Talk:2021 Canadian federal election/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Should the PPC be included in the infobox?

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.

There is consensus to include PPC in the infobox. Some editors opposed inclusion because the PPC failed to meet either of the conventionally used criteria for election infoboxes: 5% of the popular vote or at least 1 seat. Those favouring inclusion generally countered this line by arguing that the rule of thumb ought to be ignored in this case, or that it should not be interpreted as forbidding inclusion (for example, some argued that the share was close enough to be rounded up to 5%). Affirmative arguments for inclusion generally referred to the prominence of the PPC in summaries of the election by reliable sources. Overall, inclusion was favoured by more editors and supported by a more robust set of policy-based arguments.

Some editors suggested adopting a minimum 4% rule of thumb for Canadian federal election infoboxes to match the criteria for inclusion in the leader's debate. This discussion did not establish consensus for such a rule, though editors may wish to pursue a separate discussion on the topic. Colin M (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the People's Party of Canada be included in the article's infobox?

With more complete results, it looks like People's Party of Canada received 4.96% of the vote, slightly under the threshold usually used for infobox inclusion. The previous RfC was not conclusive on this matter. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey (PPC inclusion)

• I support inclusion, as even though they did not receive 5%, PPC received more votes than a party which won seats (and is therefore included in the infobox). Additionally, we tend to defer to reliable sources, and reliable sources both extensively discussed the impact of PPC on the election, and included the PPC as a "top-tier" party seriously contending for seats. For example, the CBC's election tracker listed Liberal, Conservative, Bloc Québécois, New Democrat, Green, and People's Party at the top of their page, as well as a category for "Other" minor parties. This is a similar situation to infobox inclusion, and given that reliable sources seem to include the People's Party in situations like this, it makes sense for us to include them too. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support on inclusion, as even I don't like them as the other four federal and traditional Canadian political parties, they have enough votes to be appear here (and I think my time is delaying the complete results for the percentage?), plus this belief that they need to be not included to be there, is now both illogical and wasting time, as like the GPC (that party, that I still like since 2016-17) shouldn't be there in this case, as they lost both the votes and percentages, but somehow isn't demanding to be removed from the infobox, just because they retained and got one new seat(s)? Chad The Goatman (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't usually include parties that didn't win seats in infoboxes (and before anyone posts other examples – yes, there are other cases, but it is not done in the vast majority of cases). Number 57 11:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Parties that didn't win anything are not usually included, unless there are very good reasons to do so, and although they might be very close to the 5% margin (which indicates we should apply editorial judgement), there's no indication they had a truly significant influence on the results (which are basically the same as last time, with both main parties having a vote percentage reduced by almost the same amount, which suggests that claims of vote-splitting affecting the result don't make too much sense) or the happenings of the election (not having been invited to any debate, for example). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  Addendum the above is, of course, my opinion. If one can provide reliable sources which discuss the PPC's impact on this election and stuff like that (something like this, but which isn't an opinion piece), then of course this would need to be revisited per WP:V - if, however, the only thing we have is results listings, then that's not enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  Neutral There's a case to be made, that the PPC might have had a significant impact on this. However, I'm not satisfied with the current sources about this (which are more like speculation and wider 'rise of the far-right' context analysis). However, there's also the case that they don't meet the usual criteria, and I stand by my original comments that overriding this would require good reasons, which I fail to see yet. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - they didn't meet any of our consensus criteria, less than 5% support and no seats won. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose sticking to the criteria of only including parties winning/losing seats or getting 5% of the popular vote, is the most consistent method of dealing with these situations. There may be exceptions (such as this one but I don't think one is warranted here. Gust Justice (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. While I did close the previous RfC on PPC inclusion, I closed it without prejudice given that it's 5% that often guarantees inclusion on Wikipedia, and indeed people were almost unanimous in saying that 5% would obviously count for inclusion, while something <5%, well, not necessarily. That said, my personal opinion is that it doesn't really matter that much. The fact of quite extensive pre-election coverage, combined with their qualification for the Leaders' Debate (presumably in 2025) if rules don't change en route, their supporters ahem, not particularly being civil against Trudeau in particular; plus the links about impact of PPC on this particular Canadian election shown below, means that their inclusion here is still warranted. In addition to that, arguing that 4.96% does not count but 5.01% does, in an electoral system where there is no threshold below which parties may not send MPs, is in my view a case of bureaucracy at its worst, and is really a minor obstacle that can be dismissed in an electoral system (FPTP) Canada has. On the other hand, if it were an election in Poland or Germany, where there is a 5% threshold, I would have thought deeper about it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Ad RandomCanadian: [1], [2]; analysis of possible vote split harmful for the Tories: [3]; a general statement from WaPo on vote-splitting, and experts interviewed by Global News saying it's not as straightforward as it seems but might be the case: here. Btw, even O'Toole asked voters not to vote PPC, fearing split votes. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

General statements on vote-splitting (an inherent problem of first past the post; too bad politicians have no incentive to change it) are not particularly helpful or specific to this election. Candidates asking people to vote for themselves and not other parties is not particularly striking or noteworthy. Global News tells that it's not a simple affair and the many voters for the PPC likely wouldn't have voted for the CPC - indeed, mostly covering voters from the Green party (the protest vote par excellence) - or wouldn't have voted at all (thus not materially affecting the result). The opinion piece from Macleans (an opinion piece, so not an adequate source for statements of facts) does not once mention the impact of the PPC on the election results; instead simply using this to argue that this is part of the worrying trend of the "rise of far-right populist rhetoric". All in all, besides some speculation (with lots of "ifs") that the PPC "might" have cost the CPC some seats (how many? certainly not enough to materially affect the results - there's only 2 or 3 explicitly listed), I don't see anything which substantiates that the PPC had a significant impact on this election. So, not enough to justify inclusion in the infobox despite not meeting any other criteria. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose they did not meet either of the 2 criteria required to be included in the infobox. They did not receive 5% of the vote (see WP:CALC), and they did not win any seats. In addition to not meeting the criteria, they were not competitive in any ridings and did not get close to winning any seat. I would also not that in some countries with proportional representation, a threshold of 5% is required to enter parliament, if this were one of those countries the PPC would not qualify. I don't see why we should be rounding up here, when the question is whether they surpassed the 5% threshold--the did not. Saxones288 (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. While there's always been a divergent strain of belief among some editors that 5 per cent of the popular vote should qualify a party for inclusion in the infobox regardless of its failure to actually have won a seat, that's never been a consensus position. The consensus position has been that the infobox is for parties that held seats either going into or coming out of the election. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Provisional oppose If the validated results put them back above 4.99% then put them in the infobox; they'd need fewer than 10K votes to reach 5.00%, so it's theoretically possible. Rounding up does not apply in this. I'd rather they'd made even 5.01% so this revisit of the issue wouldn't happen. After the validated results come in, we'll need to formally hammer out the criteria for next election's inbox, but that should wait until this is all over. Either they meet the criteria or they don't, regardless of my personal feelings on any party. If one of our fascist parties (I think we have two, both in the bottom three of results) somehow won a seat, I'd feel compelled to argue for their inclusion, same as I would for either of our communist parties. Anyone who doesn't like me mentioning that COI arguments will occur can imagine me laughing mockingly at them. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC) G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I wonder if 4% is a better threshold, as that's what's needed for inclusion in the debates? -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Elli.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 18:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support We should follow Wikipedia's "Selection criteria" guideline, which asks, "Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?" Since the CBC,[4] CTV,[5] Global News,[6] and all other major Canadian media I have seen include the PPC in their election summarizes, so should this article. TFD (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No seats. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support: per The Four Deuces. — Eric0892 (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - this RFC should be shut down, as we already had one, mere days ago. If you don't get 5% or a seat? you don't get included. The PPC shouldn't be getting an exception. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose -include mention in the article, exclude them from the infobox, however. They did not reach 5%, they should not be included. There has to be a cutoff, and the agreed cutoff has been 5%. It is sensible. SecretName101 (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support inclusion because a) 4.96% rounds up to 5.0%; b) because the People's Party of Canada played a significant role in this election campaign, with the stoning of Justin Trudeau by a PPC official arguably being the turning point of the campaign, and the party as a whole receiving a lot of (negative) media coverage as the anti-vax party; c) according to the Leaders' Debates Commission, the People's Party of Canada reached their minimum threshhold to participate in the leaders debate in the next election (their threshhold is 4%). I didn't vote for them, but I understand that you can't write a fair article about this election without covering them. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• I support inclusion. It's been a sizeable part of the campaign and analysis of the results in sources. And such a tiny difference from the 5 % threshold is basically negligible.--Aréat (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support They are definitely notable. I can understand wanting to cut them of, if there were, say, 10 parties represented in the parliament (there has to be a cut-off somewhere), but 6 parties is perfectly fine and they did outpoll the Greens. I would even support their inclusion if they reached only 4%, but my decision would be somewhat shaped by whether or not they outpolled any of the parliamentary parties. I think the '5% threshold' is a fair guideline, but it kind of depends on the political system of that country and may be more relevant for some countries than for others.--Mrodowicz (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Provisional support 4.96 rounds up to 5. If they dip to 4.94, then they shouldn't be included, due to the agreed upon 5% threshold (although I'd be willing to support changing that to 4% based on the Leaders' Debates Commission's threshold). 99.245.40.162 (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose 5% is the threshold for inclusion in election infoboxes, and the PPC got lower than that. It wouldn't matter if they earned 4.99%, it is still short of exactly 5 percent and therefore shouldn't be included. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support - PPC should be included. 5% has long been the general rule on Wikipedia. See for example, this discussion. My understanding of the reason behind that general rule, is that any party that gets 5% is clearly significant. I am not sure that means a party that gets 4.95% and does better than another that does recieve seats should be excluded. It would 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) 22:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It is also significant that CBC, CTV and Global include them in their breakdowns of results, along with the five other main parties. And that their leader is included in graphics like this.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support inclusion, reliable sources viewed the PPC as one of the six major parties. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 01:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The 5% line is the standard, and they failed to meet it. Not only that, but they failed to obtain any seats. "Close enough" is not good enough, if we let them slide through with 4.95% the line isn't 5%, it's 4.95%. BSMRD (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Their vote and seat share doesn't actually matter in this case, since they've been included in nearly every reliable source's reporting on the election. Not hunting down links because they've been sourced already by several above. James Hyett (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Stongly oppose 4.95% < 5%. Opposition stands even if it was 4.99% because of a lack of any seats. I would also like to remind everyone that elections in Canada are not contested by popular vote, but by number of seats. The Greens employed a strategy of focusing their resources on a handful of seats, running fewer candidates than all other major parties + the PPC. Naturally, a lower share of the popular vote was going to come from this. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Although the PPC did fall short of the 5% minimum, I think they are pushed over the line by media coverage. Post-election, we've seen spate of articles about the PPC: analysis if it cost the Tories any seats, opinions on what the PPC's share of votes means for the country, interviews with Bernier on where his party will go from here. To me, the way the party is being covered and talked about in reliable sources suggests they are notable. I am wary to ignore the rules like this, because I can see it very easily emboldening obvious COI/NPOV editors in the future, but as long as we maintain that a party must received substantial coverage in reliable sources, and keep on that, we should be fine. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Most of the same arguments as above. 1. They got more than 4%, which was the threashold to be included in the leader's debate. 2. They received significant media coverage by major and reputable news outlets. Furthermore, these outlets included the PPC in their own pool tracker and result infoboxes. 3. Got more votes than the Greens, which are included in the infobox thanks to winning a seat. Un ordinateur (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia:No firm rules says that founder Jimbo Wales' first rule to consider was always "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Given the circumstances of this election, I think it is fitting for the party to remain in the infobox. Cable10291 (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Stongly oppose: I suggest removing the PPC from the article's infobox as soon as possible, since its did not win (or lose) any of seats in the federal House of Commons, remaining extra-parliamentary party. –WalterII, 18:09, 29 September 2021.
• Oppose On the 5% rule /guidelines. doktorb _words^deeds 21:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The wording in the info-box should be changed. There is no evidence that there is a 5% threshold and based on my reading of editors' comments, some of them take this to mean that it is a policy or guideline. Most editors, myself included will always vote consistently with policies or guidelines unless there are clear reasons why doing so would conflict with the accuracy and neutrality of an article. TFD (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Would you have a citation for most editors being of like mind? A quick check earlier today showed that even the policies you cited as supporting your claims didn't hold up when reading more than the portions you mentioned. And since I've so often seen editors cite only their idiosyncratic interpretation of policies that don't hold up to anyone else's reading, I will definitely need to see some support for your claim of groupthink. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC) G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
    • The last editor, doktorbuk, said "Oppose On the 5% rule/guideline." [21:50, 29 September 2021] I assume that means that they "take this to mean that it is a policy or guideline."[7] Many other editors have made similar arguments. Although you say my interpretation of policy is "idiosyncratic," you have never provided any policy based arguments yourself, or explained why my interpretation does not apply to this article. You also admitted you had not read a guideline that you cited (and linked to) multiple times in this article.[8] In fact, you have also suggested that we reject attention paid to the PPC in reliable sources as "biased" and should "ignore all rules" and exclude them.[9] Although you said we can ignore all rules "if they are incompatible with producing a good article," you haven't explained how omitting information routinely included in the election results by major Canadian news media such as the CBC and CTV would achieve that. If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you reply in the "Discussion" section. TFD (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per TFD. The 5% is mainly an unwritten rule, which can be common sense and applied on a case-by-case analysis, not an actual policy and guideline like RS or WEIGHT. The fact of the matter is that the CBC, CTV, Global News, and other major Canadian media have included the PPC in their election results and summaries, while any other minor party deemed to be not significant enough is listed as Others; that means, RS(s) already did the job for us in regards to WEIGHT, deemed the PPC due enough to list, so rather than engage in OR/SYNTH and determine WEIGHT ourselves by following an unwritten rule which may include or exclude a party by 0.1 or 0.4, we should follow RS(s), even if we may not like this and may well be afraid that this could lead to better results for a party whose policies we may, and me personally, find abhorrent. I mean, are we really going to put the PPC or not on whether it got 5.01 rather than 4.99? The infobox threshold is a good guide, not the ultimate rule, and policies and guidelines (RS and WEIGHT) outweigh any of this. RS(s) and WEIGHT determine that this is a likely example of an exception to the 5% guidance rule. Hell, even if it got 5.01 but RS(s) did not actually list it, I would say we should not include it on the same grounds, except that in such a case it would fail them. Davide King (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support inclusion per the arguments above about the coverage of the PPC in mainstream news outlets post-election. Mottezen (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support they are obviously notable in this election.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Current score here is 18 Support; 13 Oppose; 1 Provisional Support based on not falling to 4.94%, which they did, but willing to consider the 4% for the next round of leader debates. Currently the PPC are rounding up to 4.94% nationwide, at 5.31% in the 311 ridings they ran in that have been validated. After a week, is this enough to declare it settled? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC) G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support Surprise! After mulling this over, while 5% makes for a good rule of thumb, we should really be parroting what the media is doing, and not drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. And since the media has been considering them a main party, we should include them in the infobox. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Current score 19 Support, 13 Oppose. Upon closer examination, the provisional was an anonymous account so that gets tossed; one of the Support voters has only one other contribution, in 2013, so that account's suspicious but not taken out of the tally. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC) G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support This article should follow WP guidelines. According to MOS:INFOBOX the purpose of the infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article...the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.". Since the national media consistently covered their campaign, we would have an incomplete article if we ignored them. Since they are covered in the article in a substantial way, their presence should be summarized in the infobox. The infobox would be fine without them but it would portray an incomplete picture, so I support their inclusion there. No other party (e.g. Free Party, Maverick, etc.) received consistent national media. maclean (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support, close enough to 5% and the infobox anyway has 5 parties without them, so keep them doesn't change the number of rows. They also played a significant role in the elections. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Point of order: "Current score" = not relevant and I'd encourage G. Timothy Walton to stop making those comments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - per the several 'support" votes. Sea Ane (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (PPC inclusion)

Where is the source on 4.96%??96.30.164.112 (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

[10] as of writing: 842,969/16,991,074*100%=4.961%. See also WP:CALC Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Bearcat you think that consensus is that even if they get 5% they shouldn't be included? Could you please link the discussion establishing such a consensus, because I have not seen it anywhere, nor is it the general standard applied to most elections articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Where is there any consensus that five per cent of the vote gets a party into the infobox even if they had and have zero seats? I can just turn this right back on you, and demand that you show a link to any discussion that proves my understanding of established consensus to be wrong. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Earl Andrew [moving this down to the Discussion section] "I wonder if 4% is a better threshold, as that's what's needed for inclusion in the debates?" The inclusion in the debates themselves would be reasonable, but polling for the PPC could vary by six points between polls released the same day; some firms ran consistently higher than others. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Being included in the debates would be reasonable cause to include them in the infobox. However the PPC was not included in the 2021 debates. Perhaps if they're included in the next election's debates, it would be reasonable to include them in that election's infobox, but not in this years. Saxones288 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I know they didn't qualify for this year's debate, but by receiving over 4%, they qualified for the debates for the next election, providing the debate commission doesn't shift the goal posts before then. The 4% marker isn't just for polling. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

A good point, and thank your for the link. Something to hammer out when formalising a set of criteria we can point to when somebody asks for a consensus discussion. I'm still for waiting for the validated numbers to come in before tinkering with the criteria, if only to keep this RfC from veering off. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

If the debate commission may change the 4% requirement for next year, then I don't see your argument as to why 4% should be the threshold to be included in the infobox, as opposed to the ">5% of vote, or won a seat" requirement we currently have. Saxones288 (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

And veering off we go. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Well, it's now under 5% & if I understand the closing decision of the previous RFC? that means Bernier & PPC should be excluded from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  There's no hurry; the most important bits are in, we can afford to wait a bit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  The new RFC is rather disruptive (in my view), along with the continuing attempts to include the PPC in the infobox, when it doesn't meet the 1-seat or 5% inclusion criteria. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  @GoodDay: the old RFC specifically didn't say what should be done if PPC ended up under 5%. As it looks like PPC will end up below 5%, and there wasn't a clear consensus from that RFC of what to do in this case, I opened this RFC. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Ya could've wait another week. Oh well, it's too late now. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Some editors might be worried about the ethics of including the PPC with the other parties, because it might give them legitimacy and help their chances in future elections. However, allowing readers to be aware of the relative strength of the PPC in the election could also alert them to the dangers of low turnouts and encourage them to volunteer for, contribute to, or vote for the other parties. Omitting the PPC could also boomerang as it would show that Wikipedia was willing to ignore its own policies and guidelines in order to minimize popularity of the PPC. TFD (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I've no positive 'or' negative views on the PPC. My only interest is sticking to the 1-seat or 5% inclusion criteria. Doesn't matter to me which party it is. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• The criteria was always 5% or at least one seat won. Does not appear that we're compromising anything here. As I said, given how close to 5% the PPC are, there would be a case for including them if they had had a significant impact on the election; but that does not appear to be the case. Looking in detail at the 7 seats that changed hands from CPC to Libs (the most likely places where "vote-splitting" might have affected results), there's only two of those where it's even plausible it could have happened (Calgary Skyview; Edmonton Centre - all the others are either outright mathematically impossible (because the PPC didn't run or simply didn't get that much votes) or would require an implausibly large portion of the PPC votes to have gone to the Conservatives when sources indicate that is not exactly the case). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: I don't think only viewing "seats flipped" makes sense as a metric. There was a significant amount of coverage on seats Libs held because of PPC candidates, for example London West. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Elli: That seat would still have required that at least 2773 (out of 3387 - about 82%) PPC voters would have otherwise voted for the CPC. Given what the other sources say (that many of these voters aren't necessarily conservatives: some are just hitching on the anti-vax message, some are protest votes, ...), that seems implausibly high. At least, there's some dispute in the sources as to whether this is really vote splitting (again, this is a perennial issue of FPTP), or whether many of these people would just not have voted for either of the top two parties anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, I was just giving an example of RS coverage pointing to the PPC potentially being a spoiler - any discussion of spoilers is inherently dealing with counterfactuals. I think it's clear that there's a significant amount of coverage on the PPC spoiling various seats for the Conservatives. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  RandomCanadian, can you point to any policy or guideline that says that or alternatively any reason why we should reject existing policies or guidelines? TFD (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think there's a formal requirement for Canadian elections; I know that it is de facto enforced pretty much across the board (ex. for a US election article where IAR was invoked) - I've given a link earlier, can't be bothered to start looking for it now. Given that this consensus appears to hold here (many people are opposing on those grounds); then the alternative route is to show that despite not winning any seats and gaining only a small amount of the nationwide vote, and not having been invited to any debates, the PPC has had a significant impact on this election. As far as I see, based on the sources I see, that is at best "disputed" or "disputable"; at worst the vote for the PPC is not a sign of that party's impact but merely of a wider global trend in the rise of populism and far-right politics. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The latest RfC was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 12#RfC on 5% threshold:

Result: The standard for inclusion in the infobox of U.S. election articles is:

• A candidate must receive 5% of the vote.
• If only one candidate meets the threshold, then the second-place contender should be included.

The second criterion was added for the 2016 presidential election in D.C., where the Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, failed to receive 5% of the vote. (He got 4.09%.)

There is no reason to consider that this decision should extend to other countries. In the 2019 Greek legislative election for example two of the parties in the info-box received less than 5% of the vote. While they received seats, that was not part of the criteria in the U.S. election RfC, since only the top candidate wins any electors. Clearly the U.S. is an outlier in elections, since it has a two party system, while most countries such as Canada have multi-party systems.

In the absence of a specific policy or guideline, we have to rely on general ones, such as Balancing aspects and Selection criteria, which direct us to follow the lead of reliable sources, which include the PPC.

While you may be right that the the PPC's support is a reflection of a global trend toward the extreme right, that may be a reason why mainstream sources include the PPC in their summaries of vote counts.

TFD (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

One of the last electoral systems I'd want to take any cues from is the American one. And no, we don't have to rely on general guidelines beyond those use on the Canadian articles. Pointing toward world political trends and nonapplicable RfCs serves only to muddy the issue. Citing media coverage much the same as the PPC received in 2019 when they only drew 1.7% of the vote is also not a strong argument. Media love anything unusual that draws attention, which is why the Rhinoceros Party and Animal Protection Party, with less than 9K votes between them, both received far more media coverage than the Free Party, with 47K. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

IOW you are arguing that Wikipedia policy and guidelines are wrong and Wikipedia editors are better qualified to determine what is important than the CBC. I don't want to argue with you about your conclusions, but believe that the best place to address the failings of policies and guidelines is in the pages devoted to them, rather than in individual articles. If editors agree to follow content policy and guidelines, we could avoid most talk page discussion.

Incidentally, I do not remember mainstream media including Rhinoceros etc. in their election summaries, except perhaps grouped under "Other." Can you provide any examples where they did this?

TFD (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I am arguing that citing the media attention received by the PPC this time as proof of their importance is disproven by the same attention in the previous election still resulting in less than 2% of the vote. If people want to cite RfCs on other pages as justification for ignoring page consensus then such RfCs should be linked to here. Editors can't follow policies they aren't informed of. As with citing WP: policies, actually reading them sometimes shows the justification exists only in the mind of the person claiming they apply.

I do remember the media (mainstream media is a term often carrying codeword significance among certain elements with a fact-averse worldview) publishing articles about the Rhinos and the Animal Protection Party. It didn't make them major parties. Just as when the Green Party was still looking for its first elected member, media coverage does not a major party make.

Let's stop wasting time not convincing each other. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Mainstream media do not include the Rhinoceros Party etc. in their summaries of voting results, which is why they should not be included here. It's ironic that you accuse other editors of not reading policies when you accused other editors of having a conflict of interest, even linking to the the guideline, then admitted that you had not actually read it.[11] Anyway, your assertion that the weight provided by the only reliable secondary sources available should be ignored is clearly against policy. (I suggest you read it.) TFD (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Earl Andrew After consideration, I would say that meeting the (current) criteria for next election's debates is not sufficient as a criterion at this time. If the PPC actually gets an invitation next election, there would be justification for adding them retroactively to this article. However, parties built around a single strong personality have a tendency to implode, so there's a reasonable chance the party won't be around next election. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

All right-wing extremist parties are built around a single strong personality. I don't know of any cases where they collapsed because a leader died, except when that coincided with the destruction of their regimes, as in Germany and Italy. TFD (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I would actually disagree: The Reform Party participated in the 1988 Canadian federal election (winning no seats), and were in the debates of the 1993 Canadian federal election. The Reform Party is not in the 1988 infobox, despite being in the 1993 debates. If the PPC makes next election's debates, I don't think that means they should be retroactively added to this year's info box. Saxones288 (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

TBH, this constant push to include Bernier & the PPC into the infobox, is annoying & (via attempts at moving the goal posts/changing the criteria for inclusion) heading into disruptive territory. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• When people said 5% was the threshhold, how many significant digits did 5% have? NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think it was an absolute "at least 5% of votes" (as in any actually proportional election where there is a threshold), but of course since this is an edge case WP:NOTBURO applies so it's down to individual judgement and what can be seen in sources, and not everybody agrees. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• IF we don't hold the 5% or 1-seat inclusion criteria here? the ramifications will spread out across international elections & not just parliamentary elections. Every four years, the Libertarians are pushing to get their prez & vice prez nominees, into the US presidential election infobox, for example. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  There are no "5% or 1-seat inclusion criteria." if you think there should be, then go to the Village Pump and get a new policy or guideline. In the meantime, we are supposed to follow existing guidelines and not use talk page discussions for challenging them. Alternatively, you can bring your arguements to CBC, CTV, Global and other major Canadian news sources and tell them to remove the PPC from their lists of party results and I will gladly agree to remove them. TFD (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Please give us links to the existing guidelines you repeatedly cite. We cannot be sure they actually apply here if we cannot read the situations for which they were developed. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I gave the links above:

• Selection critera: "When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself if any of the following are true: Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?"
• Due and undue weight: "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: "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."

• Ahunt, would you mind checking these to see if the non-excerpted versions actually apply here? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Mainstream media such as CBC, Global News and CTV include the PPC in their lists of seat and voting results.

References

TFD (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• The USA elections have a formal consensus on the matter; here if it exists it is informal, and obviously subject to an application of WP:NOTBURO. People going down the slippery slope about US minority parties are not particularly convincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that we need a formal consensus to be proposed and adopted here. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait the few hours for the last validated results to come in, then we can state all the major facts and numbers in the RfC so everyone has the same basic info to work from. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In preparation for the RfC, let's figure out the salient arguments to mention:

• Existing policy consensus (or near-consensus) cited by some page editors: 1+ seat or 5% of popular vote (the existence of this consensus has been questioned)
  • exact percentage PPC got; two decimal places seems appropriate, since that's what we list in the infobox and summary
• 4% this time is a cited criterion for the leaders' debates next election
• PPC's coverage in reputable Canadian media, both pro and con
  • CBC, CTV, and others included PPC in their articles about major parties and their election night trackers

* Other countries' articles have differing standards

• • Some adapt readily to the Canadian system, some do not
  • Editors' feelings on the appropriateness to this article vary
• Some Wikipedia policies have been cited but disputes over the meaning of WP policies are frequent here and elsewhere
• Wikipedia policies can be ignored if they're incompatible with producing a good article

The last two are easily left out. Did I miss any? Brevity, please, not discussion. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

EDIT - parts in bold added upon reflection

Wikipedia:Requests for comment says that questions should be neutral and brief. While not binding, Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment##Neutrality represents common practice among many experienced editors. Arguments are best avoided unless you are able to present them in such a way that no one could guess which side you took. I would note also that there is no "existing policy by page editors." Page editors are not able to develop policy, but must rely on existing policy when voting on RfCs. Furthermore, while several RfCs in 2019 concluded that Bernier should not be included and one recent RfC determined he should be, no RfC has determined any threshold for inclusion. Even if they had, RfCs on not binding on future RfCs. Also, while you say there have been disputes over the meaning of WP policies, i haven't seen any on this talk page. Mostly editors have talked about what they think should be included without any reference to policy. TFD (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

That lacked brevity and was discussion. Every point listed has been cited by various contributing editors on this talk page, most repeatedly, and neutral presentation was implicit.

Anyone got anything useful? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

What about: Giving attention to the PPC may help them obtain more votes in the next election? TFD (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't think of a good reason to include that. It's like throwing caltrops in the path of neutrality and expecting them not to influence anyone's course. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This RFC is still in progress. Therefore, per WP:STATUSQUO, I deleted Bernier & the PPC from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The status quo, when this RfC was opened, and for the past few days before that, was including the PPC. Given that, I've reverted your removal until the RfC is closed. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, the status quo is exclude, when considering the history of this particular article. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The previous RfC established temporary consensus to include, which I think is enough to make that the status quo. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Temporary consensus to include, if they stayed at or above 5%. They haven't. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

That's not what the essay says and in any case it's a non-binding essay, not a policy or guideline. Basically the essay says that if you make a change and it is reverted, then discuss before edit-warring. In this case you made a change, it was reverted, and the essay suggests you discuss rather than edit-warring. TFD (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Frustrating enough, that both of you are pro-inclusion on this topic (via objecting to the 5% inclusion criteria), but that's your choice. That you're going to tag-team (apparently) to keep Bernier/PPC in the infobox? I'll remember that latter bit. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You made an edit to the page that didn't have consensus, I reverted, you re-instated, someone else reverted. The discussion seeking consensus for the change you proposed is already ongoing. If you thought the status quo was exclusion, the time to remove them was when the RfC started, not a week after. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

If you read the closure, it says that "a separate discussion may be started if, after counting mail ballots, the PPC falls below the 5% threshold". This cannot be construed as meaning that if the PPC went below 5%, it should have been removed/hidden automatically; what it simply meant that if the condition of <5% of votes was met (it was), we could start a discussion to decide the fate of PPC in the article, following which we could hide/delete PPC.

There may be some chance for a no-consensus closure here, so WP:NOCON (part of a policy) says that In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. In this case, I would be slightly more inclined towards the interpretation of GoodDay in that the status quo is indeed the non-inclusion of PPC (right or wrong) because the temporary inclusion was conditional on achieving 5% and could be challenged. Status quo assumes something is constant and not really subject to change, which is not the case with the inclusion of PPC here.

However, I ask everyone not to make any sweeping changes to the article (including deletion/hiding of PPC throughout) until the RfC is concluded, because doing so may provoke a revert war; moreover, it seems that the closure will rather be that of rough consensus. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, by having Bernier/PPC in the infobox. It may cause incoming editors to assume that he & the party's inclusion was established before the federal election was held. An assumption that may 'sway' incoming editors positions on the topic. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they're included, we'll have to have hidden text to explain to new editors why the status quo exists; we can include a note that the PPC wasn't in before the election due to their lesser performance in 2019. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Did I correctly understand your message? Did you really say you'll remember them "tag-teaming", implying you'll get revenge or something like that? Wiki is not a battleground and I'm sure you know that as you are an experienced editor. You're already been warned by an admin recently on civility issues. Please change your behaviour. Cable10291 (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible loss of my support in future content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the temporary RfC still applies, prematurely though it was imposed. Even if it weren't, the process used has been to hide the PPC text, not delete it outright. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:01, 2 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.

• Note: A discussion here, might have an effect on the the recently closed (above) RFC. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

POV tag on Campaign section

I added the POV tag on this sectionbecause the whole section focuses on bizarre incidents and statements from each parties. The section is currently badly failing WP:DUE. A concise summary of notable analyses of each party's campaigns needs to be written instead. Mottezen (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Taking a look at a similar section in 2019 United Kingdom general election, I can see the logic of your argument. Looking away from the trivia and bald assertions would be welcome, but will take some work to achieve.Raellerby (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Updates for provincial opinion poll tracking charts

I found several useful charts in fr:Liste de sondages sur les élections fédérales canadiennes de 2021 showing how the numbers moved during the course of the campaign in several key provinces. Unfortunately, only the Quebec chart is complete, the Ontario one is almost done, and the ones for Alberta and BC stopped in mid-August. Is anyone in a position to look at and update them accordingly? Considering the reports about how the situation swung dramatically in the campaign's last month, it would be helpful to show it all visually. Raellerby (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Judicial recounts

I think it make more sense to list the recounts by the date they occurred. The fact the terminated ones came after the those that were completed seems relevant. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

What format do you propose? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The current presentation of ridings in alphabetical order looks OK to me.Raellerby (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

It's actually not in alphabetical order, since it lists Davenport before Châteauguay—Lacolle. Nor is it alphabetical by province, since a Quebec riding is listed before Davenport (Ontario). — Kawnhr (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the ridings are sorted by vote total of the initial winner. I think simple chronological order by recount, then alphabetical by riding works better. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Summary results position

I know at one point the Full results section began below the disc graph of Summary results. That looked much better than what's there now. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It looked better because there was also a bar graph that pushed the Full results section lower. But I removed the bar graph because they should never be used as they do not display reliably, depending on screen and device, and can thus be misleading. They've consequently been removed in most cases. Someone needs to remove the bar graphs from all the previous federal and provincial election articles. Bondegezou (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problem of how ugly it currently looks. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't, no. Why don't you trying moving the disc graph up, down or to the side? Bondegezou (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Section break has been added.Raellerby (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Bolding

I am planning about bolding the number of seats liberal party has, including popular vote by conservative party and percentage. Aca1291 (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This always gets reverted because it's perceived as violating neutrality. Thanks for mentioning it first, though. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Aca1291 (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Blanchet's photo

File:YFB 2021 (cropped).jpg

Left Blanchet in 2009 (currently used); right in 2021 (uncropped version currently used in his article.

Which photo of Yves-François Blanchet should we use for this article?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The 2021 image should be used. It's much closer to Blanchet's age (and appearance) at the time of the election. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I will change it here as well.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2022 (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:

• YFB 2021 (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Small change to PPC's listed ideologies under political parties and standings

I made a small change from "Conservatism" to "Libertarian Conservatism", to allow differentiation between the CPC and PPC. This is in agreement with the PPC article's listed ideologies of Right-Libertarianism and Conservatism as a combination of the two, without making their cell too large in the chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchfulRelic91 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Listing Conservatives as Center-Right exclusively

Currently on the article the Conservatives are listed as Center-right/right. Erin O'Toole was known for being one of the most moderate Conservative party leaders in recent memory, while Trudeau has been inching towards the left. It's not accurate to call the 2021 election's conservative party right wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.125.81 (talk • contribs)

The positions are not listed according to American ideas of right and left. The platform in a single election does not completely change where a party falls on the spectrum.

The last two Progressive Conservative Prime Ministers would be considered left-wing by the standards of today's party. Young Justin would be right-wing by the standards of his father's government. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The national parties are probably more accurately described as opportunistic rather than ideological these days. Is it even worth attempting to put any of them on a left-to-right spectrum?Raellerby (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The same could be said of the last few decades. I'd think of their place on the spectrum representing what they would and wouldn't be willing to do should opportunity arise. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The political positions for the parties listed on this page are meant to match what's listed on the party's individual page — Conservative Party of Canada lists them as "centre-right to right wing", so this page does too. There's a few reasons for this, but probably the biggest one is that the political position is fairly contentious over on that page, and nobody wants to have those debates on every single election. O'Toole's moderation is definitely notable, but I think it can be addressed in prose (and would even be better that way). — Kawnhr (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the field as too complex and disputed for easy categorization. The same applies to the ideology field. TFD (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It only seems to be a problem for IP accounts who show a distinct lack of understanding of what's considered centrist. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you define it? TFD (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I suspect I can do a better job than someone whose profile states something as historically ignorant as "Left-wing and right-wing are meaningless terms created by the Left in order to discredit the Right." G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Bernier in the infobox

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.

---

To User:MikkelJSmith2 about special:diff/926997677 I had an idea I would like some feedback on.

I notice some of the candidates have notes next to them:

• Scheer "Announced his resignation on December 12, 2019; will continue to lead the party until a leadership election is held at an undetermined date."
• Roberts "Interim leader until October 4, 2020; former leader Elizabeth May remains the party's parliamentary leader."

What if we simply display Bernier with a note about him having lost his seat? Perhaps we could gray out Bernier's profile somehow with a note explaining how he's coming into this election holding 0 seats just like the Greens did in the 42nd election when they were allowed to be listed?

In Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Political_parties_and_politicians_in_Canada#December_followup I replied to your Nov 20 post saying I ignored you (I didn't) and now you seem to be ignoring my Dec 2 post.

Let's leave them in until the election finishes. If they don't win any seats, we'll get rid of them. Good Compromise? Olivia comet (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There are lots of parties that have no seats, why would we include this one? At the present time there is no indication that they are likely to win any seats when the next election is called. - Ahunt (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt, I'm not really going to get into this again. There was no consensus last time on new rules for infoboxes and it was a rather recent discussion. The only consensus the majority came to there was that Bernier shouldn't be in the infobox. MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahunt the same reason we included the Greens in 2009 leading up to the 41st election: because they held a seat going into the preceding (40th) election in 2008, and played a prominent role in that election despite losing their seat in it, making them someone to watch in the next one. That was indication enough to "leave them in until the election finishes" as a wise user suggested our policy be. We should remove them if they don't win a seat like the Green Party did in 2011.

User:MikkelJSmith2 I don't think enough voices have weighed in to say there is any sort of consensus here, and our consensus should be on the basis of setting overall policies, not cherrypicking which parties to exclude. The commented reason was not adequate, and it's clear that users are making up rules on the fly to keep them out once the hypocrisy of having kept the Greens in during 2009 but keeping the PPC out in 2019 was highlighted.

Bkissin'11 agrees with me even if Bkissin'19 has decided to play by 2 sets of rules, so there's no consensus. If you want an average opinion, then setting the mark at 1.5% is a good compromise between setting it at 3% and setting it at sub-1% as indicated by the % of popular vote a seat represents when comparing significance.

If we are to exclude PPC then we should explain specifically why they're out (% if necessary) yet Greens were in, unless we want to make it seem like Wikipedia will rewrite rules to exclude new parties when Wikipedia (in fact, some of the very same Wikipedians) did not apply those rules a decade ago to the Green Party before they won a seat. Olivia comet (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You really need to drop this. You are repeating the same argument time and time again and keep trying to insert the 'debate' (a generous phrasing, since it's only you opposed) into the page itself— I believe this is the third time you've inserted your grievances into the commented out code?— and it's not getting anywhere and no other editor is interested in continuing this just because you cannot accept "no" for an answer. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no guarantee that the People's Party will still exist, by the time of this federal election. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, we are well past WP:DEADHORSE here, time to drop it. No one agrees with you and you are starting to look WP:PAID here. Regardless of what may have been done a decade ago in other articles, there is a solid consensus to not do this here and now. - Ahunt (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt, pretty much. I don't even know why I'm singled out here. Do I sound condescending? Sorry if that's the case, that wasn't my intention. I assumed good faith and replied to the argument on the original page Wikiproject page, but this is pushing it like you said. There is now a discussion on this on three different pages and the original user seems to be ignoring some of the points that were made by several users. That and we didn't reach consensus like I mentioned previously. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I do try to WP:AGF, but the voracity with which this dead horse is being beaten makes me think it is all a WP:COI issue. We have a consensus to not include the PPC in the infobox or elsewhere and treat them as any other party with no elected MPs. - Ahunt (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt, yeah, we all assumed good faith, originally, but this has been pushed a lot. MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:25, 24 December 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.

Standards for inclusion 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.

---

Presently I see this is commented out...

because they do not have a seat in Parliament.

In the event there is a floor crossing, by-election,

or they win a seat in the 44th election

then we can add them

The best basis of comparison I can think of would be the Green Party in past elections...

• 2006 Canadian federal election does NOT include them (presumably 0 seats coming in, 0 seats going out)
  • ex-Liberal Blair Wilson joined on 30 August 2008 becomes their first MP
• 2008 Canadian federal election includes them
  • Wilson loses seat, 1>0 here
• 2011 Canadian federal election includes them
  • they went from 0>1 seats here when Elizabeth May was elected to represent Saanich—Gulf Islands.
  • ex-NDP Bruce Hyer joined on 13 Dec 2013
• 2015 Canadian federal election includes them (went from 2>1 seats here)
  • May kept her seat, Hyer lost his

This is where I can see a double-standard present. We can see on 30 April 2011 that Elizabeth May and the Green Party ALREADY had a spot in the template, despite having 0 seats.

This seems like a double standard to me. Wikipedia already influenced the 2011 election in favor of the Green Party by listing them as candidates (thus raising awareness of them for voters) prior to the conclusion of the election, when they held no seats.

In all fairness, that same standard for inclusion should apply to the PPC. They should not need to hold an active seat in parliament anymore to be listed, because the Greens were still listed in the 2011 election even after they lost their seat in the 2008 election.

Any rebuttal? Olivia comet (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia already influenced the 2011 election in favor of the Green Party by listing them as candidates (thus raising awareness of them for voters) prior to the conclusion of the election..." Really? Ref for that claim, please. - Ahunt (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems like common sense to me Ahunt, but we can phrase that "potentially influenced" if you like. Wikipedia was at least moderately popular in 2011, and if the Greens hadn't been listed on the 2011 election article in the days leading up to election, it seems likely they they would have been considered less relevant. Gary_Lunn#Electoral_record says that in 2011 May won her seat by less than 11%, around 46% compared to 35% for the PCs. Wikipedia refusing to list the Greens prior to the election like it appears to be doing now for the PPC could have prevented May from getting that seat. Olivia comet (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

So you have no evidence that Wikipedia influenced even one person to vote for the Green Party, then? Not even the opinion of any reliable source that it might have influenced even one vote? I think you need to strike that claim unless you have some proof, so we can have a rational debate about this and not a debate based upon hyperbole and conjecture.

That said I agree that we should have a consistent standard here for which parties we include and which ones we do not include. You might ague that the PPC had a (although not elected in that capacity) seat and lost it and thus should be included in the 44th election article. But what if they fail to gain a seat in the 44th, do we include them in the 45th or just let it slide at that point? Perhaps you need to propose an inclusion criteria? - Ahunt (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt, it is never possible to actually prove what people are thinking when they vote. If you want to argue that Wikipedia wasn't widespread enough in 2011 to influence elections, the burden of proof is yours, because it's common sense that it does. The only question is to what degree.

I can tell you from personal experience: in past elections, I have checked the Wikipedia article about the elections, and immediately notice the names/faces/parties listed associated with it, and then read about them. If a name/face/party is not prominently displayed, that is less exposure for them.

The choice to prematurely display May and the Greens in the 2011 election article from 2009-2011 would not reasonably have had no impact on elevating people's awareness of who she is. You don't need to have a "reliable source" spell that out for you.

If the PPC doesn't hold a seat going into (or coming out of) the 44th/2023 election then there would not be precedent found in the 2011 election for including them in the 45th/2027 election.

I've proposed an amendment to the criteria at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada as you've suggested. Olivia comet (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that is an improbably fanciful claim that listing Elisabeth May's name in a Wikipedia article got her an election victory by 11% of the vote in her riding. But, yes, let's move this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada for a general discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 03:32, 10 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2023

Parties and Standings > Conservative > "Conservative"

"Conservative" should be replaced with "Conservatism" in disagreement with a previous edit, it is a word and should be replaced to match the form of "Liberalism" above. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism) Elvisisking (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Results by province

The new table is claimed to provide more information but it does not give each province's total seats and is much more difficult to read than the old table.

I say return to the old table as of Jan 22, 2023.

The only thing I would add is the number of overall votes in each province to give idea of which provinces are most important. if some one wants to know how party vote shares have changed they themselves can compare to the table for the last election. 68.150.200.116 (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding total votes is reasonable. Looking up total voters is a lot less work than looking up swings in party vote share, though. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Percentages and swings contain more revealing information than raw vote totals, as has been demonstrated in the articles concerning the UK elections. Raw votes tend to cloud the issue.Raellerby (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of total voter turnout for each province rather than a breakdown of the raw numbers. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I should also point out that this table draws from some work done in Résultats détaillés des élections générales québécoises de 2022 that was very enlightening in showing regional differences arising from the 2022 Quebec general election. I just flipped the orientation to enable the addition of seat numbers and the pointing out of significant swings, to give a broader overview of the results.Raellerby (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

But where are total seats per province? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.200.116 (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Already mentioned in Results breakdown of the 2021 Canadian federal election.Raellerby (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The provincial table seems to refer to the Conservatives as PC, which is incorrect. PC was the old Progressive Conservative party. The abbreviation should be CPC or Con. 142.163.87.0 (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks for catching that. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)