Talk:2021 Canadian federal election/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Results map legend

Hi all. I think that the colors in the legend of the results map File:Canada_Election_2021_Results_Map.svg are not very clear to look at: basically all the parties have almost indistinguishable shades of black as their 70%+ result, but also the 60%+ ones are not that different from one another. It is true that this time in the actual results it does not happen that two close regions have >70% results of different parties, but this is just chance, it could possibly happen, and I think the map legend should anyway be general and clear enough not to induce doubt when looking at, say, the area around Calgary in this map: is that Conservative or Quebecois? We only know it's Con because we know that Quebecois can only have such high results in Quebec, but it should not be like this. Also, this is not the first time I encounter this problem in election results maps, see also some older Italian elections maps (e.g. File:2001_Italian_general_election_-_Vote_Strength.svg). I wonder if there is a generic template that editors are using to produce these kinds of maps, and therefore if this issue can be solved once and for all. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Peoples Party

Rant, closed by Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

There was no consensus on whether the People's Party would not be included if they reached the 5% benchmark. Several editors, probably not realizing they would actually make it, suggested 5% of the PV. The fact they have reached that and yet many Wikipedia editors still refuse to add them really goes to show their own personal biases. This is a disgusting violation of what this project was supposed to be. Sad to see how far left Wikipedia has become. --2607:FEA8:2C41:2400:482C:D6BC:DE51:5563 (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC) What can be done here? The vast machinery of Wikipedia policies is confounding. Taking the users who suggested 5% threshold at their word and making the seemingly agreed upon changes is almost certain to meet with immediate and repeated reversals, with moved goalposts as the justification. The discussion above was prematurely closed, and the justification used was "refer to Standards of Inclusion for PPC", the result of which was no consensus on the matter. So that's hardly the "unambiguous" conclusion that would be needed to justify closing the discussion. I don't know who is qualified to close discussions, but chose to observe the closure in good faith in case its legitimate. But I can't help but agree that the exclusion of the PPC from the infobox, etc. is being done on the basis of political points of view, with the principles of being relevant, concise, notable, etc. being used and shuffled around as cover for these ultimately biased decisions. This is clearly not about maintaining a high standard of content on Wikipedia, but merely people disliking the party and trying to have that dislike reflected in the presentation and content of this page. 2607:FEA8:59E:4200:3539:88A5:5AC3:2161 (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC) 100%. There's some good articles online about how Wikipedia is now a platform for left wing activists and does not reflect on real life whatsoever. I won't link on here, but a quick Google search and you'll find lots of videos and articles. It's worth checking out. Sadly, as a major platform, Wikipedia will continue to hold influence on elections and providing (or hiding) information based on what follows their narrative. --2607:FEA8:2C41:2400:482C:D6BC:DE51:5563 (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2021

Despite reading talk page - change article to include PPC information. Include slogans, platforms, etc.

Any party with more candidates than a party holding seats should be included. J34L0U5Y1 (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done That's not the criteria for inclusion. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Citing the criteria for inclusion would be helpful alongside statements about what are/aren't the criteria for inclusion (especially the latter). It's not clear to those unfamiliar with the subject where to even look for said criteria. Thanks. - Personofcanada (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Popular vote numbers in infobox are inaccurate

The infobox currently lists some very precise figures (e.g. 2,831,263) with the label "Popular vote". But the mail-in ballots, and other special ballots, have not been counted. [1] People from around the world, as well as in Canada, are going to look at this article and get a false impression from the infobox. Yes there is a template box at the top of the article saying "the last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information", but many people looking at the infobox will not have read the template caution. (1) There ought to be an indication within the infobox itself that these are only a partial count of the popular vote, and the actual vote count will be much higher than these figures. (2) Until the validated results are available, the infobox should give rounded numbers (e.g. 5,156,000) rather than exact. Why would anyone need to know that the current count of Liberal votes is 5,155,947, when that number will change? Rounding numbers in the infobox to the nearest thousand will provide readers with sufficient information to understand the current state of affairs, without being meaninglessly precise. I raised this issue previously at WT:CANADA. Mathew5000 (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

So long as we use the appropriate ~ symbol and base it on the Elections Canada page, that should be okay. Most Canadians have never heard of special ballots being counted the day after the election. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yves-Francois Blanchet, Maxime Bernier and other party leaders

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.

---

Yves-Francois Blanchet's photo is missing, why? Out of curiosity...why is Maxime Bernier's photo, and other minor party leaders, not showing on the top right while Trudeau, O'Toole, Singh and Paul's photos are? If it's because Bernier and other minor party leaders are not elected then GPC's Annamie Paul did not have a seat before the election call. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Blanchet's photo is there. As far as other leaders go, we have a consensus that to be in the infobox a party needs to have at least one MP elected as a member of that party. See above #PPC. - Ahunt (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The PPC has been discussed three times on this page already. What more do you need? — Kawnhr (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't bother trying, Kawnhr. He's had the Candidates page methodology repeated to him several times and still kept complaining about candidates being there before they were registered. Before the election was even called. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Kawnhr, I'm pretty sure this is like the 4th time. The first time also ended up being reposted in the general page for Canada/Canada Politics. MikkelJSmith (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Bernier didn't qualify for the leaders' debates. However, if his party manages to win a seat on September 20? Then we'll add him & the PPC to the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

For UK elections we have a 5% cutoff for infoboxes, and still we get questions like this about Mr X, Ms Z, or AN Other. I don't know how to solve the problem of people treating Wikipedia articles like free campaign websites. doktorb _words^deeds 10:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Bernier got 5% -- He needs to be added. The reason he hasn't been added is because there is a left leaning or establishment leaning political cabal here who abuses WP:Consensus to achieve political ends, in this case, to censor their political opponents. 199.7.158.243 (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

People's Party infobox inclusion

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 consensus appears to be that the People's Party should not be included in the infobox because they do not have a seat in the House of Commons and because they were not included in the leaders' debates, but I feel that they should be included. Recent aggregates suggest that the People's Party is polling higher than the Greens in terms of popular vote, at some points even polling as high as two seats. Obviously no fringe party is going to perform this well in a federal election - the exact reason they are excluded, which had me scratching my head. I think the People's Party is notable enough in terms of the election to include it here. Some discussion is welcome. LittleMissDexterous (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The election is in five days. At this point let's just leave it as it is. It will be included if it get good results in the actual results. --Aréat (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Aréat. The PCC, Greens and the Bloc are all polling closely, but the latter two will probably win seats, while current forecasts indicate that the PPC will not. If they surprise us and win a seat with can add them to the infobox after the fact. - Ahunt (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Polling is useless as a metric. On 13 September the PPC numbers from various firms were 3, 5, 5, 6.7, and 9.1, while the Greens were within the 3–4 range on all polls. When (if) the PPC win, they'll be treated as an elected party. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• I should note that winning a seat is not the only criteria to make it into the infobox; winning no seats but winning at least 5% of the vote is also grounds for inclusion. For example: federal 2008; NB 2018; MB 2016, 2019; BC 1986, 2001, 2005, 2009. If the PPC breaks that barrier while still failing to win a seat (which seems possible), they can be included in the infobox.

Also, we should probably have a similar criteria in-between elections, to account for the possibility of a party springing up between elections and gaining attention (for a historical example: it would be pretty ridiculous to exclude the Bloc or Reform parties from the then-upcoming 1993 election infobox, when they were clearly relevant players), albeit with a higher threshold (since it's very difficult to poll small parties, and their support can be fleeting).

But, I don't think the PPC reaches the threshold to be included right now. While some polls put them in the high single digits, others have them much lower. It's also the case that the PPC's surge (apparent or real) is a very recent development, that they failed to qualify for the leaders' debates, and it's still not clear they're going to make waves in the federal election (no projection gives them any seats). With all that in mind— and the knowledge that this page has been subject to repeated COI pushing— my instinct is to err on the side of caution and leave them out. But certainly if they break 5% in the election, then they can be put into the infobox. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Checking the preëlection infoboxes, 2011 set the precedent of a party without incumbent MPs but still passing 5%; 2015 set the precedent for new parties having incumbents who'd been elected for other parties. Neither applies to the PPC at this point.

2008's precedent applies only to postelection inclusion. I haven't looked at the provincial preëlection edits to see what was being done there. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I was talking about post-election inclusions the entire time there. My understanding is that "1 seat, or 5%" PV is the post-election criteria, while pre-election criteria is basically "did they qualify for the previous infobox" (ie: grandfathered in). Of course, the PPC fails that at this point. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I would support changing those past provincial elections, to conform with the federal elections, on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

How has it not been included yet? The PPC has been pulling ahead of the Greens in polls for nearly 3 weeks now (https://338canada.com/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.227.231 (talk)

As per the consensus above, we agreed to revisit this after the election results are in. If they win a seat we'll add them retroactively. You have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We are recording history here, not breaking news and we are not going to be used to promote minor political parties on election day. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Just so it is clear now, unless the PPC win a seat in a by-election or an MP crosses the floor before the next election, the PPC will not be in the infobox as they do not have any elected members in the house of commons. So unless we change our tradition, they will not be listed. We recognize that as of now, they have more that twice the popular vote of the Greens, (and 65% of that of the BQ) but they will not be listed. Is there a reason to change that? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

If they get 5% of the vote, they should probably be listed, tbh. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

5% has been the consensus for the non-COI editors. They'll probably make it. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

If 5% is the consensus, why was the latest topic on PPC inclusion closed (with the reason being that they did not win any seats)? 99.245.40.162 (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

The PPC results should be added, they elected 0 deputies but they have more vote than the greens and will be able to be at the debate next election. 74.58.55.18 (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done There is a RfC on this two sections up. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

If you are searching for WP:Consensus on the PPC's inclusion, don't lock threads.

It is counter intuitive and is obviously designed to achieve the opposite. I am here, and I am voicing my support for including the PPC into the infobox. I have three additional good reasons to include Maxime Bernier:

1. His party received more votes than parties who got seats, namely the greens and the bloc quebecois.
2. In UK elections, Parties which met a 5% threshold are included in the Infobox.
3. His votes cost upwards of 27 seats for the conservatives, which prevented them from forming their own minority government.

For my own part, I came to wikipedia to figure out just how well the PPC did in comparison to others. Its really annoying to have to go somewhere else to find that information, and this continues to demonstrate just how corrupt and unreliable wikipedia has become when it comes to politically pertinent topics.

96.55.252.151 (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

If you are searching for WP:Consensus on the PPC's inclusion, don't lock threads. Consensus cannot be found if people bizarrely insist on starting new threads for each comment, or adding their input to inactive, weeks-old threads. Commenting in the active discussion ensures that others can see, consider and respond to your comments. Why is this difficult. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"Why is this difficult." Wikipedia, especially its behind the scenes pages like talk pages, can be a considerable maze, especially to new users. It is not unreasonable for this to cause postings that vex experienced users. Instead of, or at least in addition to, locking threads, redirections to the specific, appropriate locations for what is being contributed would be helpful both for keeping Wikipedia productive, and to encourage the newcomers . - Personofcanada (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Had I closed sections without comment, it would be fair to be confused. But I did so with the note that discussion about the PPC in the infobox is going on further down the page, in newer discussions; we don't need the conversation to be had in several sections, let alone older ones, and imploring editors to Please comment on the most active discussion instead. I can't make that any clearer. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not disagree. - Personofcanada (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Seats which changed hands

The use of background colours makes it difficult to read wikilinks to articles I've read before or ones that don't exist yet. Also, it would be more appropriate to list the affiliation at dissolution, with footnotes for those few that changed between 2019 and this election being called. Lastly, are the percentages the difference between the first and second place finishers' percentages (which should be pp) or the margin the winner had over second place (5000 to 4000 would be a 25% margin)?

Most importantly, thanks for getting done. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should reflect a mainstream narrative.

This is my first time posting, so please forgive any mistakes I made, but I can't help but notice that the PPC has been omited from the 2021 Canadian Federal Election page. While in reality, the PPC was depicted as a major party by major news agencies such as the CBC, Global News, and CTV. According to Wikipedia, a Neutral point of view should Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. This should be considered for all elections, not just the most recent election.Fufulord (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT does not include media coverage among its criteria. The PPC was presented as a major party last election and polled 1.7%. While some media were mentioning double-digit polling numbers, other polls released on the same day might be at one third of that number. Making a good story is not the same thing as being a significant minority. Look at flat earthers and COVID deniers for examples of tiny minorities getting mainstream media coverage out of all proportion to their numbers. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Sufficient media coverage would constitute being "published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources..." (Source: WP:WEIGHT) as concerns the topic at hand. - Personofcanada (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Neither of us will convince the other that they're interpreting WP:WEIGHT properly. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

In the yellow box at the top of this page, a section reads: "Find Sources", and lists NYT among its suggestions. I am confident that this is not meant to grant some unique official sanction to the New York Times, and can be taken as emblematic of well-established, widely-respect mainstream media outlets generally, which again I am confident would include the CBC, CTV, and Global News. The reasons why we might not succeed in convincing other editors of a proper interpretation of Wikipedia policies are just as important as the failure to do so itself. I live in the province of Ontario and our provincial legislature has a motto (although forgive me, I struggle to come up with the source): "See the other side". Perhaps they have changed it since I took the official tour; regardless. - Personofcanada (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

In my neck of the legislative woods, the old ones still stick with chanting Ut incepit fidelis sic permanet till the words lose all meaning. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, that's all I could find. I promise I am not making this up though. "See the other side", "Hear the other side", something like that. EDIT: Found it: https://www.facebook.com/LegislativeAssemblyofOntario/posts/triviatuesday-the-motto-on-the-legislative-assembly-of-ontarios-coat-of-arms-aud/881839055534560/ - Personofcanada (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It was in my second link, too, but we do all love a double double! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT says, "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." WP:TERTIARY says, "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight." Media sources are the only reliable sources for an election held yesterday. Their tables of election results are a reliable tertiary source. If this article does not represent the information routinely found in reliable sources then it is not neutral as defined in Wikipedia. Nowhere is policy does it say that editors should use their personal judgment to determine WEIGHT. In fact that would be a type of original research. TFD (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"Media sources are the only reliable sources for an election held yesterday." Not Elections Canada? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I should have said reliable secondary sources, which are what establishes weight. TFD (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Can I take a moment here to suggest every calm down for a second. PPC deserves it's due recognition for it's influence on the election, despite not winning seats. They're notable, and affected vote splitting in many ridings, but have not won any seats and therefore are not significant to the parliament's makeup in the election outcome. They are just as notable as the pandemic's influence or even probably the weather on election day depending on where folks were voting. They will be mentioned as they are a part of the narrative, but going forward are not a part of parliament until maybe the next election. Let's find the middle of the road here and be objective. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

References

What are we using to adjust net gains & losses?

This platform (or article rather) is completely consensus-driven, I noticed someone used the 2019 results to adjust the net gains & losses in the infobox, but previously we were using the seats at dissolution, and even before the election ended, we were using the dissolution tallies. What should we do? Aryan Persaud (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It should be dissolution. The similarity might be misleading some new editors to assume its based on 2019. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Indeed. I concur. Aryan Persaud (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there a guideline for this? TFD (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Look at previous election articles. The infobox seat changes are based on dissolution numbers. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It really should be based on last election numbers. The difference in vote percentage is based on it, so the seat difference should be as well to keep consistency. Otherwise you end up with illogical results.--Aréat (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

2022 Canadian federal electoral redistribution. Besides that, byelections, floor-crossings, and party splinters reduce the usefulness of the previous election's seat total as a baseline. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

What's your point with the federal electoral redistribution? And I disagree. As said above, we compare here the total vote in the nationaly held federal election. We don't compare it adding or reducing the difference in votes that were made in byelections, or of each candidate that later crossed floor. We use the number from one federal election, and compare it to the previous one. It's logic and way more consistent to do the same with seats.
Oterwise, again, the result is an inconsistent infobox.--Aréat (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

"What's your point with the federal electoral redistribution?" That it makes it impossible to use previous election as a meaningful baseline for seat change in about one third of elections.

Your logic does not match the standard used in these election articles. Your concept of consistent does not match what's been used for multiple elections. Yours is the sole voice declaring the infobox inconsistent. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't make it impossible at all. The difference in the total is mentioned as well. Beside, if it were impossible to compare seats because the total or constituencies changed, it would also make it impossible for the comparison to be made with seats just before the election.
Things being the way they are has never been a valid argument on wikipedia. Almost all election pages I've followed over the years use a difference from one election to another. Why should Canada be different?--Aréat (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Fine. You've determined nothing can possibly invalidate your method of choice. And I have determined that you are wrong and will edit accordingly. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Nanaimo—Ladysmith

From what I can see online, this race has yet to be called, and is hinging on the 8000 mail-in ballots. Is it not too early to list in "Seats which changed hands"?

• 2 hours ago: https://www.cheknews.ca/result-of-nanaimo-ladysmith-riding-hinges-on-mail-in-ballots-887532/
• 3 hours ago: https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/election-2021/tight-races-and-mail-in-ballots-could-mean-a-long-wait-for-winners-to-be-declared-in-b-c
• Elections Canada: https://enr.elections.ca/ElectoralDistricts.aspx?lang=e

-- Zanimum (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

It's included in the seat totals, so it should be identified. The whole section is subject to revision from the final counts.Raellerby (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Question about elected/leading candidate pages

I've created a couple pages and am following Kevin Vuong for example - however I was wondering what the MOS says about candidates that are currently in a too-close to call race, etc. When do they officially become MPs and what should their page reflect? CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Bearcat, this seems like your area. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

In reality, we're not supposed to start articles about presumed future MPs just because they're leading an ongoing count — if he didn't already have a preexisting notability claim for other reasons independently of a candidacy, then Kevin Vuong isn't supposed to have an article at all until he's officially declared the winner. That said, I don't actually see any remaining path for Vuong to actually lose the seat now: Joe Cressy has confirmed that Norm Di Pasquale won the live votes cast on Monday but that Vuong won the advance stuff that was cast before the fit hit the shan — and everything that's still left to count is pre-fitshan mail-in, so there's just no viable way left for Di Pasquale to overtake Vuong. So I'm not going to quibble with the existence of a Kevin Vuong article now — but for future reference, "presumed MP because leading in a riding that hasn't been officially called yet" is not grounds for an article, and you have to wait until you can source that the person has been declared the actual winner.

That said, the amount of time it takes to count the ballots wouldn't make him any different from an MP whose victory was already established before midnight on Monday. The ballots were cast on Monday, so the start date of a new MP's term is given as Monday and the fact that it took a couple of extra days to count because of mail-in ballots doesn't change that. The problem here at the moment is that he hasn't been confirmed as the winner at all yet, but the date of when his victory is confirmed won't alter the fact that the election took place on Monday. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - the page has been protected as he's for obvious reasons a controversial figure. The article now reads that he is the "projected" winner of the seat until further notice. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Also I didn't create this article I was simply following it as it had a high level of IP disruptive editing. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC about the 2021 Canadian election results

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The question here, given the unanimity of yes !votes, is in fact whether to wait for the final results and see if they cross 5% to include them or to do so right now. While dismay at the fact that some accounts simply want to promote PPC at the cost of Wikipedia policy is understandable, there are no compelling reasons not to include PPC's results in this election now. A lot of editors have argued that a) they have received extensive media coverage and are included in major polling trackers and b) they are bound to cross a 5% threshold, thus qualifying them so far according to the Leaders' Debates Commission current criteria as well as general Wikipedia informal consensus on party inclusion, which I believe are arguments strong enough to include it. Therefore, the answer for the RfC question is: yes, we should, for now. A separate discussion may be started if, after counting mail ballots, the PPC falls below the 5% threshold (it stands at 5.07% at the moment of writing). (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the People's Party of Canada (PPC) be included in the results of the 2021 Canadian federal election? TFD (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes Although the PPC did not win seats, It gained 5% of the vote and is routinely included in lists of election results in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes as per this comment in the People's Party Infobox Inclusion section above: "I should note that winning a seat is not the only criteria to make it into the infobox; winning no seats but winning at least 5% of the vote is also grounds for inclusion. For example: federal 2008; NB 2018; MB 2016, 2019; BC 1986, 2001, 2005, 2009. If the PPC breaks that barrier while still failing to win a seat (which seems possible), they can be included in the infobox." 2607:FEA8:59E:4200:3539:88A5:5AC3:2161 (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Lean yes Per above, although the PPC seems to be at just 5.1% of the vote and didn't come close to even a credible chance of winning any seats. I'm not sure if they meet the Debats Commission criteria either (did they field candidates in nearly every seat? I know that last election they didn't quite do that). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Those were the criteria for the 2019 election debates which included the PPC. The rules were changed for 2021 and the PPC was excluded because it was polling below 4%.[2] If the criteria remain the same in the next election, the PPC would be included, although the commission may change the rules beforehand. TFD (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Provisional yes G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, assuming final counts have them at over 5% of the vote. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• Yes frankly even if they don't clear 5%, they held a seat at dissolution and are included in all major media discussions of the election. James Hyett (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  They didn't hold a seat at dissolution (unlike, say, in 2019, or the Greens in 2008). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

You're quite right, I just came back here to strike that out... Can you tell I've been trying to avoid talk of this election like the plague? James Hyett (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Provisional yes. If they clear the 5% barrier then they should be included in the infobox (and perhaps the other sections— slogans, etc— thusly), though I would prefer to wait until the count is finalized; they are looking to have only just cleared 5%, and with early votes still to be counted it's mathematically possible for them to dip below. — Kawnhr (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Provisional yes - I agree, if after the mail-in ballots are counted, they are over 5% they should be included. - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Provisional yes provided they clear 5% of the vote. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes because they hit 5% of the popular vote. Furthermore, they were a pretty important part of the election; you could argue that the PPC riding official throwing stones at Trudeau was the turning point in the campaign. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes they have a considerable fraction of the popular vote, a seat at the next debates, and receive federal funding now. ParkerBanks (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes they have a notable percentage of the vote and are covered as such in the media for splitting the vote on the ride side of the spectrum. They played a significant part in the election despite winning no ridings. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - I think good criteria for Wikipedia to use are the non-partisan Debate Commission criteria. If the next election has the same criteria the PPC will qualify as having had at least 4% popular vote in the 2021 election. 5% popular vote seems to be common on Wikipedia, so I guess that could be used too. Arstoien (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Strong yes - per OP, they won 5% of the popular vote, which is more of a share than an existing listed party (Greens). That alone should warrant their inclusion, but the fact that mainstream sources have also included them is another reason.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 19:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - As long as they maintain above 5% of the vote. Additionally, the party was on the radar for many outlets. And while I know the Green party automatically gets included for winning two seats, its pop. vote total did not reach half of the PPC's. We should include the slot, note that they began, entered, and left with zero seats, and that the leader (MB) ran in and was defeated in this election. I believe it would be unwise to omit a party that nonetheless impacted elections (particularly for Conservative candidates), and deserves a spot up there. Thanks a bunch! --Negrong502 (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes of course they should. They were a big part of the political discources this election cycle, and are well on their way to 5%+ of the vote.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes they should. They are clearly having an impact on politics in Canada, including possibly preventing the Conservative Party from establishing its own minority government. They also have 5.1% of the popular vote, more than twice the popular vote of the Green Party. If the Green Party is included, the People's Party should be as well. Dbrisinda (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — they've reached the threshold of 5% popular vote, I believe that's sufficient reasoning to include them. — Eric0892 (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - The official/final tallies haven't been recorded yet. Will wait until then, to decide. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — even though the PPC didn't win any seats, they got more votes than the Green party, which did win seats. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — PPC should be included, particularly if they receive over 5% (note the results are not final yet, so in theory they could still fall below that). 5% has long been the general rule on Wikipedia. See for example, this discussion. It would also be odd to include the Greens but not PPC when the PPC receive double the votes. Also relevant is that the current criteria of the Leaders' Debates Commission is one seat, over 4% in the last election OR polling above 4% in the initial weeks of the campaign. Only one is required, so if the commission does not change the rules before the next election, PPC would be invited to the debates for the 45th general election. Finally, part of the story of this election is that it occurred during the pandemic, that the PPC was a home for voters opposed to mask/vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, and hospitals and campaign events were protested... etc...etc. It is hard to tell that story properly without them in the infobox.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

The PPC is routinely listed in party results by major mainstream Canadian media, including the two major TV networks CBC [3] and CTV.[4] While the PPC won no seats, it gained 5% of the vote and may have prevented the opposition Conservative Party from winning. TFD (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Moreover the party leader is a long-serving, notable politician in his own right, having served in the Conservative Party cabinet as industry minister, foreign affairs minister, and minister of state (small business and tourism). As well, he led winner Andrew Scheer through 12 rounds of voting in the 2017 Conservative Party leadership, finally coming in second with over 49% of the vote in the 13th round. Finally he was also Chair of the National Defence Select Committee (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Bernier). All of this is to illustrate that he cannot be seen as coming out of nowhere in Canadian politics, with the low level of relevance that attends that, which has been central to the debate over the PPC's inclusion in various aspects of the page. This debate has seen, on the nay side, iterations of "if we include this party, we would have to include all registered parties irrespective of their showing in the election". My comments here, and those of The Four Deuces above, differentiate Bernier and thus to some extent his party, from a Christian Heritage, Marxist-Leninst, or Libertarian party with regards to the relative political gravity that seems to be at the centre of the disagreement on PPC representation throughout this page. - Personofcanada (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep the WP:COI out of it. Nothing in Bernier's past matters to whether the PPC belongs in the infobox. Any ideas of the PPC costing the Conservatives the election don't matter; that's another discussion based on a lot of assumptions about where PPC votes come from.

If the PPC meet the 5% threshold, as that's been repeatedly mentioned by the non-COI editors are a criterion for inclusion if unelected. The special ballots are being counted today and some remote polls are always late getting in. It may be mathematically possible for the PPC to fall below 5%, so let's wait for the official numbers. If they make 5% put them in; if they don't, leave them out and be prepared for a siege of COI edits. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"Let's keep the WP:COI out of it." Please let me know where I have brought WP:COI into it and how, as I am not clear on what you're referring to, and if it is appropriate to leave WP:COI out of it, I would like to do so.

"Nothing in Bernier's past matters to whether the PPC belongs in the infobox." If you can direct me to where I can find that info, I would appreciate it. It is hard to tell what "matters" and when. I felt I made a good case as to why it matters, and I would like to know what I can reference to better contribute. Thanks. - Personofcanada (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Peoples Party is a National party. They have not won a seat yet but they have shown strong National support. As well Bernier was included in the 2019 leaders debate (source: https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/10/07/canada-leaders-debate-was-a-six-way-fight-with-no-clear-winner.html). It was mainly an attempt to deplatform his party as many made nebulous claims that his party was racist and comparisons to Donald Trump that resulted in him being ignored in 2021 leaders debate (source: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2019/09/25/giving-maxime-bernier-a-platform-legitimizes-his-dangerous-ideas.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kav2001c (talk • contribs)

LOL, 5.1% is "strong National support"??? - Ahunt (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

To address the question: 814 000 votes, and somewhere around a tripling of their vote from the previous election can be considered strong. Especially in light of the time it took parties like the Green Party and the NDP to achieve similar numbers. To address the comment: is LOLing at other editors necessary or helpful in maintaining a respectful, good faith, neutral Wikipedia? I would submit it is not. - Personofcanada (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess I should have left it as "... out of it, folks." as I first had it; too many edits as I went. "[M}ay have prevented the opposition Conservative Party from winning" and the long justification based on Bernier's history with the Conservative leadership race both strike me as COI rationalisations for his inclusion.

The requirement has been mentioned ad nauseum in many threads on this Talk page, against many blatant COI attempts to declare the PPC exceptional, as with the long list of minor parties they differ from. Have a sitting member or get 5% of the national vote in the previous election before the vote, win a seat or get 5% of the vote once the voting is done. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"(T)he long justification based on Bernier's history with the Conservative leadership race" (among the rest of my contribution) was me supporting my argument, there is no conflict of interest presented by supporting one's arguments.

"Have a sitting member or get 5% of the national vote in the previous election before the vote, win a seat or get 5% of the vote once the voting is done." I have seen this mentioned several times on this talk page, and it was not clear to me that this requirement had been established elsewhere on Wikipedia that editors might know about it before the discussions here. It seemed possible that it was something being formulated here and now; I do not know, hence my request for where I can find that info. At present it seems that you are confirming that this requirement is being developed on this talk page. If I am incorrect, I would appreciate direction towards where this was/is established as a convention/rule/etc. on Wikipedia at large. Something like one of those pages that begin with "WP" (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:COI, etc.). - Personofcanada (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This requirement of a 5% vote threshold (or winning some seats) seems to be, formally or informally, in use at pretty much every elections page. See this search query for a fair number of examples. This seems to square up well, usually, with how much coverage parties get in news and the like. Given that Bernier didn't win any seat and wasn't invited to any of the debates (in addition to his position on the political extreme), it doesn't seem to be a wrong way to do things here either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be more or less what I was looking for in terms of substantiating the requirement in question, thanks.

The claim about his being politically extreme in some views does not immediately seem to be as substantial or appropriate of a criteria for inclusion on this page, or any pages, for reasons related to conflicts of interest and/or neutrality. - Personofcanada (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am not sure the criteria for inclusion has ever been explicitly laid out (and I wish it were), but from looking at previous election pages, one can see an implicit 5% threshold. As I noted in another section: federal 2008; NB 2018; MB 2016, 2019; BC 1986, 2001, 2005, 2009. (Also PEI 2015 and NB 2010 and 2014, which I missed earlier; there's probably several more if one were to go spelunking, but I think I've given enough examples here.) — Kawnhr (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Per weight, the only reason to include the results is that is what mainstream sources about the topic do, for example the major news networks in Canada. While the PPC's high profile, the size of the vote, the inclusion and exclusion in debates, etc. are reasons the media may have decided to include them in ongoing news coverage about the campaign, the fact they do cover them is sufficient for inclusion. We should not force readers to go to other sources to find complete, relevant information about the election. TFD (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, I added them to the infobox. Ahunt reverted, saying (talk page stalker). I don't think it makes sense to keep them excluded since they are currently above 5% of the vote, and the benefit to readers by including them in the infobox now is significant (that's when most people will be checking the page). What benefit does not including them in the infobox present to anyone? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"What benefit does not including them in the infobox present to anyone?" There are many motivations for editing Wikipedia. - Personofcanada (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"What benefit does not including them in the infobox present to anyone?" Consistency, so that the next time a new party with followers whose perceptions are filtered through their choice of media starts deluging the page with COI edits we'll have a set guideline we can point to. And it will happen, just as it did last election when the final result for the PPC, despite similar media coverage to this election, was a lot lower. The final vote numbers will appear lower in the article in the Summary results table, which will be filled in when Elections Canada releases the numbers. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

We can use common sense there, just like we would here. Common sense dictates that a party that gets significant media coverage, is included in most media figures as 'one of the significant parties', and gets more votes than a party that is in the infobox... would also be in the infobox. Also, I don't live or vote in Canada and I certainly don't support right-wing political parties. I don't think most people who support inclusion in the infobox do either. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It is not in respectful good faith to claim that people advocating for the inclusion of PPC in the page's detailed sections are doing so merely due to "perceptions ... filtered through their choice of media", given the array on contributions in this direction. Whether or not the reasons being provided satisfy you, your conception of the consensus, others, their conception of the consensus, or the will of Zoroaster does not make them unilaterally COI, bad faith promotion-mongering. They can be good arguments by the metric of common sense and still not pass Wikipedia muster, differentiating them from undisciplined perceptions filtered by bias. Some contributions may warrant being described in this way, but as unqualified statement it stands to be improved upon. - Personofcanada (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you miss last election's COI storm entirely? Or this election's grasping at a metric, any metric whatsoever, to argue that the PPC were the exception to all other minor parties and deserved special treatment because they were going to prove they were different at the ballot box? Not all opinions are equally valid, and I'd like some indication that yours is based on what's actually happened in the pre-vote period of the last two elections rather than the raw number of voices being heard. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"Did you miss last election's COI storm entirely?" Yes I missed that event, I was not here for it. I do not believe that all that is taking place here, now, is grasping. The vote count alone of the PPC sets them apart from what you are calling minor parties, besides other arguments for media coverage, election impact, Bernier's political gravity individually, and the rate of the party growth between this election and last, all of which renders the treatment of the PPC on this page being advocated as not particularly special. I am not sure that my perspective is "based on what's actually happened in the pre-vote period of the last two elections", nor that it necessarily needs to be (although I appreciate the value of that kind of context informing contributions). If by the "raw number of voices being heard" you mean here, now, on this talk page, no that is not the basis for my perspective or contributions. I hope this comment indicates that.

I also hope it was not inferred that I thought you implied that "every dissenting opinion was COI." My point was that making the unqualified statement to the effect that contributions are "perceptions ... filtered through their choice of media" used phrasing that did not sufficiently grant the non-COI contributions being made. Elli, maclean(s?), TFD, and other users' contributions being examples. Without qualification the distinction between "every" and "occurred in significant numbers" felt excessively muddy. Such phrasing could easily be misconstrued. - Personofcanada (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

In case it must be explicitly stated, I have in no way implied that every dissenting opinion was COI. Just that they occurred in significant numbers and that such will happen again with the next upstart party. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Because the consensus above is to wait for the election results. The mail-in ballots are still being counted as we write this and will be done later today. Also, we are not a news organization so WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. - Ahunt (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ahunt: That's not what the consensus above is. The consensus above is to include them if they're over 5%. They're currently above 5%, so they should be included. We're reporting partial results for the other parties, after all - we don't leave the infobox empty until every vote is counted.

And let's be honest, reading the discussion, it's likely they'd be included even if they only got 4.9%, though we might need a new discussion to formally establish that. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"They're currently above 5%" and at some points early on they were much higher. The only valid criterion for numbers is the official ones, which haven't been declared yet. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: wait for the official results, which are only a few hours away. The consensus is to wait until after the results are in and see then. As I said, we are running an encyclopedia here, we record history, we are not a news outlet. There is no need for articles to be adjusted second-by-second. - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with above comments. With several provisional votes (including yours truly) that are dependent on the PPC maintaining their 5%, and others that seem to be implicitly saying similar, I don't see this as a consensus to include them right this second, but to wait and see. Wikipedia, after all, is WP:NOTNEWS; there's no problem with taking our time and waiting for concrete information. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Can the people who are citing WP:NOTNEWS please actually read it? Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage is right at the top of the section and nothing else there supports leaving PPC out either. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

As I see it, the relevant line is While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The PPC have been sitting at 5.1% for over 12 hours now. It is safe to say that this news is no longer breaking in the age of social media and the 24 hour news cycle. - Personofcanada (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

NOTNEWS is a funny issue to bring up on an article about an event that occurred 24 hours ago. If anyone objects to having an article about a recent news story, then they can ask to have the article deleted. Just don't pick and choose which part of the news event should be included by selectively applying it. TFD (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

PPC party still not included in infobox and next to other parties? Again - wikipedia should be a resource to be able to see reliable information quickly and yet I come to see how the party has faired and I cannot.

Reasons to include: 1- Fundraised a million dollars in 2020. Low amounts in comparison to the big parties, about 5% in fact - following their popular vote numbers. 5% of the electorate. Tripling their previous numbers. It simply cannot be NOT inlcuded, especially if it received more votes (popular vote) than the green party, despite winning no seats. The PM (despite no action so far) has mentioned he wanted address political reform, and in most if not all polls - Canadians do support electoral reform. Should proportional representation be adopted in Canada, the PPC would simply have to be included. JF (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

None of those are criteria for inclusion. - Ahunt (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Says who though? J34L0U5Y1 (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

More precisely this page WP:CONSENSUS. - Ahunt (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. A discussion was held with only few people and either a consensus based on old information or no consensus ensued. An election has now occurred, the majority of the results are in, and in no way can the PPC lose votes. What they have earned will not go away. And so in light of their "performance" (although quite small in comparison to the "big" parties) - I simply do not understand why a few editors are refusing to even discuss the inclusion. J34L0U5Y1 (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The question is whether we should wait to be sure the PPC's share of the vote doesn't fall below 5% once all the special ballots are counted. Nobody's argued against keeping them out if they meet that metric. After weeks of every rationalistion under the Sun being used to argue against existing consensus we're not going to all go "close enough". G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, Mike Redmond an the PEI NDP are included in the infobox at 2015 Prince Edward Island general election's article. No seats, but met the 5% threshold. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aren't RFCs suppose to be open for a whole month? GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily.

An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time.

So no, these 30 days are for the Legobot. I believe enough comments have been solicited to reach a conclusion as presented. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Reporting

The figure for "Reporting," currently 99.77%, does not include mail-in ballots, which may be substantial: "If an electoral district is showing 100% of polls reporting, this DOES NOT mean that all results are in for that electoral district."[5] Could someone please change the info-box. I could not do it because the template makes it difficult. TFD (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate choice of wording by the Infobox template, which apparently can't be changed. It's technically accurate as it's the percentage of polls reporting according to Elections Canada. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

1.2 million Canadians requested a mail-in ballots, according to the National Post,[6] compared with total counted votes of 27.4 million. We don't know whether those votes will reflect votes that have been already counted. In the U.S. they skewed to Democrats, but we can't extrapolate their 2 parties to Canada's 6 parties. While it won't affect the overall result, it may figure in a number of seats. TFD (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I can give you a long answer but the short form is Reporting refers to the Polls Reporting number used by Elections Canada. It doesn't say Counted, it says Reporting. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It is reporting 99.77% of polls. Most readers would assume that 100% of polls would represent 100$ of voters, although it is only represents just over 95%. 95% ≠ 100%. TFD (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Election Canada provides a helpful Status of counting by electoral district, which can tell you in which districts the counting is actually entirely done (i.e. including mail [i.e. special] ballots); but of course it is not possible to do anything useful with this. And the number of polls reporting is just "number of polls which have provided at least some results"; so the number is to be taken with a grain of salt anyway. I guess we can just remove the reporting figure in a few days anyways (when all ridings have completed counting per the first link I give, or when we get official results), so not that it matters too much. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

There were about 16M votes from election night, showing 99.x% of Polls Reporting, before they started counting the 1.2M special ballots. There are now 16.6M votes counted and the Polls Reporting has moved up a fraction of one percent. I doubt very much that they're finding hundreds of thousands of non-mail-in ballots at the normal polls that they have to get out of the way so they can reach 100.00% of Polls Reporting before counting the mail-in ballots. If every single riding has its special ballots counted as a single poll (since it's what's at the returning office, so that makes sense) then every single other poll could be counted and the Polls Reporting would be at 99.53%. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

What percentage of votes have now been counted? TFD (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

They only state the percentage of polls reporting, not percentage of votes. Right now polls are at 99.8%, with 144 polls not reporting. Assuming 17.2M (16M election night, 1.2M mail-in and special), the 16.6M votes in would be about 96.8%. Rough numbers, could easily be off half a percentage point either way. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Mail in ballots are not treated as a single poll, they are in addition to the polls. Say for example a district has 4 advance polling boxes and 96 used on election day for a total of 100 boxes. When all of those 100 boxes are opened and the ballots counted, then 100% of polls have been counted. But there are still mail in ballots, which may change the total results. If we say that 100% of polls have been counted, we imply that the vote is final. TFD (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure of that? The CBC article about the Fredericton riding described the process as verifying the signatures of the mail-ballots, then dumping them into a ballot box to be counted, that poll being done at the returning office where the mail-in ballots are held.

I voted at the returning office in 2015 and (checks poll-by-polls for that year and riding) we were counted under Group 2 special ballots, which outnumbered Group 1 (CAF members, prisoners, and temporary non-residents of Canada) by more than 7:1. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Map Colour of West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast – Sea To Sky Country

This riding is currently coloured NDP orange, it should be Liberal red. Splashcat62 (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out. I will fix it. Gust Justice (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

👍 Splashcat62 (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

List of open seats taken by candidates of opposing parties

Here's a wrinkle. Derek Sloan was technically the incumbent for Hastings—Lennox and Addington even though he ran in Banff—Airdrie. He was an independent, so the Conservatives won a seat, but he wasn't a member of any opposing party. Should he go in this table? Get his own table? A text mention below the table? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sloan was elected as a Conservative, and the riding stayed Conservative. The test in this section is what the voters had decided in 2021 vs 2019, so this doesn't qualify for the table.Raellerby (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate section would be in order, identifying those MPs who were unclear on the concept and ran to ultimate defeat. Michel Boudrias in Terrebonne would be another example for the list.Raellerby (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE THE MAP

You read the title, do it RonMcDonald721 (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

From your profile page: Hi I'm just someone who wants to do good in wikipedia, by fixing improper edits.

Do it yourself. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey RonMcDonald721, I’ll update it tomorrow as it’s late here in the pacific seaboard. Eric0892 (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks

🙂  RonMcDonald721 (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2021

There's some Grammar Mistakes in the Article. Yashmehla688 (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Trudeau image rerere... redux

I've lost track of which image we finally settled on. I reverted the latest attempt to make him look like a member of The Brady Bunch and slapped some hidden text beside it, but I want to make sure it's the image we finally settled on. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Low volatility

Seats changing allegiance

Year	Number
2021	24 / 338
2019	62 / 338
2015*	154 / 338
2011	101 / 308
2008	43 / 308
2006	55 / 308
2004*
2000	32 / 301
1997

As of now, only a meager 24 ridings (7%) changed hands. Does anybody know where the records stand? It could be a record low since WWII, and if so it should be talked about. It goes with the low turnout. Kahlores (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Need refs to make those conclusions, see WP:PROVEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps some political science student did some work on it to earn a master's degree. Or Perhaps the Library of Parliament prepared a briefing paper on the subject. Both of those routes would definitely be verifiable as the kind of secondary source that WP prefers.Raellerby (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Even news media analysis would be fine, just not WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Added what I've found so far. I will follow Raellerby's advice, nothing found yet on G. Scholar. Kahlores (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we should say, as has been noted in reliable sources, that the results were mostly unchanged from the last election. It would follow from that that few seats changed hands. TFD (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. Kahlores (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

43 seats switched allegiance between the 2006 and 2008 elections. There were those three by-elections whose results held in the subsequent general election. The table in the 2008 article will need to be reconfigured to show this.Raellerby (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Have reconciled the movements between the 2006 and 2008 elections, and have confirmed the number of 43 seats. Several seats had been missed from the detailed discussion of defeats and gains in Results of the 2008 Canadian federal election. As a result, I've also adjusted the table here.Raellerby (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Results for 2006 now reconciled and added.Raellerby (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

2000 figured reconciled and added. 2004 will be a bit difficult, because of the 2003 redistribution. I haven't found anything yet to transpose 2000 results onto the new ridings.Raellerby (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Bolding infobox numbers

This is a neverending fight. Some editors don't want the infobox numbers bolded, others are insistent on it. The reason seems to be that it accentuates the difference between the popular vote result and the seat result; I think this has to do with partisanship and counts as COI. The pre-2019 results weren't using this.

What arguments are there for and against? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• The only good argument I see is against: it insults the intelligence of the reader. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - They should not be bolded, there is no case for it at MOS:BOLD and it is too close to WP:POV-pushing. - Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose bolding in the article, every other Canadian federal election article & all the provincial/territorial general election articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - as Ahunt stated, too close to POV pushing. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on the addition of the student vote count in the election articles?

I can see that the Student Vote count was recently added to the 2019 and 2021 election this month, and wanted to see everyone's thoughts on it? I don't see much relevancy towards the actual election itself. Even in the little line that is given in that section, it says that it's for "educational purposes", and really serves no purpose. Cable10291 (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it serves no purpose and was not actually part of this election, it is just a simulation or "mock vote". It might make sense for it to have its own article if it can make WP:GNG, otherwise it is a really just an academic exercise that isn't relevant to this election and should be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Removed per above RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

the results are not final

Just wondering, why is Wikipedia treating the results as final since they are not? The mail in ballots are still being counted and the final results are expected to be announced on Monday, Sept. 27th. 13Sundin (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

At this point the vote totals are what's left to be determined. It's marked as preliminary in some places, like the table in Full results. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The mail in votes are being counted and that could still change the outcome. The official announcement is to be made today. Even on the Wiki front page it reads that Trudeau has been re-elected... which is not the case until the results are officially confirmed. 13Sundin (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That's... an extreme interpretation. Elections Canada is frequently updating the numbers on its own website. We've been taking our cue from there. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2021/09/25/thousands-of-mail-ballots-still-to-be-counted-final-election-results-due-monday/ 13Sundin (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is going to ignore Elections Canada's released vote numbers on such technicalities. If a riding gets flipped Elections Canada will change its numbers and we'll change ours. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Fredericton Seat

It was last controlled by the greens so why is it not displayed as a liberal gain on the map? 2001:1970:564B:4700:D41A:2145:5145:BAE1 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any map showing seat gains. And it was actually Liberal before the election. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

If we view the exercise as merely a switch from the seat count at dissolution, the notion of a Liberal hold is technically correct. However, the more correct view would be the action the voters took from one election to the next, so 2021 would be a ratification by the Fredericton voters of the move their MP had previously taken. The map should be adjusted to reflect that reality.Raellerby (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Vote count

Could we, as non-Canadians, get a section in the article that explains why Liberal gets 40 more seats than Conservative, although having 188,155 fewer votes? A quick info would be nice. Does anyone have a reliable source? ♆ CUSH ♆ 14:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this already explained as being the result of the FPTP system used, of the unequal distribution of parties' vote share, so on so forth (typical FPTP issues)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Where is it explained, though?--Aréat (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cush: Canadians (well, many of us) take it for granted how the system works. Each seat in parliament is decided separately, with the candidate getting the most votes winning; with five electable parties and nearly twenty minor ones, this usually means the winner doesn't get a majority. The Bloc Québécois only run candidates in Quebec, so their low percentage is misleading - they're only competing for 23% of the seats; the other electable parties all compete nationwide. The Conservative Party has incredible strength in rural areas of the western provinces, often getting 60%+ in most of the region. The Liberals have their support spread across most of the country, so they're competitive in more ridings than the Conservatives are, meaning they win more seats with the same number of votes nationwide. And most of the provinces and territories that are overrepresented through various constitutional clauses skew more Liberal than Conservative. I'm sure somebody can do a better version of this, but that's the gist of it. [edited to ping Cush] G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll be working up a Gallagher index calculation after the figures are finalized, to highlight the structural unfairness of the result, as mandated by our constitutional rules.Raellerby (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Raellerby: You can if you want, as long as you don't try to put your results in the article as per WP:OR and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Ahunt: It would qualify as per WP:CALC. I did a similar exercise back in 2015, and it really kicked up a fuss on Parliament Hill back then.Raellerby (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:CALC says: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age is almost always permissible. It is not routine calculations or basic arithmetic and both your posts here indicate it is politically motivated, so fails WP:NPOV too ... so no, not permissible. - Ahunt (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Too bad. It was basic arithmetic anyway.Raellerby (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove current election template?

I'm looking for consensus to remove the current election template, as the date of the election has passed and voting is no longer taking place. The only things related to this election is that are some special ballots yet to be processed, official certification, and finally the MP's being sworn in. It simply does not seem right to have the template anymore. PretendZebra75 (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Until the results are finalised by Elections Canada, the template should stay. James Hyett (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Since the results could take thirteen days after the last riding's preliminary count is finished, it'll probably be needed another two weeks. Two of the remaining four should be finished counting special ballots today for sure. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright thanks. We'll leave it until Elections Canada certifies the election.PretendZebra75 (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

A current template should only remain on an article so long as it's getting a significant amount of edits. Looking at the article history it's iffy whether that is still the case, but it's certainly not necessary to leave it until the results are finalized. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@PretendZebra75: This to section you referring to? In which case you should self-revert, since it's clear that what might have bene iffy two or three days ago is certainly even more so now. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian Elections Canada hasn't even announced the official results so just leave it until then.PretendZebra75 (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@PretendZebra75: "Official results" was never the criteria for removing the template. I'm going to copy my edit summary: the results that matter (number of seats, who forms next government) have been stale for a few days; and this isn't attracting enough activity that is deemed necessary for usage of "current" templates. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Per the detailed edit summary and per lack of objection above, I've now removed it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty surprised to see it still being there, as this template is very often removed from various countries elections pages on their very own election day on the basis of the results not being updated often enough. Waiting for a certification while the preliminary results have long been finalised certainly seem like a less "current" situation.--Aréat (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2021

For the section on media endorsements: Just Right Media ( https://www.justrightmedia.org/blog/ ) endorses the People's Party of Canada. 174.137.217.177 (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Endorsements from non-notable blogs generally aren't added. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Elections Canada September 21, 2021, federal election results

Could somebody explain what the party order is supposed to represent? Descending order of seats makes sense; what's there now (and in the previous order) does not. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - a random sort does not make sense 158.123.57.63 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

In the summary? It might be from left to right, but putting the Liberals between the NDPs and Greens is bold choice. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I've put it into the usual descending order. If someone wants to restore the NDP-Liberal-Green-BQ-Conservative order, hopefully this will spur them to explain the reasoning, because I don't see it… — Kawnhr (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Minor parties

Only three minor parties increased their vote total this election - the two communist parties and the Marijuana Party. Probably coincidence, but it made me laugh. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The PPC increased its vote from 294,092 to 841,016. Are you saying they are not a minor party? TFD (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It does not sound like [[Timothy Walton]] is saying that they are not minor parties, but simply noting the type of parties and finding humor in its results. Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction and I can appreciate the humor. Jurisdicta _Talk Jurisdicta (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

So the Marijuana party increased the number of candidates by 125% and increased their votes by 138%. Big deal. TFD (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninists - down 24% in candidate numbers, Communists down 13.3%. Excerpting to present an incomplete picture again?

You might wish to read this completely: Humour G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The Marijuana Party is at a new high. Cool.Raellerby (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• WP:NOTFORUM. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of PPC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

PPC is now at 4.94%, which rounds to 4.9%. Any arguments to keep them in, because 4.95 rounds to 5 no longer hold (not that it matters because 5% is a % to PASS, not to round to). 2605:B100:D18:521:59DD:432D:8CF8:DAF5 (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed to the point of acrimony and non-admin closure of an RfC, which had many votes provisional on a vote share that was being met at the time of closure, but then the party's share fell below the provisional line mentioned by some respondents. It would be better to wait until the last two ridings are validated before beginning a formal survey to settle it once and for all, so that the results of a unified vote can be pointed to in hidden text in the infobox and this Lazarus of a debate can end. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP user, please see the open, on-going RfC discussion on this very page and comment there. Thanks! — Kawnhr (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, there is no policy, guideline or binding RfC that sets a minimum threshold for inclusion. The only place I have seen it used is in U.S. state primaries where sometimes there are over 20 candidates. The only valid argument based on policy etc. is to include the parties that routinely appear on lists of party results provided by CBC, CTV and other major Canadian news media. TFD (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

If the PPC is given 'special treatment'? the flood gates will open for sure. Be prepared for 10+ leaders/parties in the infobox of the next Canadian federal election. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, let's wait until all the final totals are in. At this point it's just rehash after rehash after rehash. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• The discussion has long moved on past the point of caring for mere mathematical criteria (4.9 is still quite close to 5%); and sliding slopes such as the one presented by GoodDay are great for skiing, not so much for argumentation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:55, 1 October 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.

PPC finish at 4.96%

Let the COI circus begin anew. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop casting aspersions here. The fact that many people disagree with you over whether the PPC is worthy of infobox inclusion does not mean they are PPC supporters or editing with any conflict of interest. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean, even I don't like the PPC (as well for the other traditionally 'elective' federal political parties in general) too, but so far, the two known sites that focusing on the results, Elections Canada and CBC news are still calling their percent as 5% of the vote, not 4.6%. But also, by this logic, the GPC (and "funny" enough, I like them over any of the five other parties anytime, for their policies) could get this treatment, but somehow doesn't despite unfortunately in this election, they nosedive from almost 1.2 million votes to 395 thousand votes and get 2.3% of the vote? Just because they got two seats (including one of them is a new seat, from Kitchener Centre federal riding) this time? Chad The Goatman (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Canadian elections are not proportional, so yes, parties could theoretically get a seat with less than 1% of the national popular vote (if I do same table-corner maths and say the country is divided into roughly 300 equal districts, and that you only need 50%+1 to win any single seat [both massive oversimplifications], that means you only need 0.17%...). The fact is that winning a seat (as a party) guarantees not only the coverage from being seated in Parliament but also inclusion at future debates. Coverage in reliable sources tends to scale with these two elements (and, see there is coverage of the Green's party catastrophic showing). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

To add what RandomCanadian has stated, the Bloc and Green argument is false balance, as what matters is that they won seats; any party that win at least a seat is likely to be due for the infobox, while a party that has had a significant amount of popular support and either influenced the election or was significantly discussed post-election, but did not win any seats, may still be due; it is all up to reliable sources to determine the weight, not us. If majority sources discuss the PPC post-election, it may still be due for the infobox even if it gets to 4.99%, so there is no need to resort to false-balance arguments, such as the above, which shows a lack of understanding of Canadian politics. Davide King (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thing is about a Canadian federal election (these days), is that it's actually 338 elections happening concurrently. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

This is unclear

Respectfully, the "Seats before" line makes no sense to me (155, 119, etc.). I suggest eliminating this line and only having lines that say "2021 election", "2019 election" and "Seat change". John NH (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The infobox is a template, so changing the wording is impossible; if I could I'd change it to Seats at dissolution. I believe yours is the first complaint I've ever seen that finds the line itself nonsensical. Please look at previous election articles before judging its usefulness. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Not the first time. We discussed this above, and I agree with the need to make it clear in the table and infobox that seats changes as well as vote changes are compared from one election to the other.--Aréat (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

No, you complained about the Seat change being based on the numbers at dissolution rather than the previous election. Not the same complaint.

It's really quite simple. The seat totals change between elections due to various factors, therefore basing the seat change on the numbers from the previous election presents a distorted picture. If an MP switches parties between elections and wins the seat running for their new party, how should it be counted compared to the previous election? It's the same MP. When some of the Progressive Conservatives joined with the Reform Party to create the Canadian Alliance, how should they have been compared? The Canadian Alliance only included some of the PCs, not all of them.

The principle of what changed with this election is what applies to the seat change, not what changed from last election. What changed from last election is shown by the change in vote share.

If this is still confusing to you, there's a table further down the page that has the information in the format you desire: Summary of the 2021 Canadian federal election. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't matter to me, which mathematical method ya'll choose. As long as it's applied consistently across all Canadian federal and provincial/territorial elections. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

A quick check of the last two elections in every province shows that only Saskatchewan does it the way these two want. Newfoundland and Labradror's most recent election omits the Seats before line but bases seat changes on the seats at dissolution, but the previous one they do the same way the federal elections are done. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not just us two. A recent discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/Archive_19#Seat_changes had several others users discuss the change being shown from one national election to the other. Paging @Jonaththejonath:, @Howard the Duck:, @Number 57:, @Impru20:, @Doktorbuk:, @Bondegezou:, @Chipmunkdavis:, if they may wan't to join the discussion here.--Aréat (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Also do note the inconsistencies with the pages of each parties participating : Conservative Party, Liberal Party, etc, all show the seat changes from one national election to the other. Then as you click on the election link you confusingly come upon different seat changes in the infobox.--Aréat (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen hide nor hair such a discussion on the Talk pages of any of the federal election articles. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Had such a discussion been mentioned on any of these pages, I would have joined in. The archived discussion does not show a consensus and I'm not going to apply it here. If this tiny bit of arithmetic is too confusing, lobby whoever designs the templates to change the allowable lines to show clearer language or an extra line so that both change from previous election and change from dissolution can be shown. Don't tell editors to leave out information that may show a significant intervening change between the two elections. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Personally I'd automatically turn off the 'seats before' parameter once elections results are known (and ongoing is set to 'no'), just leaving last election and this election. Also worth noting that the infobox instructions for the seat_change parameter is "The change in the number of seats won at the election compared to the previous election." The fact that multiple articles do it wrongly isn't a reason to fix it. Number 57 22:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Such instructions do not appear in the infobox.

And the 21st century Canadian federal and provincial election infoboxes are now consistent whenever the seats at dissolution information is available. Even the provinces where some did it your way were inconsistent, sometimes within the same box, as if somebody had made a half-hearted effort to change them to what you say is correct but botched the job. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes the instructions are there, as anyone can see at {{Infobox election}}. The text I quoted above was copied from there. Number 57 23:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

And I paste: The seat count before the election, labeled 'current seats' if the election is yet to take place. That wording makes it pretty clear that it's meant to apply to the seat count as it stands. Nowhere does compared to the previous election appear in the Description column. BTW, I also check links that seem to agree with me just to make sure I'm not wrong, not just the ones I disagree with.

Well, it helps if I look at the right parameter. I'd still argue for changing it to reflect what's in common use, which is what seems intuitive to me. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Common use is doing it as stated in the instructions. The way it's done on Canadian election articles is not the norm. Number 57 23:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen the infobox instructions before today; I doubt I'm the only one. If you want to change them all, I won't revert. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

So, what's it gonna be previous election seats to current election seats? or seats at dissolution to current election seats? GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

For me it's gonna be "I acknowledge that I was wrong. I think it's a stupid policy and somebody else can do the work of hunting down other people's mistakes and fixing them." G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the same inconsistencies are in the Year United States House of Representatives election articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2021

The vote differential for Davenport is incorrect. Julie Dzerowicz won by 165 votes, not 74. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/liberal-incumbent-julie-dzerowicz-toronto-davenport-winner-1.6186390 64.229.187.206 (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

CBC posted that article before Elections Canada validated the results. When EC checked the paperwork from each poll, Bravo went up by 159 votes, Dzerowicz only went up by 70. Most ridings have some change in vote totals when validation is done, usually because of miscommunication on the phone on election night or somebody hit the wrong key when entering data at the returning office. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm not very well versed in this topic, but it appears G. Timothy Walton may be as he participated in the above RfC, and so I shall defer to him that this edit request would present inaccurate information or otherwise would be inappropriate until the RfC concludes. IP user, I would advise discussing here on the talk page if you believe this assessment to be inaccurate, and if it's found there is an error I'm sure an editor with sufficient permissions will correct it. If not, submission of another edit request is always an option. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/federal-election/2021-results/

These are the correct totals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.114.106.99 (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Several editors are making changes based on the Liberals' claim to have won the recount in Châteauguay—Lacolle; this has not been confirmed by Elections Canada. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Now confirmed in the election results spreadsheet but not yet on the National Results page. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

And now in the National Results page. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)