Talk:2025 Canadian federal election/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removal of Greens and PPC due to no official party status

There has been an ongoing edit war in both this article and the 2021 one about whether to include the PPC or not. First of all, whatever consensus has been reached for the 2021 page, it does not apply here. I disagree for reasons stated elsewhere, but I'd like to propose an even stricter, clear and I think more "official" criteria: Official party status. This would mean both the PPC and the Greens would have to go, which I think makes sense since they are very small and don't alter the balance of power in any way. I think this is fair. JWR got one seat in 2019 and yet she isn't included in the infobox. I also don't believe a party should be included just for winning seats. What if regionalism in Canada swings way extreme and there are maritime parties, prairie parties etc.? KamikazeMatrix26Juni (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The standard you propose goes against the precedents we have set for numerous Canadian elections. I assume by "official party status" you mean in the HOC, which would require something like 12 seats. That simply is not how we have done this for numerous elections, and is clearly against long standing consensus for Canadian elections. Of course, both the Greens and PPC are "official parties" as far as Elections Canada is concerned, as are many others that are not in the infobox. The consensus reached concerning the 2021 election does not strictly apply here, but it does stand for a pretty firm rejection of the standard you are proposing, and also for a strict adherence to the "5% or a seat" rule of thumb. Generally, for future elections we simply include the parties/leaders that were included in the prior election's infobox. Then after the election we consider their performance and their coverage in WP:RS and other factors. Accordingly, I have added them back in. As discussed above, a RfC is likely needed to go against the consensus at the 2021 page and that would likely need to occur at WP:CANADA or WP:WPE&R. Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Have it at WP:E&R, for the widest participation. GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Others are welcome to start one. I won't be doing so. As I have said elsewhere, the idea that we set a rigid, binding criteria is not helpful in my view. As MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says the ultimate purpose is to summarize. The 2021 RfC along with our general rule of including the parties/leaders from the last election in future election articles is all we need here, as far as I am concerned. If other editors want to reopen matters discussed or decided in the 2021 RfC, they can start a new RfC. They are entitled to do so, but I certainly don't think it is a good idea, or that it will come to a different result. So if someone wants to go down that route, have at it, but I won't be leading the charge.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It is perhaps worth noting that in all of the polls that have been done since the election, and which we include in Opinion polling for the 45th Canadian federal election, the PPC have polled over 5%. In a couple of recent polls they are in the double digits. While polling is not the deciding factor, this seems to strengthen the case for including them.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

LOL. An argument could be made that their polling is up because we are including them in the infobox (increased visibility, Wikipedia lends legitimacy, etc). - Ahunt (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I expect significant coverage in WP:RS, events, and perhaps MOE is responsible for that. Future election articles likely can't be blamed for 5% bumps. If only Wikipedia was that influential.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

- The latest Leger poll puts them back down at 5% again. Just a statistical blip. - Ahunt (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I would note that the pollsters who've recently shown double-digit support for the PPC are the same ones who grossly overestimated the party's support in the September election, so personally I'm no longer putting any stock in their numbers. They're both IVR pollsters, and the only other pollster aside from those two that grossly overestimated PPC support in the election also happens to be IVR, so it has got to be something about that particular methodology that's inflating the party's apparent support. Interesting that they don't seem to have caught on to this yet and are still publishing PPC numbers that are totally incongruous with the other pollsters. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, I've been thinking about this seemingly ever-raging debate recently, and what if the criteria for including a party in the infobox was any of the following:

1. Won at least 1 seat in the previous general election (regardless of popular vote share)
2. Won at least 5% of the popular vote in the previous general election (no rounding up)
3. Won a larger share of the popular vote than the party that won the fewest seats (minimum 1) in the previous general election

With these rules, the Greens get in on account of criterion #1. The PPC falls just short of meeting criterion #2 (they got 4.9%), but they're 'saved' by criterion #3 because they won a larger share of the vote than the Greens. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Policy requires articles to reflect mainstream sources, in this case news media that cover elections. The rationale is that the consensus of people who report elections for a living is probably better than that of a dozen or so Wikipedia editors. Editor have better things to do with their time that reinventing the wheel. TFD (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Criterion #3 might require a bit of tinkering if regional parties become more common. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

By the time the 45th federal election is held, the entry criteria will be lowered even more. GoodDay (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Which is why Wikipedia editors should just follow what sources do instead of injecting their own opinions about what to include. TFD (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that a vague directive to simply follow "mainstream sources" invites endless debate over different editors' subjective assessments of what is getting 'sufficient' coverage to warrant inclusion. Personally, I think the MSM covers the Green Party and PPC frequently enough to consider them noteworthy federal parties (that is, a level above the plethora of other 'minor' parties) and I would consequently be inclined to include them in the infobox, but I'm sure there are others who will disagree. I just figure some hard, quantitative rules might help finally put this debate to rest, because it otherwise seems to endlessly rage on. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, we should establish an entry criteria, to avoid any future disputes over who should or shouldn't be in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

If we do, we'll still have the problem of editors who wear their political stripes on their profile pages cherrypicking their arguments based on what favours their pet parties. There's no difficulty finding Canadian media whose endorsements are always the same regardless of who is pushing what policy in an election, and some of them belong to owners with dozens of outlets all publishing the exact same material with different mastheads. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

At least in 2021, the significant coverage criteria was pretty clear cut. All of the major networks were including the PPC in their tables/graphics of results.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Undermedia, since every single major news source showed all six parties on their election summary pages, there is no room for subjectivity. If sources differ in future, then we can decide among them. But without a crystall ball, we can't make that call now. I doubt anyway it will arise. TFD (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Candice Bergen photo

The current photo doesn't fit the style of leader photos. Can anyone find something more appropriate? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

This might be more in keeping with page policy, though both photos are more than four years out of date. Bergen in 2014 G. Timothy Walton (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Protection of page

Looks like we need it. No other neutral wording occurs to me. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Page title doesn't follow WP:NCELECT

WP:NCELECT says For future elections of uncertain date, use a form similar to Next ... election and this page title is inconsistent with that. (Sidenote: I do greatly prefer this method of titling, though (for many reasons), so I'd would support changing the guideline instead if a discussion is opened there.)  Nixinova   T   C   01:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, most recently from what I can see in 2017. Consensus is that Canadian Federal elections have an exact confirmed date in the Canada Elections Act, so therefore the wiki pages use the year prescribed in section 56.1 (2) of that act until such point that an early election occurs.WanukeX (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Stick with the current name. It is more precise. It has been discussed ad nauseam. The Canada Elections Act time allows the GG to call it earlier or later. The Constitution refers to elections every five years. It would be silly, misleading and very WP:CRYSTAL to guess a date/year. 45th is precise and works better for the eventual change, avoids issues with the archives etc. It also matches up with the number of the Parliament that will be elected from that election.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the points raised by User:Darryl Kerrigan. - Ahunt (talk) 02:01, 14 February 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)

Remove the PPC

As the People's Party Of Canada lacks any seats in parliament at the moment shouldn't we remove them? 2607:FEA8:BFDC:5F00:CDB5:A871:ACCE:EA53 (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

They were included on the 2021 election page after acrimonious debate, which is why they're listed here. Several of the threads are pinned on the Talk page for that article. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that they should be deleted both 'here' & at the 2021 fed election page. But, that's not what a majority of editors wanted. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Removing People’s Party

The People’s Party had comparable support in the 2021 election as the Green Party had in 2004. In both, they had 0 incumbent MPs, fielded a full slate, won 0 seats, and got more than 4% but less than 5% of the vote. In the subsequent 2006 election, the Green Party is not listed. As such, given the incredibly comparable circumstances, the People’s Party ought not to be listed as a party at the top of the article for the 45th Canadian Federal Election. 108.180.94.158 (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This was hammered to death in the Talk page of the 2021 election; the decision to include them there is why they're listed here. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The 5% bar was lowered (in the 2021 fed election discussion) so the People's Party could be included 'there' & 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Per neutrality, articles are supposed to provide the same weight to information as is shown in reliable sources. Since CBC, CTV, the Globe, the Star and all other major mainstream media in Canada routinely put all six parties in their summaries, so does this article. If you want this article to exclude the PPC, then you should get Canadian media to stop including them and then this article can follow their lead. TFD (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Per neutrality, editors probably shouldn't make political statements on their profile pages, let alone historically inaccurate ones. It's not like you did anything on the page before you started arguing on the PPC's behalf. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I should explain it, because a lot of people do not appreciate irony. The irony is that although the Right claims that the terms left and right are meaningless, they use them to describe themselves and their opponents. While I don't think anyone's political beliefs are relevant, there is academic consensus that the extreme right is irrational, divisive and dangerous, so we can say that and still be neutral.

You may think that the way to deal with them is to ignore them and they will go away. But I would suggest that approach is counter-productive. In any case, it is not up to editors to determine weight based on their own beliefs, but they should use the weight in reliable sources, even if those sources are wrong in their choices.

TFD (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Singh photo

Hi there! I took these two photos of Jagmeet Singh at a campaign event yesterday, any thoughts on putting them in the infobox? I have more photos of him but these are the only two I've cropped, and I think they look the best of all of them. DrOwl19 (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I think page policy in these election articles has preferred photos that face forward rather than ones in profile. The second one would definitely be better than the first. Another editor would know what the copyright requirements are for own-sourced photos.

Whether either of these photos is better than the current one is debatable.

The only reason Candice Bergen gets a picture that stands out so much is that there doesn't seem to be that anything better is protected by copyright. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Forward facing is better if available. This is always a balancing act. Also need to consider quality, lighting, age, background, etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Changing image of Justin Trudeau

Hi there Wikipedian users can i change the image of Hon. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Image	Image name	Changing
	File:Trudeau G7 Cropped.jpeg (current image)	From
	File:Justine Trudeau March 2022	To

Einahr (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Of the two, I prefer the one currently in use. With earlier election articles some editors expressed a strong desire to avoid pictures that made it seem the leaders were looking at each other; this seems reasonable. Bernier, Singh, and the current Trudeau are the closest thing there is to an ideal pose and complimentary picture. The newer photo of Trudeau makes him look unhealthy.

Sometimes we're stuck with lousy photos because of copyright issues. Bergen's photo is horrible for the page but it's the best anyone could find that didn't violate copyright. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the existing one is better for the reasons given above. - Ahunt (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Existing is better. Also the Bergen photo will also only be a problem for a few more days. A new leader will be chosen on the 10th.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Protection

Have the Kornbluth Brigade reached the point where protection of the page is justified? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

The names, images, and associated information of the party leaders has been vandalised and needs fixing. 204.239.153.202 (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It's been fixed by other editors and I've specified in the hidden note which image it's supposed to be. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:53, 21 November 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:

• MP. Elizabeth May.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is Bernie here?

PPC has 0 seat in HoC and he got less than 5% of the vote last election, he's not even polled above 3% now Anonymousioss (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:45th_Canadian_federal_election/Archive_1#Inclusion_of_the_PPC - Ahunt (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

reason why PPC should not be here:

1: PPC has 0 seat in the House of Commons.

2: PPC's national polling average right now is 2.7%, I understand the reasons to not remove them when they were polled above 5%, but now they are below 5%.

3: Australian Wikipedia only included 3 parties when they have 7 parties in the parliament, the One Nation is excluded when the won 4.29% of the votes.

3: Some may argues that Wikipedia kept green in the infobox during 2009-2011, because they won 6.78% of the votes in 2008. Also it's 12 years ago.

4: Wikipedia does not include Strength in Democracy during 2015 election when they have two seats in the House of Commons.

5: Jim Harris got 4.48% of the votes in 2004 but is not included in the infobox.

6: Elizabeth may was not included during 2004-2006 before the 2006 Canadian Federal election.

7: Maybe Canadian Wikipedia doesn't have a 5% rules for polling or previous election please point me out. Anonymousioss (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Read the referenced discussion. Nobody wants to go through that debate again, even those that agree with you about his party's relevance.

As for Strength in Democracy, they were listed in the infobox before the election and removed when they failed to win a seat. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok Anonymousioss (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Article title

Not a WP:RM (yet), but the title of this article doesn't match those of other nations without fixed election dates, i.e. Next United Kingdom general election, Next Danish general election. Why is the Canadian article titled so uniquely, and not Next Canadian federal election? schetm (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It's been that way as long as I remember. It's not broken, so why bother fixing it? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Because this upcoming election has an actual official name? There is no requirement for Canadian elections to have the same titles as UK or other nation's elections. Besides that, Next Canadian federal election redirects here, so readers will not have a problem finding it. Basically it's not broken, doesn't need fixing. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Why, then, is 2021 Canadian federal election not titled 44th Canadian federal election? Would that not be its official name? There seems to be an inconsistency, even within the topic of Canadian elections. In actual fact, no sources in the article call this upcoming election the 45th - seems to be a fair bit of WP:OR involved in calling that name official. Does not WP:COMMONNAME also apply? schetm (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

There are real disadvantages to switching to calling every election the "next" one. It creates a mess of redirects and archives. This is the official name, and it is the way we have always done it. Next currently redirects here so there is no problem. We can't put a year in the title until the election is called because the election could occur earlier or later than anticipated. A while ago, an editor removed any mention, citing commonname, removed all reference in old articles to their official names. I said that was a mistake at the time. I still think so. It is wise to use the year in which the election occured in its title (except for future elections, where the year is unknown), but we should at least mention the official name in the article. This creates confusion too as articles about Parliaments still uses this numbering system (eg. 44th Canadian Parliament). Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Photo update to more recent

Last discussion on this hot topic was 6 months ago and we now have additional photo options and are not limited to using the August 2019 (1,293 days ago (3 years 6 months 13 days ago)) photo. I'd like to change to something more recent:

Thoughts? Thanks! // sikander { talk } 🦖 15:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The Brady Bunch comes to mind. Having the leaders appear to be looking at each other feels insufficiently neutral. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Timothy. While there is value in having a current photo, there are a number of factors we need to consider. Personally, I think there is value in seeing the politicians age between elections (when photos of sufficient quality exist). One of the important considerations is that for infoboxes photos where politicians are looking left/right (as opposed to into the camera) can be distracting. This can depend on placement though. While Trudeau looks to the left in the existing photo, that isn't really distracting because he is on the left side of the infobox. This will remain the case until the election occurs (unless Trudeau ceases to be Liberal leader). Once we have the election, Trudeau's positioning might change. That could affect these considerations. If Trudeau was in the centre (his party having won the second most seats) the current photo might be inappropriate. But we can deal with that, when/if that happens.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Is the worry here that a reader looking at photo of leader of a party ever so slightly looking towards another box suggests endorsement of their opponent?

An outdated 1000+ day old photo seems worse to me than that risk.

How about either of these:

Commons has other photos to choose from as well. // sikander { talk } 🦖 04:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

They'd be the ugliest photos there. I don't know if that's ever been a consideration. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize we have to take ugliness of a photo into consideration. OK, I'll leave that judgement up to you. Cheers. // sikander { talk } 🦖 01:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Current photo is now 1,469 days old (4 years and 8 days). I would change to:

but it might be an ugly photo and we need a thorough discussion and community consensus here. Raise your hands to vote Yes to Change! // sikander { talk } 🦖 02:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Pierre Poilievre Photo

Current photo (2022)

Previous photo (2014)

I have boldly changed the photo of Pierre Poilievre in this article. I recently started a discussion on the talk page for the Pierre Poilievre article about the photo used there. Of course, we do not need to use the same for this article. Arguably it is more important for this article to use a photograph that is recent, as this article concerns a future election. I hope this spurs a discussion or if I am incorrect about the copyright status of this image (a removal of the image). I note that it is labelled as "own work" and seems to be cropped from this larger image which appears to have been taken at a rally. I did a quick reverse image search and do not see versions of the image that predate it being uploaded to the commons. I hope I haven't missed anything. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

My only objection is that it is not in focus. It is not a good quality photo. - Ahunt (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, neither is perfect. The old one is old, and a bit grainy, but focused. The new one is new, but he is squinting slightly, and it is not perfectly focused. Perhaps, the quality is fine for our uses as we are mainly using it as a small thumbnail in the article. It is always hard to find high quality photos when we only have what is available in the commons. Certainly, if something better becomes available we should use that, but among the choices we have...--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly a more neutral-looking photo than the old one. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The new one fits some criteria better (he looks at the camera and not slightly to the side), but it is slightly blurry.

I do think it's better since it's more recent however.

MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a good idea for a more recent photo, but a higher quality photo would be better. 2001:569:BDCE:7800:E8C7:BE5A:2B2E:2D84 (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

He has done a makeover too and needs a new photo ASAP. // sikander { talk } 🦖 02:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Leader photo updates

Yes, some of them are pretty outdated. New suggestions are welcome but please try to keep in mind three things: it shouldn't be uncomplimentary if avoidable, should try to avoid the Brady Bunch effect where they seem to be looking at other leaders, and shouldn't infringe on copyright, which has caused the removal of more photos than anything else. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

"Center Ice" - add or don't add infobox

A new political party is expected to be announced on thr 20th according to the Toronto Star. They will be led (at least in the interim) by fmr NB cabinet minister Dominic Cardy. Are they noteworthy enough to have an infobox? Kw12324 (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

IMO, not until they achieve some level of success. By which I mean: gaining an MPs (be it through by-elections or floor-crossings) or consistently polling above 5%; or, closer to the election, if they get invited to the leader's debates. But they shouldn't earn a place in the infobox just for an announcement. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. I say wait until we see the level of coverage they get in the media/if theyre regularly polling at noyeworthy levels. Kw12324 (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, not to the infobox, at least not yet. See the discussion directly above about the People's Party - we base inclusion in the infobox on the weight of coverage in reliable sources, with some presumptions about a party's performance in the previous election. This new party doesn't exist yet except as a figment of Cardy's imagination - there is probably enough coverage to write something about it in Cardy's bio, but they're not even contesting this election right now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think there is anything for us to talk about until they are registered with Elections Canada. Also they should probably have an article first, but it seems Centre Ice Canadians aren't notable yet. Now it is just a redirect to Dominic Cardy. Seems like they haven't even settled on a name as they keep changing it. First it was Centre Ice "Conservatives" then Centre Ice "Canadians" and now seems to be "Canadian Future Party" (also a redirect to Cardy).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I just made those redirects a few minutes ago. There seem to be a number of prominent Conservatives in the group behind launching the party, so I assume we'll eventually have reliable source coverage enough to create a standalone article. I don't think it's there yet. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2023

In the parties standing, centre position should be applied to both liberal and conservative parties and not only one. Centre is not biased. Devildog5k (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

These are the agreed general positions for the elected parties on Wikipedia, based on their own descriptions. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: - the party positions here follow the sourced positions in the parties' own articles. If you want to change those descriptions, you will need to develop consensus for any change on each party's article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Green party

Elizabeth May hasn’t been the Green Party leader for quite some time now, right? 134.87.186.13 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

She stepped down in 2019, but the new leader got into trouble over not following party policy regarding a statement on Israeli settlements in Gaza and refusing to denounce one of her advisors publicly calling the party antisemitic, and eventually resigned while the party was reviewing her leadership. May ran in the following leadership contest in 2022 and was re-elected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

New Trudeau photo?

• 
  Thumbnail of Justin Trudeau in 2021 (Photo 1)
• 
  Thumbnail of Justin Trudeau at G7 in 2019 (Photo 2)

The current Trudeau photo on the infobox is the same as used for 2019 & 2021, seeing as Singh's photo is new it seems only reasonable to replace Trudeau's. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC); edited by Wow (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Getting decent photos that are in the public domain is harder than one would expect, with a number of photos removed for copyright violations. A rough guideline has been to have decent resolution, reasonably natural in pose, and not looking at each other like the Brady Bunch title sequence. We've had some horrible photos of Trudeau suggested; if you can find something better that doesn't violate copyright, post it here and the editors will take a look. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a more current photo of Trudeau would be useful. If one is available, I would recommend it be linked to here, so it can be considered. There are a number of photos of Trudeau here, though most of them are older, and others may be inappropriate for one reason or another. This one from 2021 might be the best candidate. I will call it Photo 1, so we can keep track for the purposes of this discussion. This photo has the advantages of Trudeau looking straight forward, and being more recent than the current photo we are using (Photo 2). Potential disadvantages would be that Trudeau has a beard in it (which is no longer how he is groomed) and the facial expression may not be what we are looking for. I am not sure it is worth changing to Photo 1 for these reasons, but this format would be the best way to discuss other photos, if one has one to propose.----Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• 
  Justin Trudeau in May 2023 (Photo 3)
• 
  Justin Trudeau in July 2023 (Photo 4)
• 
  Justin Trudeau in April 2023 (Photo 5)
• 
  Justin Trudeau in April 2023 (Photo 6)
• 
  Justin Trudeau in April 2023 (Photo 7; need to be cropped)
• 
  Justin Trudeau in April 2023 (Photo 8; need to be cropped)
• 
  Justin Trudeau in January 2023 (Photo 9; need to be cropped)
• 
  Justin Trudeau in January 2023 (Photo 10; need to be cropped)
• 
  Justin Trudeau in November 2023 (Photo 11)

Added suggestions for a new picture of Trudeau with some of them needing to be cropped to be use Punker85 (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC); edited by Wow (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

With pictures this new it should be double-checked that they're not subject to copyright.

I'd say Photo 4 is ucomplimentary, 5 suffers from the Brady Bunch effect, and 7–11 might have resolution issues after cropping. 3 and 6 are tolerable if necessary since they're about as complimentary as Blanchet's photo. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Trudeau photos 3 and 6 are appropriate. As I have said before, we badly need a new photo of Yves-François Blanchet. It is 14 years old, and doesn't look much like him anymore. Unfortunately, it seems no other photos are available. This one seems to be a copyright violation.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

From your prefered photo choices, I would pick the 3 since the shadow from the 6 hide a good part of Trudeau face which don't really like and I have cropped the 11 since, for me, it look the best out of all of them and to see your opinion on it Punker85 (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• 
  Photo 3 (alternate crop)
• 
  Photo 9 (cropped)

I'll support photo 3 if we give Trudeau more headroom. I've also cropped photo 9 as requested above. Wow (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm of the same mindset, Photo 3 is a very acceptable option TheFellaVB (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Photo 3, then. It's not perfect but it'll have to do. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

To this point as well if we could find a better Poilievre photo as well since the current one has him with glasses (which he has stopped wearing) as well as it being just a random photo taken of him at some rally. It may be difficult though since there aren't many recent public domain photos of him. TheFellaVB (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

We also need a new photo of Pierre Poilievre, the most recent portrait has low resolution and the other one has Ukraine flag as background I think that's not politically neutral. The old one was 2014 too old.

So can anyone upload a new recent clear portrait image of PP to wiki commons? Mason54432 (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Better photos of both Pierre Poilievre and Yves-François Blanchet would improve the article, but we seem to be using the best ones available at the moment. If you locate others, I recommend you replicate this process in a separate discussion below. Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Poilievre Photo

Old Photo (2022)

New Photo (2023)

There is a discussion at Talk:Pierre_Poilievre#Can_We_get_a_better_image about adopting a new primary photo for Poilievre. Perhaps the outcome there will affect what we choose to do here.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

So we have adopted the new image as is being used at the Pierre Poilievre article (following the above mentioned discussion). While it doesn't automatically follow that we use the same photo as that page on all other articles, it seems appropriate to do so for this article. I recently reverted edits doing the same at 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election though, as it seems appropriate there to use a photograph from the campaign and showing Poilievre with the "glasses look" that he was using in public appearances at the time.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Darryl Kerrigan I would have to agree with you. A current photo is relevant for this article, an upcoming election. While an article about a past leadership race is fit to have a photo from that time period. PascalHD (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks as good as it can get. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Candidates article

The PPC and Conservatives have both started nominating candidates. Is it time to create a candidates article? The new riding boundaries will require some changes in the regions used for larger provinces. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Not just any candidates, but the CPC appears to be naming some strong star candidates. I too have wondered whether it is time for a candidate article to be made. TRJP89 (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

There would a serious POV issue because you would then have to put in all candidates to the degree they were covered in the media. TFD (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Saying it's a POV thing is ludicrous. These articles list ALL known candidates/nomination contestants in tabular format. That's it, that's all. If media coverage mattered, most minor party candidates wouldn't be listed at all. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that you could use descriptions of other editors' arguments using terms a tad less dismissive than "ludicrous?" It's not collegial.

TRJP89 wrote, "the CPC appears to be naming some strong star candidates." My concern was that the proposed article would emphasize them. I see however from TRPJ's response that was not the intention. TFD (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There would be if it only included the candidates of a certain party but there are usually lists of candidates for each riding by province. I only used the CPC star candidates of late as an example. There is currently one for the next UK election with candidates added when they are nominated. TRJP89 (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with your example; my response was to the reply. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd be all for organizing a candidate list, especially as it would be logically impossible for an early election with the old ridings. The new ridings are basically guaranteed to be used, and sooner is better than later for it to be set up. CJJ400 (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The new list is locked in in April, so we could probably wait until then and mimic previous elections, where the Candidates of X election page becomes the Results by riding page after the election takes place. The nominations database at Elections Canada is a decent source for people who haven't had media announced.

These articles usually put candidates in normal text and nomination contestants in italics; independents get treated as declared candidates. Once parties put up candidate pages, those outrank any other source. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Candidates of the 45th Canadian federal election

Oh! I made this in the meantime actually, I honestly didn’t want to wait all the way until April when even more candidates could be Announced, it’s not updated to the new riding names yet, but it has the proper incumbents CJJ400 (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Blanchet's infobox image

Is there a way to crop the BQ leader's image, so he's closer to the viewer? GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay Check now, does it look better? PascalHD (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Too much on electoral redistribution?

I personally find the tables and map on the redistribution, and the 2021 election results mapped on to the new ridings, quite interesting. But is it a bit too much for this article? The current prose seems fine, but perhaps these tables and/or the map should be folded into 2022 Canadian federal electoral redistribution (which of course readers are being invited to see as the "main article" on this). Thoughts?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, though a simple estimate table (2021/transposed) might be reasonable. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine, I basically just copied what they're doing over at Next United Kingdom general election#Electoral system, and that one is even longer than what we have here, just goes over the redistribution, shows transposed results, then directs to the main page for more depth. In terms of the redistributed results, have a draft Work in Progess right now to just make the actual riding by riding redistributed results its own page, since the redistribution page is long enough as it is without the transposed numbers. WanukeX (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources for Opinion Polling

I don't see any being provided (the graphic is just being updated without any further information). Can we improve the way this is being conducted at the moment? Kristwanderer (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources are in the related article Opinion polling for the 45th Canadian federal election. The table there was previously part of this article but was moved there to save space. I agree the sourcing should be here too though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)