn't get the most seats. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree entirely, but perhaps you should clarify if you are arguing for or against including this then? - Ahunt (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I vote we turf it. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete it, as it has no bearing (see above comment) on the outcome. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay I think we have a consensus to not re-instate this now. - Ahunt (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm in strong support of including predicted seat projections. This isn't WP:CRYSTAL at all, it's just reporting the opinions of professionals within the field of politics. It's done on many other national election articles as well, like in the US and New Zealand. It is a far more helpful metric than nationwide opinion polling which doesn't depict what the actual results could look like. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Re-adding the platform section: bit by bit

I feel a sections like this has its place in this article while recognizing the one we had before was totally unacceptable. But if we would fill each columns with brief information from reliable sources about the positions of the the Liberals, the NDP and the Tories simultaneously, such a section would be a useful addition to our article. Mottezen (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Its fundamental problem was that it was displayed as a table, contrary to MOS:TABLE. Consider a list or paragraph describing what the individual party is advocating. Secondly, it was labeled as 'platform' but dominated by one-off election promises, not principles from a party platform. maclean (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Comparing platforms side-by-side is much better, however you can often not get as much detail. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The current listing of external links to the various party platforms is an interesting compromise, but, as per WP:EL External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article. If we are going to keep that, we really need to move it to the "external links" section and not right in the article text. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

In an effort to remove editors bias, would it make sense to link to the platforms as they are released? -CanadianCon2020 (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

We already have that. - Ahunt (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

References are not external links. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like CBC News did a nice take on the comparative table idea: [5] maclean (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

People's Party Platform

Should the People's Party platform be added to the "Policy platforms" section? I added it but it was undone with the stated reason being that they don't have a pdf version of it posted. I think it should be added because they are more than a single-issue party, they have candidates in over 90% of ridings, are included in national polling and their platform is covered along side the major parties in a secondary source. Does their lack of presentation options really trump all that? maclean (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That was my sole reason, as the table column specifies PDF links. Others can argue the merits of including the PPC in this particular section, given much discussion has gone into their presence or exclusion elsewhere in the article. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to change the table to remove the "PDF" rather than removing the People's Party platform line? maclean (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

If you are going to add the PPC platform, then we need to add every other minor party that has no MPs elected too. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Assumes they have platforms. Most are just trying to weather the election with a handful of candidates. Regardless, they should not be listed unless they had a seat in parliament when it dissolved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Why? The all or nothing approach is just drama and this insistence on a connection between having candidates in this election and seats in the past parliament is WP bias. The election is purposefully operated independently by Elections Canada and they don't do anything special for incumbents. Per WP:NPOV, the content should be weighted proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. CBC News and CTV News thought it significant enough to cover their platform, but editors here disagree? CBC News, CTV News and Global News all treated Bernier equally in reporting the leader debate's invite/not-invited list, but the incumbency bias here means it is left out? maclean (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

There has to be some cutoff with 22 registered parties. A quick check of the polling results shows a very strong correlation between polling firms and the PPC's results, so that's definitely not suitable as a neutral metric. Can you think of a better alternative than what you call incumbency? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

We should follow the WP content policies. WP:NPOV states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." As noted in the examples above, People's Party's platform is receiving media attention, as is their non-invitation to the debate. Most obviously, the CBC example above (a non-bias, reliable secondary source) directly compares the platforms giving equal weight to 6 parties; this insistence on only covering 5 of those parties is contrary to a neutral POV as it does not reflect that proportional weight. In this case, it appears the incumbency criteria is not consistent with WP:NPOV. Also, if there was significant media coverage of all 22 parties, then yes they should be equally covered in the manner that WP:NOTPAPER prescribes. maclean (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

And this project's position is that only parties that had a seat in parliament when it dissolved are listed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The People's Party are listed in the "Opinion polls" section. Presumably because the secondary sources cover them and the editors there represent the sources proportionately and without bias per WP:NPOV (ie. they don't exclude one party due to an editor/project consensus). So, I am not following why the Project (the Canadian one or the international one?) consensus is that the People's Party should be excluded from the "Campaign" section because they don't have any incumbents seeking reelection. ...Even though the secondary sources are similarly covering their campaign alongside the other 5 parties that are mentioned there? As demonstrated in the links above and here where the CBC daily reports on where each of the leaders of 6 parties are campaigning that day? Remember that editor consensus does not override Wikipedia:Core content policies. As I see my position grounded in NPOV, would anybody mind if I sought an opinion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? maclean (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the 2021 Canadian federal election also lists other parties as well, probably because people have opinions on them. WP:STICK yet? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You can ask, but please be sure to mention that so far not a single editor has sided with you about this being an WP:NPOV issue, and that you have been told repeatedly what the page policy is. This policy predates the existence of the PPC, BTW. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh. I totally missed the question about wasting another project's time. By all means, please do ask there. But when you do, do the courteous thing and link the discussion you start there in this one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

OK. I posted there: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#2021 Canadian federal election. Your responses above have been a fear comprehensiveness, incumbency metric trumps the core content policy of WP:DUE and a page/project consensus/policy somewhere protects excludes those without an incumbent. If this is not accurately characterizing your statement's above, then please elaborate because these are not good arguments. It is the coverage in published reliable sources that should determine content because otherwise it creates an WP bias. maclean (talk) 04:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Other than the incumbency metric bit, which I think ignores the "distinct (and minuscule) minority" concept mentioned in WP:DUE, the rest of your first sentence is gibberish. Please rewrite it to define what "a fear comprehensive" and "protects excludes those without an incumbent" were intended to mean. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I voted in an advance poll & my riding had five parties represented. They were the Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic, Green & People's parties. Does this help? GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The Marxist–Leninist Party has a candidate in my riding...but I'm not seeing any national media coverage of them. maclean (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Endorsements

A good point was raised about the broadness of No endorsement as a column title. None of the above lends itself to referring to other parties. Can we come up with something better than either? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

How about "endorsing no parties"? - Ahunt (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Grammatically "Endorsing no party", but definitely an improvement. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be good for now but if further complications arise with a unique situation (ie someone endorsing Rhino, ppc or maverick) maybe we can cross that bridge when we get there. -CanadianCon2020 (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Also I think we should set a standard for what qualifies someone to be officially listed since Attaran who was posted earlier was kinda in the grey area for me. Should it be left to people with a wiki entry or just any endorsement that would provide encyclopedic value? - CanadianCon2020 (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

As a general reminder, guidelines about this can be found at WP:ENDORSE. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

This edit request to 2021 Canadian federal election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Peoples Party of Canada With leader Maxine Bernier 24.67.92.169 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

What exactly was the request? I don't think it was to make us aware of "Mad Max" or his party as they have both been discussed above. It's not clear how they should be added, but they are listed in the linked Summary of the 2021 Canadian federal election template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Should (formally the 44th Canadian general election), be added to the lead

A discussion here which may affect this article, is taking place. Input would be appreciated there. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems that discussion has concluded with a consensus to include (formally the 44th Canadian general election). - Ahunt (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Endorsements

Do we really need a separate column for citations? It won't line up properly with more than one name entered. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's weird. It's like that on 2019 Canadian federal election#Endorsements too. I would support condensing it. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Endorsement refs next to the person named would be fine and simpler from an editing POV as well. - Ahunt (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Another addition to the endorsements table

It should be noted that as of a short time ago today, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders endorsed Jagmeet Singh and the NDP via Twitter. Link: [6] -- 129.97.131.0 (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Someone added Hazel McCallion, based on the cited article I don't think it justifies inclusion but maybe others feel differently? Anyone have a take on this? -CanadianCon2020 (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That was me. I grant the headline isn't very effusive, but the article does mention that she a) spoke at a Trudeau rally; b) is "hoping for a majority government"; and c) said she "support[s] Justin". I think that qualifies as an endorsement, but perhaps others disagree. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Endorsements of other parties

Vermin Supreme has endorsed the Rhinoceros Party. I guess it's time to discuss how to handle an Other parties column. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe an efn? The 2019 page used those to explain some of the more nuanced endorsements (like Le Devoir's joint LPC/BQ one). — Kawnhr (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Endorsements: who's noteworthy?

Conrad Black belongs in, and WP:ENDORSE is being misapplied. Being published by major media, even as a commentary, qualifies as a "reliable independent source". The WP:ENDORSE point being cited specifically states that "[t]his means endorsements should not be sourced solely to a Tweet or Instagram post, for example." G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Add Chretien to the endorsements table?

Jean Chretien campaigned for the Liberals and endorsed Trudeau during his speech. Should we include him? I haven't edited this article in a while so I'm rusty, but as the election draws near, I'll start editing more. --Aryan Persaud (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

So far politicians endorsing their own party have been reverted out as not notable endorsements. I'd expect the same fate for Chrétien. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I would second that. Endorsing your own party is not notable and we have been removing those. Now if Chretien endorsed another party that would be notable. - Ahunt (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for noting. I have just noticed Hillary Clinton has endorsed Trudeau via Twitter https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1438902448442195971, so should that be included? :P P.S: Barack Obama's endorsement was in similar wording, so shouldn't this be classified as an endorsement if Obama's tweet was? Cheers Ahunt Aryan Persaud (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

As an FYI, Andrew Weaver is a federal Liberal so his endorsement would fall into the not notable category. -CanadianCon2020 (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with that. Weaver might be a card-carrying member of the federal party, but he's hardly publicly associated with them: he's never ran for the party, or served as an advisor or strategist, or anything along those lines. He's best known to the public as a member— and leader— of the (BC) Green party, and has publicly criticized the Liberals from that vantage point, which is why his recent endorsement of the Liberals is noteworthy. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

As an FYI, Andrew Weaver is a federal Liberal – it's a bit complicated. He tore up his Liberal membership in 2019 [7] and really is known mainly as a former provincial Green leader. His endorsement received a lot of coverage, and I would be inclined to include it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from but if the rule we're operating under is that we will not include people endorsing their own party then I believe that it is best to abide by it. -CanadianCon2020 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Far Left Bias

COI POV rant, closed by Ahunt (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The reality is that the exclusion of the Peoples Party and any mention on this page, despite polling above 6% beating both the Greens and Bloc, is a deliberate attempt to suppress knowledge and the truth. Wikipedia is a pro communist pro-lockdown far left organization which supports false "truths" promoted by fake news media. Any notion of "no bias" went out the window years ago. I am sure when Bernier wins his seat and the party gets over 5%, they will find some other reason to hide the party, rewriting history and pretending the PPC doesn't exist! --2607:FEA8:2C41:2400:60DD:7170:FB75:859E (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

If you just want to rant, you have done so, hope you feel better. If you want to civilly collaborate with others here regardless of their views as to what this article should say, please offer your specific suggestions for changes, along with independent reliable sources to support them, as well as any relevant Wikipedia guidelines. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

People have already tried, many times, without any luck. It is obvious even attempting to reason with university indoctrinated Marxists is a big waste of time. --2607:FEA8:2C41:2400:60DD:7170:FB75:859E (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

And people resort to name calling when they don't get their way. Since you only want to be told what you want to hear in your right wing bubble, you might feel more comfortable at a project more compatible with your views. Good day. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but we try our best to stay as neutral and unbiased when editing! Should the PPC win seats, or get popular vote more than 5%, we'll include it. — Eric0892 (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Liberals down to 337 candidates (Raj Saini)

This edit request to 2021 Canadian federal election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

-Can someone add a note to the Liberal's candidate number of 338 that their candidate for Kitchener Centre, Raj Saini, will still be listed on the ballot but has been dropped as a candidate for the party? Source: News: Embattled Liberal candidate Raj Saini ends campaign for re-election. - Matticus333 (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I think there are a few more areas where this incident is relevant (ie Timeline and Incumbents not running for re-election). I am busy at the moment if someone else doesn't mind adding it, if not I can add it in a bit. -CanadianCon2020 (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Since this was here for a little while without issue, I updated the timeline and incumbents not running for re-election. As I mentioned in the edit description, a few other candidates were either removed by their party or removed themselves, this could also be added to the timeline (but none other than Saini were incumbents meaning that they would not go in the incumbents not running for re-election section), depending on what you all think. Also, I mentioned that it should be noted somewhere that Saini will remain on the physical ballots. -CanadianCon2020 (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

We could add a Bozo candidates section for those disavowed by the their parties but unless they dropped out before the writ they don't belong in the Incumbents not running section. One could argue that those who dropped out between the writ and the end of candidate registration might go in Incumbents... but I don't think it fits the spirit of that section. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with G. Timothy Walton that it doesn't belong in the "incumbents not running" section; technically Saini is still up for re-election even though he's ended his campaign. This isn't the first time a candidate has dropped out (or been dropped) after qualifying for the ballot, so checking earlier elections… the solution there was to include a note by the party's number of candidates, and to put it in a "controversies" section. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

So how do we feel about including a section entitled "Withdrawn Candidates", then add their withdrawal and reason into the timeline. While making note of the fact that Saini is an incumbent. This section would logically be placed at the end of the "Background" subheading. -CanadianCon2020 (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

"Withdrawn candidates" implies that they aren't on the ballot. "Disavowed candidates" doesn't address those who withdrew before registration ended. Some combination of the two, maybe? Controversies seems the least bad choice so far. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the candidates like Saini, the two NDP (Toronto-St. Paul's, the other riding I cant remember right now) and whatever other candidates...if they do get elected, they will sit an independents. so maybe have them as independent incumbents? MiroslavGlavic (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Incumbent is what they were when the election started, not what they'll be if they win. Nobody knows that until they actually take their seats in parliament. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I added the aforementioned section. Feel free to make changes or update. -CanadianCon2020 (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

G. Timothy Walton thank you for the updates, they were needed touch ups, should we add something regarding the fact that Vuong's campaign is "paused?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadianCon2020 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking about the title and breaking it into its own section. Maybe Disavowed candidates?

About Vuong, I don't know. The others could also be said to have paused their campaigns (except maybe Robinson) so I wouldn't consider it unique. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

New info made this moot now, the Liberal party has fully cut ties with Vuong. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/liberals-cut-ties-with-toronto-candidate-after-news-of-dropped-sex-assault-charge-1.5590800. Usually not fully cutting ties allows access to resources and is less definitive than a full cut. Which is relevant since it could be seen as a party trying to avoid damage while still having the candidate. Apologies for forgetting to sign my previous post. -CanadianCon2020 (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Results template - this and previous elections

The results templates for every previous election back through 1997 have been proposed for deletion (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 September 19) with the rationale that they should appear on the main article. I've tried to transfer the data but... frustration.

Would someone with fresh eyes be able to go through the articles and transfer all the template data?

While they're at it, maybe they could find where the 2008 results template data is hidden so I can correct the error(s) in that. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussions seem to only nominate Template:2021 Canadian federal election for deletion as it is unused, and does not mention the actual results template, Template:Canadian federal election, 2021. — Eric0892 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware of the latter 2021 template. That is being used and the election is an upcoming one. So I'm leaving it for now until after the election and once the full results are in, I will probably make it go through a Tfd. But the former template is nominated as this template is going to include more information. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Additional candidate notes

Looks like there should be a candidate loss noted for the Greens; their nominee in Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke has been dropped by the Green Party after making statements comparing vaccine passports to Nazism: [8]

Also, should we not be noting Marwan Tabbara from Kitchener South-Hespeler as an incumbent who is not running again, even though he made no formal announcement to that effect? [9] -- 129.97.131.0 (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Green is now done. We should probably add a bulleted list for Tabbara and others who didn't make any announcement of retiring. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Sounds like a good idea to me, although I don't know why he couldn't just be listed with the others who aren't running again and a note of "no announcement made" or something similar. -- 129.97.131.0 (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Mainly because I'm clearing things quickly before going out and don't want to get stuck in writer's loop trying to retitle the table. I put them in a list below the table for now. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Where do we put the "Results" section

Hello, where do we want to put the "Results" section? Some argue that the results are released after the opinion polls, and, therefore , should be after the opinion polls section; but some may also argue that the results are more important and should be towards the top of the page. — Eric0892 (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Polling properly belongs with the campaign, so I'd put later in the page. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Conservative gains and losses

The Liberals are credited with gaining 3 seats when in fact they only gained one since the last election. The Conservatives are credited with losing two seats based on the 2019 election. Be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.40.75 (talk)

The numbers will likely be in flux until the final results come in(i.e due to recounts or other factors). Be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)