Talk:2006 Canadian federal election

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 23, 2007.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Canada: Governments Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.

Untitled

See also:

result contradictory.

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/OVR2006/default.html The table 8 gives ENTIRELY different results from the ones here, especially on minor parties. update accordingly to official results please. --Petrovic-Njegos 21:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most current composition of the House

I understand that this article is entitled "Canadian federal election, 2006" and as such it reports those MPs and their party affiliations as they were elected on January 23rd. However, with David Emerson crossing the floor from the Tories to the Liberals, am I wrong in understanding that the Tories now have 125, not 124 seats, and the Liberals have been reduced from 103 to 102? Perhaps, due to its title, that is "Canadian federal election, 2006" this is not the right article to update this seemingly minor change. In fact though, the change is not minor, especially if you're Jack Layton. One more defection or change due to a recount could give the NDP the balance of power. In what article is the most current composition of the House of Commons?Loomis51 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just answered my own question, in the article on the Canadian House of Commons, there is a section entitled "current composition", reflecting the defection of David Emerson. I still do think that it might be misleading for someone not reading the footnotes to rely on this article as reflecting Parliament's current composition.Loomis51 12:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leader Pictures

Is it just me, or did someone go out of their way to find the ugliest picture of Stephan Harper possible? I mean, compare that picture to his official biography. ~Slavik81, 21 January 2006

When it comes to the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, I think the most we can hope for is a less-ugly version of his mug on a photo. ;) FiveParadox 06:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements Page

Am I the only one who sees major problems in this recent addition? Did the Toronto Star officially endorse the Liberals? Did The Globe and Mail officially endorse the Conservatives? Is Don Cherry a Quebec Seperatist?

The Toronto Star did endorse the Liberals, however I can not find it on their website. SFrank85 18:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Saturday Toronto Star saying they endorsed the Liberals right here. They've had letters to the editor about it for days. ~Slavik81 21 January 2006

Gender breakdown of Candidates

I had noticed that the Elections Canada press release that all count of candidates on, had a break down by gender. All the information in this release except the gender breakdown made it to the Template:Canadian federal election, 2006. It didn't seem very NPOV to me, to leave it off, so I added it; but someone else felt it was unnecessary and deleted. I've restored, but what is consensus? Nfitz 19:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. -- user:zanimum

I like it too. SFrank85 01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it as well. I didn't realise the Conservatives have so few female candidates!--Colle 20:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Informative and relevant. --GrantNeufeld 22:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur ... but see below. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This information should not be in that table, this is a summary of results, It's not important to put Male / Female breakdown, what next ethnic breakdown reglious breakdown? Gay and straight breakdown age range where does it end? This information should be in it's own section, seats by election summarys should flow from one federal election to another, this information should be in it's own section if it is to be included. --Cloveious 05:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's duly noted by Elections Canada (I wonder why?), so it at least has some merit for being there above the other items you listed. TheProject 05:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno I don't run Elections Canada, I just don't feel it should be included in the summary, it should be it's own section. I don't feel we should complicate that table anymore, it was perfect the way it was.--Cloveious 05:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, this makes some sorta sense, Cloveious. Tables with an excess of information start to lose utility. Perhaps additional demographic information can appear in a related table, while the current one should be limited to summative electoral information only – as is? I also believe the current table is based on a template, but nothing needn't be written in stone. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Cloveious on this. I think that it should be a separate table, not in the results table. If the M/F breakdown is to be included in this table, it would make sense to report also the # of Ms and Fs who won and lost, and then it gets very confusing. The newspapers also ran the numbers of viible minority candidates for each of the major parties. That would be interesting to add to a section that discusses the # of Ms and Fs. Ground Zero | t 19:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what was reported by Elections Canada. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't know how one determines a list of visibile minorities ... the candidates don't declare this, and in Canada such information is normaly self-identifying ... is it legal to do this? And what's a "visible minority"? Is hispanic a visible minority, it is in some places. What about a aboriginal Canadian in Nunavut? They are a majority there. What about someone from Greece with olive skin ... what about someone from Palestine with olive skin? Heck, in the Conservative party females are a visible minority :-) ! I'd stick to officially released information ... Nfitz 19:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the length of the article, this might be more an argument to briefly summarise the gender breakdown in a few lines in-text (comparison with prior periods and other countries), while moving cumbersome (though informative tables) to appropriate sub/articles. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes required?

These certainly deserve a look by someone knowledgeable:

This list is certainly not comprehensive. Check Category:Government of Canada for more things to check.

-- Taral 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are looking at them. Nothing changes really until the changeover of power, which will likely be in early Feburary, so no rush to edit them much. Nfitz 07:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a typo in the following graphic http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Canada_election_2006.jpg/250px-Canada_election_2006.jpg where Bloc is spelled Bloq in the legend.

Someone might like to

Someone might like to add a bit to Conservative Party of Canada explaining just a little of what their policies are. I would have thought this a pretty big oversight? - Randwicked Alex B 07:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done; input and editing would be appreciated. Same thing should be probably done for the Liberal Party of Canada, but I don't really feel like doing it now. Ikh (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure for forming government

Apologies if this is already there and I am overlooking it, but could somebody who knows about this stuff add some information on the formal procedure for forming the next government? For example, the international media seem to be assuming that the Conservatives, as largest single party, will be involved in the next government. But is there any reason why they must be included when, for example, a Liberal-BQ-NDP coalition would have a substantial overall majority? Best wishes, Cambyses 11:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

added a very short comment on the matter, linking it to the Minority governments in Canada page, which explains this better. In general, the coalition governments in Canada are basically non-existent for a variety of reasons; especially unlikely is any coallition of a any party with BQ, as that is considered to be "sleeping with the devil". Ikh (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is more discussion on this question at Talk:Prime_Minister_of_Canada#Too soon to say Harper will be PM? and Talk:Conservative_Party_of_Canada#Too soon to say Harper will be PM? -- Adz|talk 23:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are missing the point on posting electin result.

People are missing the point. Why is Election Canada have such ban? It is because it does not want the posting of election result influcing on people of whom to vote in western Canada. reverting those result, IMHO, is not censorship but rather, as not to influence on people whom to vote. We don't want to indrectly endorsing someone. We will not say so, but someone willtake that as a recommendation.SYSS Mouse 14:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why Elections CA would do this. In the 1980 election, voters in California had not finished voting when President Carter conceeded at 10 PM EST (7 PM PST) to Reagan, There are stories of voters walking out of their polling place and not voting after hearing the news of Carter's concession. There were hearings on this in the early 80's, but I don't believe anything came out of it. For more details, see Appendix I of CNN's report about the 2000 election coverage. - Thanks, Hoshie | 15:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent

So who was the independent elected and where from? Perhaps I missed it in the article. Rmhermen 15:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have added footnotes to indicate that André Arthur was elected as an independent candidate in the Quebec City-area riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. Ground Zero | t 16:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might also be a good idea to move the 1 independent up on the "Results" table. IMO it is rather tedious to have to scroll down to the bottom of the table in order to see all of the elected seats; it would be more practical to see all of them in one glance.

What are the criteria for precedence in the "Results" Parties' listing, anyway? If number of seats is a factor, then it is appropriate for André Arthur to appear before the Greens; if number of candidates is the factor, there is something like 90 candidates that "subscribe" to the "Independent/No Affiliation" label, which could go between the Greens (308) and the Christian Heritage (45).

In any case, I think the political context would allow for all the elected seats to be shown together, especially since the independent has a potentially large stake in this minority. Rod ESQ 17:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polls

Now that the election is over, I suggest that the opinion polls table be deleted since it duplicates what is in the branch article. Anyone interested in opinion polling in the election would follow the link to the branch article. Agreed? Ground Zero | t 18:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I suggest it remain but be pared down to include only intermittent results from previous months (as I did for 2005 entries). Nothing to lose sleep over, though. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Further to that, only include the most recent SES poll (since that reflects the actual situation almost to a T), and one each for 9 and 16 Jan. (implying a trend consistent with the graph). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, delete the polls, slowly becoming irrelevant... Barry Zuckerkorn 19:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, maybe add the graph from the main polls page for the illustrative purposes (esp. to demonstrate the shift in oppinion midway throught the campaign)? Ikh (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! And perhaps with a brief summary/lead paragraph? Moreover (a separate issue), is there value in extending the graph back to exhibit results from and since the 2004 election? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd supported, provided that it's brief - under 10 lines or so. The article is already a touch too long. Ikh (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I've adapted text from the polling article for use here. Have at it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! -- Barry Zuckerkorn 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TY! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seat breakdown image

That should be taken down or changed, there is no certainty that a Conservative will be speaker and, in fact, it would be quite likely for the Conservatives to encourage Peter Milliken to reseek the job to widen their standings - Jord 19:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on historical precedent, the seat chart is a reasonable prediction, thus I suggest that a footnote stating that the upcoming parliment seating is not yet finalized whould be sufficient. Anarchist42 19:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This war far too obvious and prominent upfront; I moved it down and resized it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the next person to sit in the speaker's chair will be Bill Blaikie who, as dean of the House, will serve as presiding officer until the election of a speaker. Therefore the image should either have no one in the speaker's position (my preference) or a New Democrat (signifying Blaikie). - Jord 20:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jord's prediction of Peter Milliken returning to the Speaker's chair is also a reasonable prediction. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - we should not be making predictions. Ground Zero | t 20:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Jord a newsworthy person. If so I think he should be mentioned if newswothiness is met. John wesley 20:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GZ, I by no means suggested that we should say that Milliken would be speaker, my point here was that by saying it would be a Conservative we were prejudging things. As you say, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Moreover, until the House elects a speaker (i.e. right now), the presiding officer is not a Conservative. - Jord 20:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the seat chart is a reasonable expectation of what the new parliment will end up looking like, although I suggest that a note to that effect be added. The chart is usefull for providing an indication of the potential instability inherent in any slim minority parliament. In any case, right now there is no parliament anyways and the first action of the new parliament will be to elect a new speaker. Anarchist42 20:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a useful image, I am just saying that to not be crystal balling, we should not display a speaker. - Jord 20:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be unpreciedented for Peter Milliken to return as speaker, and I think that based on the current standings the conservatives would be voting for him. Remember that many of the Mps from verious parties are personal friends, and the election for speaker is secret ballot. The Conservative party is not in a position to manipulate who will become the speaker. It is very likely that they would vote for Milliken mainly because he has been a rather good speaker in terms that he broke ties in favour of both the government and the opposition based on president. He is also highly neutral. Chuck Strawl was deputy speaker I believe, but he has lung cancer and will probably be out of the house too much to take on the job.--24.222.65.32 20:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a precedent? Who would be the speaker? There's no reason to include/cite the current contributor when another more authoritative/citable reference may exist. In doubt, keep it grey for now. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real precedent as the rules surrounding the election of speaker were radically altered in 1984 - allowing election by secret ballot among other things. As it is secret ballot there is no means by which to whip members, runoff ballots are used so, if a party holds a majority, it is almost certain that someone from their party will win but we have never had a contested election for speaker in a minority parliament nor have we had a situation where the government, with a minority, had the option of supporting the re-election of a popular and well liked speaker. I think my change to the image, leaving no one in the speaker's chair, makes the most sense until a speaker is elected. - Jord 20:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I suggest that A it could be Milliken and B that I agree with it being blank was that the speaker durring Clarkes government was the Liberal incumbant speaker.--24.222.65.32 04:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the image leaving the speaker's chair vacant and placing the independent in the back row which is where he would be seated - though he might be placed in between the two caucuses not in the back corner. I hope this is agreeable to all - Jord 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the seat chart now has no speaker at all - would not a white square, perhaps with a question mark, be better? Anarchist42 21:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hence a grey stroked (outline) or filled box should be in place until the Speaker is selected or more certain. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - it could leave the impression of 309 seats. Moreover, for the first sitting of the House, the House of Commons will publish an official seating arrangement with no one assigned to sit in the speaker's chair. - Jord 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a filled one doesn't? Prior images include a filled square, so should it be assumed that those parliaments had ... one greater seat? To me, a greyed-out square/outline indicates ambiguity ... precisely the state until a Speaker is selected. If there are objections ...E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure what your meaning is? Right now, the members will all be assigned seats in their caucuses and there will be no one assigned to the speaker's chair. When a speaker is elected, s/he will be assigned to the speaker's chair and there will be one less member on the benches yeilding the same total. If we have 308 members on the benches plus a grey/shaded seat in the speaker it could be interpreted as a 309th member who is an independent. I don't see what the problem is with leaving the image as it now is - which is a reflection of what the assigned seating arrangement will be when the House first meets - and then changing it to reflect the speakership when a speaker is elected. - Jord 16:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could bounce that back. There's a problem in not rendering a position in this parliamentary diagram that is integral to the functioning of Parliament, regardless of when it is filled or who fills it. By leaving it out, the implication is that it doesn't at all exist – not that the posting is indeterminate – despite our knowledge to the contrary and the practice of including it in prior images. In any event, I think the current version (with grey outline) is adequate until the speaker is selected.

Besides, wouldn't Peter Milliken continue to serve as speaker until a new one is selected? (In this case, shouldn't it be coloured red?) He's still listed as the current speaker. Above notations aside regarding the Dean, the listing (also in Wp) doesn't indicate intermediaries (e.g., Blaikie/other Deans) and appears continuous. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As well, this might merely be a matter of formatting, but there's no reason to have so much white space uptop with line breaks. This, added to the scrolling any visitor would have to endure (given the TOC below), may make for an article requiring some parring down or reformatting. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vulnerable ridings section

I wonder if we should remove this section, which has caused some confusion in the past, now that the election is over and replace it with those close calls from this election, ministers who lost their seats, etc? - Jord 20:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, but we might want to edit it to reflect what ridings were picked up -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Election Map

Would it make sence to have the Liberals on the map be shades of red, to match party color and the CBC's choice of color, instead of brown? -SAS- 24 Jan 2006 17:31 Eastern, PA, USA

Data Sources

data (Excel file) on each riding can be found at http://www.faganfinder.com/wp/2006/01/25/765/ . includes the provice/territory, population, area, number of votes counted, number of votes for all registered parties (other than animal alliance), etc.

The map is beautiful, but...

The results map is a beautiful piece of work. It is a pleasure to look at and reflects a good deal of hard work.

However, I think it can be improved on as an information graphic. Right now, it has too many colors. It is difficult to tell, for example, the difference between slim Conservative wins and slim Bloc wins.

I know we would like to express as much information as we can on the map and use the parties' traditional colors. However, the primary concern must be making the map easy-to-read.

I suggest using only four colors: blue for the Conservatives, red for the Liberals, yellow (or dark green) for the NDP and white for the Bloc. Orange and red are too close for colorblind people.

Mwalcoff 23:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one shade of white? ;) But other wise yes. Just make it clear that the NDP is Yellow or Green. 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions on colorblind-friendly colors. I'd prefer keeping the current map to provide the maximum information, though would be willing to provide an alternative version with four colors you suggest. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 00:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we did on British Columbia general election, 2005. I couldn't read the eight-color map, so I got the OK from the creator to make it a four-color map on my computer. -- Mwalcoff 00:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iqaluit is missing! --Colle 01:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've increased the color contrast and added Iqaluit. I could still make the NDP even more yellow, though not sure white works that well for the Bloc. Would a shade, more green, be okay? or would that not work along with the yellow? Are there any other colors that would work okay instead of white? if not, I can try to make white work. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you did with the NTP. It makes a good contrast. Unfortunately, there are only three primary colors, and there are four parties. Green would be OK from a colorblindness perspective as long as it is a dark green, since light red and light green are indistinguishable to many colorblind people. Of course, in your map, you use gradients to express vote percentages. That works OK with the primary colors, but I'm afraid it may be problematic with both red and green. You can give it a shot, though. It will certainly work better than two shades of blue.

Ask any newspaper graphic-design person: They're always having their beaufiful work destroyed by editors who make changes in the name of usability!

Another good idea for a map would be one that colors only the seats that changed hands, leaving all other ridings white. -- Mwalcoff 02:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do tomorrow, both in regards to the colors and your latest suggestion. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 03:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! If I had my way, I would make "New Democrats" singular in the legend, and put the Bloc in last place--Colle 04:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ... bravo! I agree with the "New Democrat" sentiment above; ditto for the Bloc. Moreover, the GTA inset on the Ontario map (properly 'Central Canada'?) seems compressed vertically. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As well, not to pick nits, but (obvious reasons notwithstanding) should bodies of water be uncoloured? The blue resembles a lower shade of support for the BQ, and might imply a sea of ... BQ (which appear unique from CPC blues, BTW)! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlottetown, Sydney and Hamilton are also missing from the map. You might also want to consider a city in New Brunswick. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for cities, I'd suggest including capitals (with labels, like Charlottetown) but otherwise include only cities – actually, metro areas – with over 200 000 people (or higher threshold?) ... which amounts to around two dozen locales in all. Anything more would occlude the map. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As well, though it does appear that most cities predominantly supported the Liberals (which I find very interesting, particularly for this elxn), could there be any confusion (legend notwithstanding) of colouring cities red? Perhaps a colour not used for the parties: yellow, green, pink, white ...? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would prefer if there were no labels at all, but that's just me. BTW, Acadie—Bathurst on your map appears to be using the old 2004 boundaries. Check the Elections Canada website for the proper boundaries. (They had a judicial inquiry about it) -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One other little thing: I would erase some of the rivers. It looks like British Columbia Southern Interior is two ridings. -- Mwalcoff 09:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Mwalcoff's requests for colors, I've made the bloc a more greenish color. (the old maps are still available, though) I also made the cities grey, instead of red.
As for other requests...
- I prefer listing the bloc third (they got the third most # of seats).
- I'm not going to change the blue color of the water (this is a semi-official color for water, used across Wikipedia - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps).
  - Hey, I'm all for standards with maps, but the plethora/continuum of blues in the map (particularly for the BQ) can possibly confuse the issue: the water blue is one not necessarily required in this instance. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not good place to put labels for Charlottetown, Hamilton, ..., so I've left them off.
  - Perhaps include short lines from labels leading to the appropriate city (e.g., offset in the Atlantic somewhere)? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The electoral district boundary source data is from Geogratis - Natural Resources Canada / Elections Canada. "GeoGratis attempts to keep the most current electoral boundaries on the site." These boundaries might not be 100% up-to-date, but it's the best I could find.
- As for the rivers, I feel they need to be there if I'm going to include the major lakes (e.g. Great Slave Lake).
  - While appropriate in a geophysical map, I feel that the rivers are not required in this variant of a political map. I'm ambivalent about large bodies of water, which are a different matter: it'd be rather odd to omit, say, Lake Winnipeg and to exhibit a rather incorrect rendering of ridings in Manitoba ... or the Great Lakes. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, in the Wikipedia spirit, feel free to take these maps and improve them. Maybe in the next few days, I'll have the time to go back and convert the source data into svg and upload that without labels. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, these are great maps. And take all of the above as constructive criticism from Wikipedians who undoubtedly want to accentuate the positive. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please change the Bloc back to the light blue it was at. Green is just plain wrong. If you're going to use a non-blue colour, use purple (official maps used purple in 1997 iirc for the Bloc) -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know, Green seems to work the best. As long as it is discribed in the legend, I don't see the problem in using easy to read colours! I agree with you that lables are over rated. Kmf, The maps look great!--Colle 01:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for all the feedback. The bloc=cyan map is back, but with link to the alternative version. Re: labels, I assume you all are Canadian and well-versed in Canadian geography. However, I think the maps are as much for Americans or people from elsewhere in the world who see the item on the Main page, In the news section and click on the link. Even on Jeopardy!, people often get confused with basic Canadian geography, so I think labels are important. I hope the colors are clear enough, too (in the U.S. red=republican/conservative and blue=democrats/liberal). -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 04:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the mistake with the plural NDP in the legend. And I would put the Bloc last, becaue they had the least votes. I see your point about making it clear for the Americans though. I saw a TV News story just after the election where they were interviewing people in suits at Washington DC about opinions on the election. Two comments were "I didn't know they got a new President!!" and "I hope the new government encourages opening up the boarders for more tourism, and allows more U.S. visitors" Sorry, off topic. --Colle 05:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have corrected the spelling. As for any other changes, I've done too much with the maps in photoshop, to go back and change anything significant like rivers. Though, in my opinion I still consider rivers semi-important, as the geopolitical divides sometimes follow natural features (e.g. western/eastern B.C.). The Peace River eminates from this divide. Again, those are just my opinions and feel free to edit the maps, erase the rivers, add labels ... in a photoshop, gimp, or whatever. I'll certainly keep in mind all the suggestions and comments — I didn't expect so much feedback :) — with maps in the future (e.g. 2006 U.S. election maps). Thanks. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for making the "colorblind version." It really helps. The only riding that's still problematic on it is Brome—Missisquoi, because the green is so light. Perhaps you should write "BQ" in the riding or something. You also might want to label the riding won by the independent as "Indep." or something, since there is no color in the legend for an independent. Also, Brossard—La Prairie appears to have been left in cyan in the colorblind map.

Great job! -- Mwalcoff 22:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who finds this map misleading? Parliament is not represented by provinces, but by federal ridings. While I appreciate the work that has gone into this, I wonder if it may not be more productive to obtain permission to reproduce something like the map that appears on the Elections Canada website, which colours the ridings accordingly. Any thoughts? Fishhead64 07:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the map summarizes the number of seats won in each province, thus representing the situation more or less accurately. Someone has actually made a map that colours each riding individually, and its at the more detailed election results page. It was on this page originally, and I'm assuming it got moved there as part of the drive to reduce clutter on the main elections page. Ikh (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the fine map. I found it much more useful than the graphics constructed by the Canadian news organizations. (And said so on my web site, "Jim Miller on Politics".)

I did notice one minor glitch: The article advertises a high resolution version of the map, but both yesterday and today, the link did not take you to that file. You may also want to put a link in for the big official PDF map. -Jim Miller 16:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There is actually a link to the big PDF map, it's on the bottom with the other "External Links". It might be appropriate in the results section though.. wasn't sure so just put it with the other links. Ikh (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slimming down the article

As mentioned by E Pluribus above, it takes quite a bit of scrolling to read the article. In order to trim it down I propose, if noone objects, to remove, seriously slim down or move to another article the following parts:

"Brinksmanship in the spring of 2005" - it is interesting, but not entirely relevant to the election, as it happened some 1/2 year before the election was called
"Election day" that mentions when the polls close - I'm sure it all can be summarized in a single sentence.
"Vulnerable ridings" - an interesting section, but takes up quite a bit of space, and an average reader probably wouldn't be interested in it that much, esp. now that the election is over. Propose to move it somewhere else, or give it its own article.

This would be useful to keep as its own article. We could then track the ridings to see if they remain vulnerable, with a view to eventually understanding the various factors that make a riding vulnerable. JTBurman 09:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Cabinet ministers who won by less than 5% in 2004" - that was in 2004, probably would be better off in the 2004 election page? Esp. now that the election is over

Is there any connection to those who lost their seats in this election? If not, then I agree that it should be removed. If, however, there is a connection (e.g., Olivia Chow), then I think the relevant aspects should be folded into a subsection at the proposed "Vulnerable Ridings" page. JTBurman 09:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That should probably make it somewhat easier to read, esp. for an average passer-by who happens to be interested in the 2006 election. Thoughts, comments? Ikh (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well someone could put the gender breakdown back where I had put it, in the table summarizing the seats. That would take about 15 cm off the length of the article! Nfitz 00:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree generally that this article should be slimmed down, and agree with the suggestions above, with the exception for the one about the gender breakdown. I've reduced the size of that table by splitting into two tables side-by-side. I'd also note that the table now incorporates a "% of female candidates" column, which I think is useful. This would make three extra columns to add back into the main table. This info was originally removed from the main reuslts chart because it was not directly relevant to the results of the election, although it is clearly relevant to the election article. I think that the relevance is better explained by putting it into its only sub-section with some text providing context. Ground Zero | t 15:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As above, can we not do as was done with the opinion polling: summarise the gender breakdown in a few lines in-text (comparison with prior periods and other countries), while moving cumbersome (though informative) tables to appropriate sub/articles? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally support branching to limit the size of articles. In this case, the branch article will pretty much just be the table. If everyone else wants to do that, then go ahead. Ground Zero | t 20:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great; I'll work on this. Given issues regarding gender equality in Canadian politics, and comparisons both temporally (with prior elxns) and internationally, I'm sure such an article can be expanded in time (i.e., becoming more than just a table). Besides: I can think of more dubious branchings/elaborations. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fantastic to see what the sex breakdown of elected MP's is this time around. The current candidate graph is kind of misleading because the big parties tend to put old white guys in the safe ridings.--

Colle 21:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... who arguably also need to slim down ... present company included, too! :) (I also commend the Wikipedian who recently slimmed down and archived this talk page.) I'll work on it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party: "Contenders"?

Near the top of this article is a section titled "Contenders", with writeups and photos of the leaders for the four parties that won seats in the election and one other. Of course there is nothing wrong reporting information for the Green Party, but when they have never -- including this time around -- won a single seat or as much as 5% of the popular vote, they do not belong on a list of "contenders", a word that suggests an actual chance of winning something.

Either there should be a section on "other parties" (or "other candidates", including independents), with the Greens listed first, or else the title "contenders" should be changed to something more inclusive.

Further, the wording about "polling" as much as 10% nationally could be read as referring to actual election results. Given the subject matter of this article and the margin of error of opinion polls, I suggest that it would be better to refer to election results; the present wording seems to me like a POV attempt to promote what is still a minor party.

207.176.159.90 23:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Greens got 4.3% and 4.5% (close enough for your "5%" complaint) in the past two Federal elections, ran a full slate of candidates both times, and are considered to be a "major party" by the press. Compare to the true "minor parties", none of which got more than 0.3% or had anywhere near a full slate. The Greens did have a debatable chance to win a riding, and could take enough leftist votes to affect both the NDP and Liberal's chances in close ridings. I'm NOT a green and I don't think that their inclusion is POV (note also that lessor parties have been know to make sudden inroads in Canadian elections - such as Reform, the BQ, the BC Liberals, etc). Anarchist42 00:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That said, while the Greens increased their vote, their closest riding this time around was a solidly Conservative riding in Ontario rather than a four-way swinger in BC. They're further from winning a seat than last election even though their vote total increased. - Cuivienen

Canadian media usually mentions Greens, and yeah, they probably did have a chance to win a riding or two, so I agree that we should keep them Ikh (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they did not have "a chance to win a riding or two". Not even close. There were exactly 3 ridings where a Green candidate finished higher than 4th place. The closest of these was Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, where the result was Miller (C) 48.2%, Jackson (L) 27.6%, Jolley (G) 12.9%, McIllwraith (NDP) 11.3%. That 12.9% is the highest percentage polled by any Green candidate; only 8 of their candidates reached 10.0%. The two other Greens who finished 2nd or 3rd in their riding were in ridings where the Conservative won an actual majority of the votes: Wild Rose with Thompson (C) 72.2%, Maw (G) 10.8%, Stewart (L) 9.7%, Nelles (NDP) 7.3%; and Calgary West with Anders (C) 58.8%, Pollock (L) 22.1%, Roberts (G) 10.3%, Bondaroff (NDP) 8.3%. (All data as of 2 days after the election, when I downloaded the detailed results from the Elections Canada website.)

However, it is possible that in some ridings where the vote between the leading candidates was close, the existence of a Green candidate drawing a more typical 5% may have changed the result.

Anyway, as I said, I don't have a problem with giving the Greens a writeup, only with its placement under the heading "Contenders". So that I've done is, I've changed the section title from "Contenders" to "Parties" and added a sentence at the end saying that other parties are listed in the table of results : that would be the true fringe parties like the Marxist-Leninists and Christian Heritage and the Marijuana Party. Incidentally, the best individual result for any candidate of these parties was in Nunavut, where the result was Karetak-Lindell (L) 39.1%, Aglukark (C) 29.6%, Riddell (NDP) 17.6%, deVries (Marijuana) 7.8%, Kappi (G) 5.9%. Next best fringe party candidate was a Christian Heritage at 3.4%. Of course, there were independents who did better, including one who won a seat.

If someone wants to change it back, I won't interfere, but I think my version is an improvement. 207.176.159.90 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 207.176.159.90, the Greens were certainly not "Contenders". Only the CPC/LPC/NDP/BC were serious player in the election, participating in debates and being the subject of much talk in the media. I really don't think many Canadians would include the Greens as "Contenders". -PhDP 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep the Greens in the "Contender" section even though I don't think they really have much of a chance winning a seat. One must note that the Greens come in second in many ridings, EVEN in Alberta, beating Liberals and/or NDP candidates. But my point is, the Greens have been one of the five official parties since the 2004 election, and they should be treated equally with the other four. --Kvasir 04:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is true. The Greens finished second (a very, very distant second) in exactly one riding, not "many." There are only four "official parties" in Parliament; the Greens are not one of them. In terms of parties officially registered with Elections Canada, there are far more than five. The Greens do have the distinction of being the party that got the most votes without winning any seats in Parliament; they belong in a category all their own in between the "serious" parties and the "fringe" ones in terms of competitiveness. --Caradhras 02:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Kvasir means by "official party" is a party which received more than 2% of the vote and was elligible for federal funding. That gives them an actual legal distinction from the other smaller parties but, I agree, they shouldn't be included in the same category as the big four. - Jord 02:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Weakest" Minority Government?

I wouldn't really agree with this. Just because a Government has a smaller amount of seats doesn't mean that it is more prone to collapse than a Government that has a larger amount of seats, that may not be able to find as much support. For example, I would say that if the Bloc is likely to support the Tories, they have a solid majority together, which was not the case with Liberal + NDP in the last Parliament, say. Maybe it could be more unstable - but we can't really know for sure until we see how well the parties work together. -Nichlemn 22:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the wording of that section, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction.--Kalsermar 23:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on full party names or short names

User:Electionworld and I disagree about how the party names should be presented in Template:Canadian federal election, 2006, which is the table that displays the overall election results. I will accept the decision of other editors, and hope that User:Electionworld would as well. Please add your name below as appropriate. I propose to let this poll run until the end of the day (UTC) on Jan. 31. Ground Zero | t 03:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This poll can be finished. Ground Zero won clearly. The next step to make the table more clear and shorten is to delete the names of the party leaders. Electionworld 12:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than removing a column, how would deleting the names of party leaders be at all productive or make things clearer? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In favour of using full party names (e.g., "Conservative Party of Canada")

User:Electionworld.

In favour of short forms (e.g., "Conservative")

Ground Zero | t.
Cmc0
The Tom
Colle
Anarchist42
E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC) There may be exceptions, perhaps necessitating longer names or the use of agreed-upon initialisms instead, but (by analogy) there's no reason to refer to The Right Honourable Paul Edgar Philippe Martin, Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Member of Parliament, Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Laws when the popular or simpler name will generally suffice. And therein lay the joy of the piped link. As well (variably), even the Elections Canada website uses short form names. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SNIyer12
Circeus
Ikh No point in wasting space, the short form should be clear and unambiguous. Ikh (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an election, in which parties compete for seats, in Canada. Thus putting Liberal Party of Canada, etc seems a bit redundant - Jord 04:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Valmi ✒
tiZom_{(the man)} I have to admit, it was a tough sell, but the shorter version has grown on me, and the extra words just really aren't so necessary.
—Cuiviénen (Cuivië)
Common sense says use short names. 207.176.159.90 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

There is no candidates of Liberal, but of the Liberal Party of Canada. I do not see any reason not to include the full party names. Be aware that this template is also used in other entries. Comparable templates on elections in other countries use full party names. User:Electionworld.
Adding "Party of Canada" after each party name adds no information to the table, but makes the table more crowded and more difficult to read. Comparable templates for other countries are mixed in their use of full party names: for the UK and New Zealand, only the most recent election or two use full names, other use short forms; for Australia, where the tables exist, they use full names; for the US, they use only short forms. For Canada, only the 2004 and now the 2006 tables use full names, all others use short forms. Ground Zero | t 23:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also in favour of short forms. We need to keep the table more organized and less crowded

Long names add nothing of value and are rarely used. Anarchist42 00:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloc slogan?

Did the Bloc truly have an English slogan in the 2006 election? As far as I know it was just in French. --Saforrest 20:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes on their website they had an executive summary of their platform with the English title. [1] - Jord 20:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NDP Slogan

I write to explain my revert of the NDP slogan edit. Even as the slogans appended are used passim by the NDP, sundry extant campaign sites (e.g., this one, from Michael Shapcott) provide the idea that the principal English-lanuguage NDP slogan for the federal election was "Getting Results for Canadians". The IP address from which the edits were made appears to have given rise to many good edits, especially apropos of Canadian government and politics, and, so, I imagine that the editor will offer links supporting his/her edit in the case that such links exist. Joe 20:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the editor in question, but I do offer this link. The NDP Platform page has the title: "Getting results for people". Also on the NDP website are wallpapers that list the slogan as "Getting results for people". The NDP website also has some of the TV ads they ran. The tagline at the end is "Working Families First" (at least for the first two ads I watched). Jhayman 00:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloc slogan again

The Bloc's official English translation of its slogan was "Thankfully, here it's the Bloc". See their website: [2]. You can choose to translate their French slogan into English however you want, but let's use the official translation for Wikipedia purposes, please. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 15:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave The Results Be!

This is just the results of the 2006 Election. I have just noticed that as soon as Garth Turner was expelled from the Conservative caucus, it was immediately reflected on here. How is it that you can change Mr. Turner from a Tory to an Independent, but can take out of the picture the fact that someone left federal politics, someone crossed the floor and someone died since the election. Could someone please redo the picture of the House to either show the January 23 results OR the current composition, not a little bit of both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.132.120 (talk • contribs)

Parties: Green support "in fact"

in fact, polls have suggested that the Green Party in Canada draws more of its support from Conservative-identified voters than it does from Liberal or NDP supporters.

I would like to see what polls support this alleged "fact". Certainly, in the recent London North Centre by-election, the NDP was the most affected by the rise of the Green Party, whereas the right wing parties (Libs and CPC) more or less retained their vote. So, please include references to these specific polls that you refer to. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark alfred (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Incorrect party representation graphic

The current graphic at the top of the page colours all of the NDP's seats as Liberals. Esn 20:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Jhayman 05:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hung Parliment

It looks like a hung parliament to me, but I see no mention of the word hung on the page, is there a reason why the left wing parties don't form A coalition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 09:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadians generally doesn't use the term "hung parliament", and most of us would draw a total blank if someone used the term. As for why the left-wing parties don't gang up, there's no real history of that in Canada. Extensive Liberal-NDP cooperation had been seen in the Pearson era, for example, but never has a government contain members from more than one party. Hence "hung parliament" (i.e. no party has >50%) is synonymous in Canada with "minority government" (i.e. government party has <50%), although technically you can have the former without the latter.

Also, the Liberals tend to span a relatively large part of the political spectrum: they certainly don't need to re-brand themselves like New Labour did to shore up their economic credentials. So the Liberal-NDP pairing isn't quite as natural or obvious as it may seem at first glance to outside observers. Indeed in the past few years there's been more floor-crossing between the Conservatives and the Liberals than between any other parties, which suggest that they would be the ones most ideologically compatible: not surprising for a (sort of) two-party system.

See Minority governments in Canada for the historical background. Kelvinc 09:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg

Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turnout

Are figures available anywhere that gives the turnout to the election, that is the percentage of people who voted, compared to the number who could have voted? I believe that this is a useful indicator of the public's belief in democracy and the current state of politics, and would make a useful addition to these pages. Derek Andrews (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voter turnout?? where is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.161.16 (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IS THIS SOME SORT OF JOKE???

Did someone change the picture of paul martin? Wikipedia is used to provide information not biased opinions or selective inclusion of material. I suggest changing the picture of Paul martin immediately and whoever posted it should be limited editing rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.95.76 (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longest Conservative minority, not longest minority

Despite Stephen Harper's claims, the 2006 government was not the longest minority government since Confederation. In fact, there were two minority governments that lasted longer: King's first ministry and Pearson's second ministry. It is however, the longest minority government by a party other than the Liberal Party of Canada, I have changed the wording to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerbreadmen (talk • contribs) 19:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canadian federal election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070523170735/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2006/02/10/saskrecount060210.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/02/10/saskrecount060210.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Canadian federal election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Canadian federal election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825121650/http://gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf to http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825121650/http://gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf to http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825121650/http://gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf to http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gg.ca/media/doc.asp?lang=e&DocID=4657
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saplin.com/vote2006/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trendlines.ca/politics.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mackaycartoons.net/election2006.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image change suggestion

I believe it would improve the article if the Martin Image from 2004 was replaced with this one from 2006;

and the Duceppe one from 2011 be replaced with this one from 2010:

Geminin667 (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon, nobody has objected. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Greens be in the infobox?

Seeing as the PPC has now been included at the infobox of 2021 Canadian federal election. Should the Green Party (and its leader) be included in the infobox of this article? GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. They fail the usual rule (at least 1 seat or at least 5% of the vote), and don't appear to have received enough coverage for an exception to be made— they weren't invited to the leader debates, nor did they have any polling surge that would make them a story. The Greens weren't noteworthy in this election, and since an infobox is meant to summarize the key points of an article, they don't belong in it. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong feeling about this. At the time, I think it was clearly the right call to exclude them. Since then they have become a political force, and perhaps this was the beginning of the rise. 4.48% is a pretty good showing, and as I have said elsewhere, perhaps it is an edge case. I would lean no unless I saw significant coverage that has arisen since 2006 about this election. Perhaps, significant coverage of Jim Harris and this period for the greens might tip the scale. It might not. But I don't think we should add them now, without good reason to think that "with the benefit of time" (ie looking back), we missed that they were significant to this election, and that conclusion should be based on what WP:RS have said since about them and their role in the 2006 election. If that were the case, there should also be meaningful mention of them in the article (as this is a well reported on past election).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points. I agree, if significant retrospective coverage exists then that would be worth considering. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it is agreed that the 5% threshold is after rounding then for consistency we should add them to the infobox. I still disagree with the decisions regarding the 2021 Canadian federal election, but if it is approved for one federal election then it should be equally applied to all federal elections. It was noted that they polled nationally as high as 11% during this election period and was also noted to have polled as high as 19% in BC according to coverage by CTV at the time. If the PPC can qualify in 2019 and 2021 with 0 seats and less than 5% of the vote but other parties can't qualify for the same reasons it starts to show bias and makes wikipedia useless as a resource.142.161.249.114 (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2019 we were biased for including the Greens in one infobox and not the PPC in another, and now we're biased for including the PPC in one election but not the Greens in another. Just can't win! — Kawnhr (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found it bias to utilize the 5% rule as justification to exclude parties from other parts of the 2021 article, not the infobox. I have since come to see how much the infobox is used to guide and supplant article content in election articles, rather than the reverse as MOS states should happen. I continue to believe these election articles should follow WP-wide policies and guidelines, rather than local consensuses determined for other articles. The infobox should (always) be peripheral to the body content; the infobox should be pared down to only summarize current content and expanded to include additional participants if the article (which follows WP:WEIGHT...right?) includes them (WP:NOTPAPER...right?). maclean (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sole criterion for inclusion is what major mainstream media did. While they have their drawbacks, believe me, their judgment is better than a group of Wikipedia editors and Wikipedia policy requires us to follow their lead. The "5% rule" is not a rule but some non-binding decision made in a U.S. presidential election article. There are significant differences between Canadian parliamentary and U.S. presidential elections, beginning with the fact that Canada has more than two parties. If you think major mainstream sources should have included the Greens in 2006, or excluded the PPC in 2021, take it up with them. Then as an encyclopedia based on secondary sources, we can change our articles. TFD (talk) 06:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with these comments TFD, but I disagree we are stuck with what WP:RS did in 2006. If there is significant coverage in RS over the last 15 years (ie since 2006), in the context of this 2006 election, that is a relevant factor for consideration. That said, no one is really pointing to any more recent RS for consideration right now.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]