Talk:Results of the 2021 Canadian federal election by riding

Merger proposal

I'm proposing that Candidates of the 44th Canadian federal election be merged into Candidates for the 44th Canadian federal election. Both pages contain virtually the exact same amount of information, and the only thing that is virtually differing from the two is the title, of which the latter title seems more fitting. Fulserish (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the merger but Candidates of the 44th Canadian federal election feels more correct as a title. Once the writ dropped we'd have to change "Candidates for" to "Candidates of", anyway. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I considered keeping the information on the two pages matched by decided against it because I prefer the dmy format and Wikipedia policy is that the first edit sets what's used for Canadian pages. I think I've combined the best features of both pages here. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Should definitely be merged. "of the" is the better title choice. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done by above editors, am removing merge tags, and redirecting the "for" article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Regions

The regional groupings of Québec ridings don't match the 2011, 2015, or 2019 election pages. The next redistribution hasn't even begun and may not be in place before the election. Anyone know what's going on with this? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Resorted things here to bring it into line. Turned out to be only four regions that needed work. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

People listed when they are NOT official candidates

I removed two people: 1) Paul Taylor. He Shouldn't of been listed because the nomination is on April 8. Thus as of right now March 31, he isn't the "official" candidate. 2) Min Sook Lee is not seeking the nomination. A strikethrough line isn't enough, Min should of been removed.

Until the respective riding associations make an official candidate...they shouldn't be listed on the charts. Even if let's say 3 people are running, until one of them is declared the official candidate...they shouldn't be listed.

MiroslavGlavic (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed names of non-offical candidatates

I have removed names of candidates running for nomination. This page is supposed to be a list of nominated candidates. If let's say 5 people are running for nomination...their names shouldn't be listed, only nomination winner. Otherwise it is just for political juice. This list should be politically neutral.

MiroslavGlavic (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I reverted your edits. You need to have a consensus before doing something that drastic. Every election we list the candidates who are running for the nomination, and removing the candidates goes against long standing precedent. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

They are not candidates for the riding until they get nominated as candidate for the riding. We shouldn't be putting people on the list of candidates who are not candidates. Specially one that dropped out. Min Sook Lee from Toronto Centre or Danforth. Not running yet Min's name is still there, just striked out. The wiki should be neutral, not give marketing points for possible candidates. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

No one here supports your view point, so I will be reverting all of your destructive edits to this page, as you have made no effort to come to a consensus before making your edits. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding my voice in support of Earl Andrew and AOC4Prez's thoughts too, nomination contestants have always been listed and they are marked distinctly to indicate they have not yet been nominated. As long as they are sourced properly this isn't an issue. Canadianpoliticalwatcher (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, readers should be informed of the candidates for nomination and the nomination's date, and as long as they're indicated in italic I don't see why would there be a problem with it. AOC4Prez (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Contestants are listed because the nomination contests are part of the candidate selection process and interesting to some readers. This does not violate neutrality unless we start deliberately ignoring contests because of the particular party involved. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It is fine to list nomination contestants as long as we list all contestants, and note in some way that they have not yet been confirmed (eg. by putting them in italics, though I think technically italics is reserved for party leaders).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Bold for party leaders. When I remember to add it. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. I was remembering other legends on other tables in other articles, where Premiers/PMs and Ministers were bold and leaders italic.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I remember how well that worked on the last New Brunswick election. Nearly half the incumbents had bold text. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I am not in a rush to go back to that system.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Nonimation candidates and official candidates are two different things.

If we are going to put nomination dates, at least link to source of those nominations occuring. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

New nominations and changes to add

Now up to date. G. Timothy Walton G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add Cheryl Hardcastle, Larisa Julius and Carol Royer who have been acclaimed as the NDP nominees for Windsor-Tecumseh, Scarborough-Agincourt and Etobicoke North respectively during the past days and weeks. AOC4Prez (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

There has been at least one case of a supposedly nominated candidate turning out to still be awaiting a nomination meeting. I'll wait until there's something citable from now on. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Please rectify Alex Ruff's political affiliation in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound (CPC instead of LPC) AOC4Prez (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

David Yurdiga is not running again for the Conservatives in Fort McMurray-Cold Lake. AOC4Prez (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

He's on their candidate page. I'll look for a reference first. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The CPC candidate for Longueuil-Charles-LeMoyne is named Isabelle Lalonde, not Lalonde Isabelle. AOC4Prez (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I figured that to be the case but I've been wrong before. The party candidate page is what's followed here, and I can't find anything within the last month on Google that names her at all. Check out the PPC candidate in St. Albert-Edmonton that looks like the names are reversed but aren't; last election (before she withdrew) the party and Elections Canada were disagreeing on which name came first.

Please start a new section at the bottom of the page with your next submission; it'll save me some effort finding what's new. Thanks. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

François Lapointe will be the LPC candidate for Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. Source : https://twitter.com/ICILouisBlouin/status/1427350917008007169?s=19 AOC4Prez (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Joan Gottman will be the NDP candidate for Salaberry-Suroît. Source : https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10159261928556131&id=614401130 AOC4Prez (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The NDP candidate for Pierre-Boucher-Les Patriotes-Verchères is named Martin Leprohon and not Mertin. AOC4Prez (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination meetings - providing source

Some of you are putting nomination dates. Yet absolutely no source, link to your source. PLEASE. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add Beisan Zubi who has been acclaimed as the NDP candidate in Kitchener Centre in tonight's nomination meeting. AOC4Prez (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Striked out candidates should be removed

They are not running, dropped out, did not win the nomination. Yet they are still listed. Min Sook Lee for Toronto Centre or Danforth...Not running, yet Min was just striked out, not removed. How come?

MiroslavGlavic (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Strikeout means they were announced as contestants but later withdrew. That markup is so that people don't see older articles and add them back to the page. As you would know if you'd read the legend that precedes the list of candidates.

At this point your edits that ignore page consensus cannot be considered in good faith. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

New markup for withdrawn/rejected contestants

It turns out using strikethrough <s> is against the Wikipedia manual of style because the markup is ignored by some screen readers. I've asked the editor who pointed this out if he can think of a suitable replacement but for now it looks like hidden text might have to be used. Can anyone suggest a better replacement than just hiding the text? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

If their only purpose is so that editors don't try adding entries based on old sources, would just using hidden text suffice? -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Simplest might be best. Maybe using allcaps would make it harder for people to miss the hidden text when they make additions. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

MoS province ordering

Yeah, I rarely consult the MoS. But Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#Content organization seems to be very clear about how this article should be organized: alphabetically by province. Myself, I use customary geographic order for all my personal projects, but I see why it's unclear to Wikipedia's general audience.

I am just going to go ahead and reorder the article myself. If you notice the massive change, that's why.

P.S. Hello from CH—G. Awmcphee (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the change because previous articles in the series all use geographical ordering, which approximates the Representation Order. I think we can justify overriding the MOS in this instance, if the cited section even applies. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

​​ What is the justification exactly for not following WP:MOSCAN? But if we don't follow alphabetical order as prescribed in the Manual of Style, then why are we not following the order of provinces used by Elections Canada when it reports results? I set out the facts at WT:CANADA. Mathew5000 (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

​ I saw that; the arguments seemed unworthy of a response. Do we use the eastern or western border to determine which province is further east?

The justification for ignoring WP:MOSCAN is that the other articles in this series all generally match the Elections Canada order and it's easier to relate to than jumping about the country by alphabetical order. Whether the orders are organised by province/territory is arguable given that six provinces are broken into sections that aren't ordered alphabetically but broadly by geography. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what "arguments" you're talkiing about. As for previous articles in this series, at least the ones I've looked at (Results of the 2019 Canadian federal election by riding and Results of the 2015 Canadian federal election by riding), put the provinces in a different order than the 2021 article. Mathew5000 (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Every article from at least 2000 put PEI before Nova Scotia, yet the maps when they appear have Nova Scotia as region number 2 and PEI as region number 3. So another editor swapped the order in this article to match the map numbering. I've made a couple of tries to get the map changed but gotten no response. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Preferred sources

I think this one should be obvious - the political party is the most trustworthy source of who their candidates are. Candidates and EDAs are also better than media.

Julie Lemieux in Beauport–Limoilou is a perfect example. Some reporter(s) reported a rumour as fact and she had to correct it publicly. There are other cases but this is the most mainstream one this time around. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

In the Lemieux example, I think might be overgeneralizing that one example means any and all news outlets are unreliable or less than the party website. If a person is in doubt of the information in the citation, then contest it, but that isn't what's happening. The citation is just there to verify the information added and they are reliable sources. The news outlets can also be give more information and be more neutral than a party release are usually how great the candidate is or soliciting donations. I'm not stating that happens in all situations, but factors to consider. Also it's just two citations so I don't want to overgeneralize. Nothing was wrong in the news story used regardless if another time a totally different news outlet was incorrect. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

In both articles, they quote the candidates themselves so matches the idea of the candidate being the most trustworthy. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Another reason for using party sources is to keep the number of citations low. I checked just now and there are 454 unique source citations. The Liberal candidate page has 219 candidates, the Conservative Facebook album 131, the PPC 164 - assuming that half of them are changed to what you consider a source with more information, that's another 257 unique citations, just so that people don't have to Google information that takes seconds to find. This does not seem reasonable to me.

Other editors' opinions? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, this may be overgeneralizing. This isn't assumptions on what might happen or not happen, but a discussion over the reverts of two citations. It's just two. I'm not trying to add a unique citation for any and all candidates, just two which already had unique citations to the party website so the amount of citations, if that's an issue, are unaffected by this single edit. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This is based on several elections' worth of editing experience and following some of the debacles long before Wikipedia existed, not overgeneralising from one or two examples. I can do a list of some of the issues that have resulted in a media-announced candidate being refused by the party. I'm time-crunched for the next few hours, though. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This is about this specific edit of the citing the Windsor Star and Castanet articles which quote the candidates directly and also aren't about rumours or speculation. Again other times doesn't mean all the time. A personally preferred sourcing doesn't make these specific sources wrong. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

No. This is about overall methodology of the page. Readers should be able to tell at a glance that the party has confirmed a candidate, not the EDA, not a local meeting, not some reporter who got a hot tip. Citing the party pages is the surest way to do this.

Since there's such a clash of priorities here, how about leaving the party confirmation in place and adding a second citation for the non-party media source? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The headlines both confirm they are the nominees so that's a mute point. It's literally Tim Krupa acclaimed as Liberal candidate in Kelowna-Lake Country. A methodology for the entire page isn't the issue I was discussing. The party isn't confirming, it's just a notice to the media. Either way, I'm not denying never use them, but I added two citations which had more information than the one line from the party website. Neither of the citations are ambiguous or untrustworthy or whatever other complains might be leveled against a total different source. It might be a personal preference, but c'mon, it's wiki. Anybody should be able to make good faith edits and the complains made so far haven't dealt directly with these two citations. Cladeal832 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

[running out of indent room] "The party isn't confirming, it's just a notice to the media." Yes, the party is confirming. The language on the party notice is "I'm pleased to share that Tim Krupa has been acclaimed as the Liberal Candidate for Kelowna—Lake Country in the next federal election, [...]" So, the party has confirmed it; it has happened that he's the candidate, it's a done deal, it's not something to notify the media that the media can declare him the candidate.

Good faith is not the same thing as deleting official-source information because something unofficial has fluff. Neutrality in sources is not part of WP:NPOV, which is only supposed to apply to articles and editors when feasible. It is absurd that somebody would think a page about candidates should ignore official party releases in favour of third-party sources. Put in third-party sources if you insist but don't delete the official ones because fluff somehow outweighs readers being able to tell at a glance that the party has confirmed a candidate. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This is off-base critique. I'm not saying the media declaring X or Y, but simply verifying the information in this article. Again, we're not discussing the two citations reverted and since they provide more information and neutral. The point made above doesn't apply since press articles are used all throughout this article. The press isn't third-parties. The press isn't unofficial. The press isn't fluff. The press isn't unneutral while the party and certainly candidates themselves can and often are not neutral. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Flaws in your argument, in order:

* Press articles appear as citations where there's no party source, not as an alternative.

* "The press isn't third-parties. The press isn't unofficial." Pretty much by the definition of both terms, they are.

* The parties and candidates are not Wikipedia editors. They're not supposed to be neutral. Again, sources aren't required to be neutral in their viewpoint.

Irony and satiric exaggeration have been wasted in making my points. Official party sources will remain as citations when the party has issued confirmations of candidates. Add more if you want to. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Alternative by definition must be as good otherwise it wouldn't be used at all. It's not what I think is best. The standard is information provided verifiable. I don't want to play definition games or whack-a-mole where a new rational presented each time. I don't want to created grand rules to use in any and all situations. If I add these two sources, will you keep reverting it? Cladeal832 (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Strange definitions of words you have. Alternative does not necessarily mean "as good", it just means can be used; it might well be inferior. You might wish to look up the term connotation.

If you add these two sources, I'll make sure the official sources are also there. Which is a different way of phrasing what I offered as a solution earlier. More than once. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

does not necessarily is a weird way of starting a definition, but we could trade this odd game of definitions all day. Again, in this exact situation, the alternative is just as good. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not. The media are not political parties. Readers shouldn't have to hunt down the most pertinent information, which is whether the party has declared somebody their candidate. In this exact situation, your method obscures the most important datum. That will not change no matter how you abuse the English language. Obscuring the most pertinent information is not editing in good faith. You might look further up the Talk page for MiroslavGlavic's attempts to ignore what other page editors are satisfied with; that might give you some understanding that what one editor thinks of as good-faith editing isn't always so.

This is not productive and you're not going to badger me into pretending you are right. A workable compromise has been presented repeatedly. That is the best you'll get. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not for you to declare this unproductive since you don't want to engage and I'm not badgering you into anything, but you outright writing I don't have required comprehension because I don't understand what words mean is just wrong and I wish you wouldn't since it violates the policy on civility Wikipedia:Competence is required#What "Competence is required" does not mean. I know what words mean, I understand your point and I'm just disagreeing with you. Using a citation to a press article isn't obscuring and only you so far defined party websites as the pertinent information. I'm not irate that you're disagreeing with me and only wish for the same. This isn't a method, it was two citations and you haven't argued those articles were wrong, but that sometimes other press article I didn't cite might be wrong. It was a good-faith edit, and you disagreeing because you made-up a policy of your own personal preferences doesn't change that. There was no community consensus on your personal preferences and just ignoring any point again it isn't helpful. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"Using a citation to a press article isn't obscuring [...]" (obscure: "keep from being seen; conceal"). The most important datum about a candidate for the next election is that the party has confirmed their status. You removed the confirmation of that in favour of a media article, which is a third-party source: "relating to a person or group besides the two primarily involved in a situation", in this case the political party and the candidate are the two parties primarily involved in whether someone is a party's declared candidate.

Methodology is "a system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity", something which was in place and satisfactory to the various page editors before you came along. It's something that's been developed over several elections' worth of these articles. That qualifies as a community consensus ("a general agreement").

Definitions from online dictionaries, choosing the appropriate connotation ("an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning"). G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Obscuring is odd choice of words considering again ignoring the point. This isn't who declared a person a candidate in an election [which I think Elections Canada is also involved], but specific citation within this specific article. Just restating your points isn't a definition. I get this is your point of view. I disagree and unsure why bother with the Talk Page if all this will be you repeating restating your point, ignore mine and tell me I'm too dumb to know words mean. The point of citations is just to verify the information. The press articles verified the information which hasn't been contested. I get one editor has personally decided which sources are best [which is odd since at first asked it as question and now it's the absolute rule based on community consensus] and fine and dandy for you. Before you came along is an oddly aggressive and possessive position Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia. It's a wiki so hopefully loads of people will come along and there's no barrier to entry. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"This isn't who declared a person a candidate in an election [which I think Elections Canada is also involved]". Actually, no. The party declares somebody a candidate for them, then registers it with EC once registrations open after the writ drops. Different connotations of the word.

"if all this will be you repeating restating your point, ignore mine". That's what it feels like from this end. Stating "this exact situation" over and over and arguing against commonly understood meanings of words does not constitute establishing a point. It does, however, qualify for WP:Competence is required under "Poor use of the English language can lead to perceived competence problems." This is why I've taken to including definitions of words and terms that shouldn't require such inclusion.

You're rejecting any argument against your preference and dismissing my position by claiming that "one editor has personally decided which sources are best". An incorrect statement since I'm applying methodology that was in place before I started contributing to these articles. Take the last word if you want. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

A contributor can't just unilaterally declare he/she won't respond. Silence can be interpreted as forfeiting of one's position according to guidelines and policy WP:SILENCE. Arguing about connotations or again making it about my competency is a common tactic for users who dislike anybody contributing to an article they care about Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia#How egotistical power users react. It's great you care about this article. Again, arguing I don't understand the commonly understood definition isn't the same thing as me just disagreeing with you.  The press article can only be used when no party website available isn't a  definition, it's a choice you made and already stated you believed to be obvious. The question I brought up was simply verifiability where a press article where the candidate themselves were interviewed being a good and reliable source and ignoring that again and again isn't helpful. That another press article at some point in time might have gotten it wrong somewhere else doesn't negate that. Again if this was community consensus, why even open it up to a discussion in the first place. This is the way I did it before isn't community consensus and copy and pasting that line and then adding words like does not necessarily or connotation or commonly understood before stating your previous position won't change that. I read your case. I've made another case and ignoring it or word games about what words mean rather than countering what I wrote. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

*plonk* G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC) It's a talk page. Try talking rather whatever that was.

My sources are the best.

I disagree because X and Y.

You don't understand what best means.

I get your position and it's not a bad faith position and I haven't stated your dumb for having it and all I ask is the same courtesy. It's about verifying the information within the article. It's not about who declares candidates [which also includes candidates not affiliated with any recognized party]. If a press article is wrong, remove it, but that wasn't the case. In this specific case the press articles had more information such as about the candidates. Party websites can not be neutral with stuff like how great the candidate is or how awful the other candidates are or soliciting donations. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Candidates that are not offical candidates (nomination coming soon)...

Somewhere near the top of the article: Note: Candidates' names are as registered with Elections Canada.

Some of the ridings have John Smith or Jackie Tuffer (nomination meeting on...). I have said this in the past. Since the list is of Candidates registered with Elections Canada...in the example above, both John Smith and Jackie Tuffer are NOT registered with Elections Canada. I call for all the John Smiths and Jackie Tuffers to be removed and only be put when they are official candidates, won their party riding's nominations and be registered candidates with Elections Canada. Otherwise it is just spam. If they are not registered with Elections Canada, then why put that note near the top of the article?

MiroslavGlavic (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple connotations to the word candidate available in the context of this article - candidate can mean the person the party has chosen the person to run under their brand, it can mean an independent who has announced they will be running, and it can mean somebody who has registered with EC as a candidate and will appear on the ballot. Only the third connotation requires registration and those it applies to are masked with an asterisk. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove PPC candidates

@NoWikiNoLife: suggested that this article be consistent with 2021 Canadian federal election. The main point is that we are not listing People's Party positions, etc. there. The main reason for not including them there is that they did not have any members sitting in the house at the time of its dissolution. That makes perfect sense to me. If there is consensus, I could do it with the visual editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. In previous elections the criterion for a party having its own column was that it have candidates in at least 50% of the ridings in a region, whether the party had any elected members or not; it's a policy that predates the existence of the PPC, presumably to save vertical space due to minor parties sometimes having a cluster of candidates in one or more regions. The PPC is already subject to this policy, which is why they don't get a column in any region until they have enough candidates; the number of candidates they have gives the illusion they're being treated differently. I think the suggestion last time was to tiebreak column order based on number of candidates nationwide, which is why the PPC precedes the Mavericks where they both have columns. I'm amenable to dropping the tiebreaker and doing it alphabetically.

Other minor parties getting columns in previous elections, with (number of regions where they got a column):

• 2019 - CHP (3), Communist (1), Maxist-Leninist (2), Rhinos (1), Independent (1)
• 2015 - Libertarian (6), Marxist-Leninist (4), Rhino (2), Independent (1)
• 2011 - CHP (1), Marxist-Leninist (2)

@NoWikiNoLife:'s comments about the treatment of the PPC misses a vital point: the PPC are the largest of the minor parties (by far) but are still a minor party. The policy toward minor parties in the two articles is different. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per policy precedent. The 'other' column would get too unwieldy if all the minor party candidates were in there.-- Earl Andrew - talk 21:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Liberal bias

Brushing aside the fact that they get the first column (which may be justifiable since they are the current government), the issue is that the majority of liberal candidates have links to their own page and if you hover over the link it provides more information about that candidate. This is not true for the other parties. Either remove the links for Liberal candidates or similar links need to be added for the candidates from other parties.

Are you talking about the links to their articles on Wikipedia?

The reason that more of them have such links is that any Canadian MP or MLA/MPP/MNA automatically gets an article on Wikipedia. It's not bias, it's normal methodology for politicians. Most of the other candidates with wikilinks are either former MPs making another run or provincial politicians trying to move up to federal.

And yes, the Liberals get the first column because they had the most seats when the election was called. That, too, is normal Wikipedia methodology. If the party ranking by seats changes, columns get shifted around to match the number of seats in the House of Commons - first place, second place, and so on. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Section order

I've already left a message on the Talk page for the map image.

The Representation Order listing the federal ridings lists Prince Edward Island before Nova Scotia. Once the image is updated the section order here should be fixed to reflect the RO. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Noticed something different in the list of Candidates

I noticed in the list, that the incumbent has a hot link to a pop up profile.

For BC South Surrey White Rock, I notice there are 2 hot links. One for the incumbent, and one for another candidate.

Might want to make this consistent and get rid of the extra hot link there - or is there some other reason for having two of them?

2001:569:7A0A:7000:B17E:6DDF:FCE2:451 (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

They're wikilinks - links to Wikipedia articles about the people. If a candidate has a WP article, they should have a link to it. Anyone who's been a Canadian MP or MLA/MPP/MNA/MHA will have such an article - that's why all the incumbents have them. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

There are at least twenty others like that, and some where the incumbent is not running but there is a notable candidate running.

In this case, the other candidate has an article because he was mayor of White Rock, a BC MLA and the former representative of the riding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Map of regions

I was wondering where the list of regions comes from. I need the list for the 1997 and 2000 elections so I can complete those candidate articles. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe they were somewhat arbitrarily decided upon in 2004. For elections prior to that, the regions would have to be arbitrarily re-configured to accommodate the number of ridings. E.g, if you look here, I have been working on the regions for the 1867 election.-- Earl Andrew - talk 17:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I was afraid it was something like that. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Saint Boniface—Saint Vital

Is the current arrangement of candidates in Saint Boniface—Saint Vital the best option possible considering the number of candidates? -boldblazer 23:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably not, blazer; nothing like this has happened before. I've just tinkered with it and tried a new arrangement. I don't know how to combine column headers with this template. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The tinkered way, almost the entire region fits on my screen vertically with my zoomed type. The normal way, SB-SV barely fits by itself and will be 50% longer after Monday night. There is no good solution here, so let's fit as much as possible on one screen. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's go with putting the 14 in their own list at the bottom of the table. A table might be better but I'm too tired. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Previous elections

The main election articles have links to previous and later elections. Should something similar be done with this and other results articles? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I created an infobox that does this. It might need some small tweaking, and I haven't gone through and added it to other election results, but is this what you were looking for? ChrisWilliam1995 (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot I'd asked about it. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

add paragraph in intro on some outstanding riding results

I propose we add paragraph in intro on some outstanding riding results. otherwise article is just listing of the figures with no context.

Some record results include: successful candidate receiving highest percentage of votes cast 76 percent Robert Kitchen Souris Moose Mountain

successful candidate receiving lowest percentage of votes cast 29.49 percent René Villemure Trois Rivieres

successful candidate receiving highest number of votes cast 44,456 John Barlow Foothills (Alberta)

successful candidate receiving lowest number of votes cast (in a province): Labrador 4,119.

of unsuccessful candidates, this one received highest number of votes cast: Peterborough Liberal Maryam Mounsef 24,664 votes

of unsuccessful candidates, this one received highest proportion of votes cast (in a province): Markham Conservative Bob Saroya with 42 percent of votes cast. 174.3.203.119 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I think this is the kind of analysis that belongs on the main election article or a results article. Usually the elections have a general article, a results analysis article, and the results by riding, which is a bare-bones list. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I am wondering where the results analysis article for this election is. 68.150.222.51 (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Results breakdown of the 2021 Canadian federal election G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Add total valid vote figures to the results table

I think adding the number of valid votes in each riding would add another dimension to the results. Also making it easier to verify the figures provided. 174.3.203.119 (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I presume it would be below the riding name, as that's the most convenient place to put it. It seems like a lot of work for little improvement. Just make sure you use the official validated results from Elections Canada; they only round to one decimal place. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I did once add the total valid votes to one or other of an election's results-by-riding article and someone else came along and took them off. 68.150.222.51 (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)