Jump to content

Talk:2021 Canadian federal election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.6.140.177 (talk) at 07:08, 20 August 2021 (→‎Platforms). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Standards for inclusion of PPC

No consensus except that Bernier is not included - MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Presently I see this is commented out...

because they do not have a seat in Parliament.
In the event there is a floor crossing, by-election,
or they win a seat in the 44th election
then we can add them

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you have no evidence that Wikipedia influenced even one person to vote for the Green Party, then? Not even the opinion of any reliable source that it might have influenced even one vote? I think you need to strike that claim unless you have some proof, so we can have a rational debate about this and not a debate based upon hyperbole and conjecture.
That said I agree that we should have a consistent standard here for which parties we include and which ones we do not include. You might ague that the PPC had a (although not elected in that capacity) seat and lost it and thus should be included in the 44th election article. But what if they fail to gain a seat in the 44th, do we include them in the 45th or just let it slide at that point? Perhaps you need to propose an inclusion criteria? - Ahunt (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I think that is an improbably fanciful claim that listing Elisabeth May's name in a Wikipedia article got her an election victory by 11% of the vote in her riding. But, yes, let's move this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada for a general discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bernier in the infobox

No consensus after multiple discussions on this page and others (aside that Bernier is not included). - MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are lots of parties that have no seats, why would we include this one? At the present time there is no indication that they are likely to win any seats when the next election is called. - Ahunt (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, I'm not really going to get into this again. There was no consensus last time on new rules for infoboxes and it was a rather recent discussion. The only consensus the majority came to there was that Bernier shouldn't be in the infobox. MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

You really need to drop this. You are repeating the same argument time and time again and keep trying to insert the 'debate' (a generous phrasing, since it's only you opposed) into the page itself— I believe this is the third time you've inserted your grievances into the commented out code?— and it's not getting anywhere and no other editor is interested in continuing this just because you cannot accept "no" for an answer. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no guarantee that the People's Party will still exist, by the time of this federal election. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we are well past WP:DEADHORSE here, time to drop it. No one agrees with you and you are starting to look WP:PAID here. Regardless of what may have been done a decade ago in other articles, there is a solid consensus to not do this here and now. - Ahunt (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, pretty much. I don't even know why I'm singled out here. Do I sound condescending? Sorry if that's the case, that wasn't my intention. I assumed good faith and replied to the argument on the original page Wikiproject page, but this is pushing it like you said. There is now a discussion on this on three different pages and the original user seems to be ignoring some of the points that were made by several users. That and we didn't reach consensus like I mentioned previously. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do try to WP:AGF, but the voracity with which this dead horse is being beaten makes me think it is all a WP:COI issue. We have a consensus to not include the PPC in the infobox or elsewhere and treat them as any other party with no elected MPs. - Ahunt (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, yeah, we all assumed good faith, originally, but this has been pushed a lot. MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Governor General

Perhaps, we should be pointing out that since January 22, 2021, the governor generalship has been vacant. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we do we should also mention that the Administrator can perform the duties of the G-G's office. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Election not official yet

The page has been moved after the election was officially called. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


With multiple reliable sources confirming that the PM is going to Rideau Hall on the weekend to dissolve Parliament and that the election will be held on Sept 20, should we rename/move the page?

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-pm-trudeau-is-planning-call-snap-election-sept-20-sources-2021-08-12/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-call-trudeau-1.6138794

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1816186/elections-scrutin-federal-gouvernement-trudeau

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2021/08/12/liberal-government-to-call-snap-election-report/

MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, see WP:CRYSTAL. He does not have to do what the newspapers say and can easily change his mind. It should be moved when the writ is actually dropped and not before. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, I just learned about that sorry. Had no clue that policy existed. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support the name change, as these reliable sources have confirmed the matter. Rushtheeditor (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have the option to do so: WP:CRYSTAL is a Wikipedia policy and we have to adhere to it - no latitude there. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. These media sources are speculation, nothing more, quoting "unnamed sources", not presenting facts. - Ahunt (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the PM made a public statement of intentions, that does not mean an election will be held - that is the GG's purview to grant it or not. "Dissolution of Parliament is not automatic and Gov. Gen. Mary Simon could say no — although that would be a rare move out of line with parliamentary tradition." We still need a dissolution to change the article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no big hurry. Let's wait until the governor general dissolves the 43rd Parliament & sets the federal election date. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement that we wait for formalities to occur(which, though technically the G-G could refuse, by tradition she won't). We posted when Joe Biden won the presidential election not when it was formally certified by Congress, but when reliable sources said that he won. I do think, as I said, Trudeau would need to state his intentions though, which hasn't happened. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think another reason to wait until the GG actually grants the dissolution is that the leader of the NDP has asked her not to grant it. Will she listen to him over the PM? Unlikely, but it introduces enough doubt to wait for the formal dissolution and actual election call. I also agree with User:GoodDay - there is no hurry to immediately rename it. Even after the election call it is still the 44th federal election. - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, as usually the opposition wants an election. I believe standard practice is to title with the year once we know it, though, so people can find the article. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we need a template at the top of the page telling people to refer here before making changes. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were some recent edits to the text of the article claiming a 2021 election, which have not been officially announced by the government. As a result, I renamed this section from name change to 2021 Election not official yet to make the discussion easier to find — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.127.186.124 (talk • contribs)

Everyone should follow WP:NORUSH and wait for an election to be called. It's likely to be in September - but they can still decide not to call for one. Nfitz (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder who'll be the one to change the article title. The rush for the Cabbage Patch Kids, won't even compare. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rushtheeditor is our winner for the article title change! WanukeX (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rushtheeditor, you da man. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, fellow editors! Rushtheeditor (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leader Image Update?

Erin O'Toole (cropped).png

I figured since the campaign's officially kicked off, there will be some new images uploaded. Should we update the images of various leaders, once these are released?

Also, just a quick side-note: The only reason I created this section is because I have a bit of OCD and like to make new things once something's began or ended and also because I found a pretty good looking image of O'Toole. xD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan Persaud (talk • contribs)

It's a good image but it violates our consensus that a leader should not look at another one. MikkelJSmith (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MikkelJSmith That's a fair point, but then again, Trudeau is craning his neck into O'Toole's image, so..

A by-election was cancelled.

The by-election was never actually called (no writ) so it couldn't be cancelled. I'm drawing a blank on a simple way to word the distinction between cancelling the by-election and rendering the requirement moot. Anyone? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about: an expected by-election was rendered moot by the commencement of the general election? - Ahunt (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, yeah that's really good. MikkelJSmith (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So let's talk about Trudeau's photo

There seems to be some sort of mini conflict over Trudeau's image in the infobox.

I myself think that this photo fits better with the rest of the leaders. Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We love a good edit-war don't we? I honestly think that image is a bit crappy, but its the best we've got to work with right now. Hopefully some new images get uploaded during the campaign, so we resolve this once and for all. Aryan Persaud (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editors getting tired of reverted an image that doesn't fit the page is not the same thing as a consensus supporting use of the image. The craned-neck photo is not neutral and gives the appearance of him looking at O'Toole.
Ahunt, MikkelJSmith2, anyone else got the energy to handle this neverending story? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a gallery here of the options would be helpful? - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for completeness' sake, here's all the images that have been used for Trudeau lately (if I missed one, feel free to edit it into the gallery):

— Kawnhr (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I say we either use the latest one (no suit coat) or the 2019 image. The other two to put it in the words of a three-year-old "doo doo" Aryan Persaud (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the 2019 one is the best choice. It avoids the "craned-neck" problem of the first, while also being a high-quality, professional-looking photo unlike the second and third options. It's not the most recent photo, but it still reflects Trudeau's appearance (and it wouldn't even be the only photo on the page to not be exactingly recent— Singh's photo is from 2018). — Kawnhr (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, we could move to the 2019 image and end this once and for all, but obviously.. we need consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan Persaud (talk • contribs) 19:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kawnhr, I'm also partial to the 2019 image, since it satisfies the past consensus criteria better. For reference, in the 2019 election talk page, we established through consensus that the picture of a leader should not look at another leader, should be high quality and not include flags (p.s. if you're looking for that information it's probably archived). Based on that, I prefer the 2019 picture. It's recent enough and captures the PM's current look. That and unlike the Christmas picture, it's in HQ. It also doesn't look at O'Toole like the blue suit picture.
My second choice would be the Christmas one. Then, the one with no suit. I'm less partial to those since they are screenshots from announcement videos... They're not in HQ.
Finally, the one in the blue suit doesn't work with the criteria we established before.
I hope this helps.
MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2 and 3 seem best-suited to reasonably matching other party leaders in pose and lighting, 4 at least doesn't look like he's interacting with O'Toole; I'd say 1 is the worst for pose and eyeline and has the least neutral expression.
I think 3 and 4 would need some cropping to bring his head size in line with the other leaders. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone forgot to sign right above me hence why I left a space atm. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to the original version of 3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prime_Minister_Trudeau%27s_message_on_International_Youth_Day.png [Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8]] (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about the current image of him (Prime Minister Trudeau delivers a message on Christmas.png) is that its quality is bad like most video stills. My subjective opinion is that its blurriness creates too much constract with O'Toole's high definition photo. Maybe newer and better images will get uploaded as the election campaign goes on. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wish we had a new, HD photo of him. But unfortunately, everything I've seen on Flickr is either outdated or has all rights reserved to the original author. 🙁 Aryan Persaud (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2019 photo is probably the best we have there. - Ahunt (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well lads, looks like we've reached consensus. 2019 image it is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan Persaud (talk • contribs)

Platforms

Given the fact that the Conservative plaform has been released today, should a platform table similar to that found in 2019 Canadian federal election#Platforms be added now or should we wait until other parties release theirs? Username6892 01:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say add them as they appear. No sense waiting for the Rhinos to finish theirs. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Username6892, I believe the NDP also released theirs, so that might be a good idea. MikkelJSmith (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On this matter, should we put it (the "Platforms" table) in its own section or do we put the table as a subsection under "Campaign"? — Eric0892 (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few matters of concern, the platforms are rightfully very long and dense. It'll take a lot to accurately and unbiasedly parse down and summarize the platforms but what we can do is have a campaign timeline which mentions and links the platform. I remember this issue surfaced during the 2020 Conservative leadership. I'd be happy to help summarize platform points but I don't want to be the only one
- CanadianCon2020 (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A table format for campaign promises or "platforms" is not consistent with MOS:TABLE's Appropriate Use. maclean (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listening to Erin O'Toole on the radio, it sounded like he wants to encourage the private sector to build 1 million homes, not that the Federal Government is going to build 1 million homes over the next three years. I think this more detail is needed on this

/* Incumbents not running for reelection */

Does Michel Boudrias belong on the list? He was refused the nomination by his party rather than announcing he wouldn't run again. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably note that, but it could be a separate section: "MPs not nominated by their parties" or similar. - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like that option.Raellerby (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

This is be the third time I've had to revert anonymous attempts to shift the Liberal and Conservative positions to the left or remove the Liberals entirely. I don't expect this to stop, given the boost social media gives to fringe beliefs. Once was on the Canadian political parties page.

Am I overreacting or can a case be made for page protection? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and this is a high-public-interest page that may bring us new recruits as editors, I would prefer to leave the page open and just be vigilant and revert vandalism on sight instead. - Ahunt (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just remove the "position" column? The equivalent table on 2019 Canadian federal election doesn't list their relative positions, just ideologies. — Kawnhr (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's logical and easily the least work for anyone. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PPC

The fact that the PPC is not listed just proves how easy the politically biased moderators can push their agenda on Wikipedia. This is why I stopped donating to Wikipedia years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoWikiNoLife (talk • contribs) 02:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under what criteria should they be included? In the 2019 Canadian federal election they were listed because they had a seat, which they lost. This year they are not listed because they have no seats. So for what reason should they be included? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The PPC is not expected to play a significant role in this election, as shown by how they've failed to qualify for the debates (which has an extremely generous inclusion criteria, IMO).[1] Which is not to say that Wikipedia must abide by that same set of rules, but if they aren't getting coverage, what reason do we have to include them? You may as well include the Marxist-Lenninsts at that point. — Kawnhr (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The public polling Canada is skewed and biased (as in many other countries). It doesn't matter. It's Wikipedia. Few will check this page before the election. You'll have to add PPC once they've won at least one seat and they are sure to do so this time around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoWikiNoLife (talk • contribs)
Walter and Kawnhr are absolutely correct. Including the parties with elected representatives in parliament is an unbiased way to fairly cover the major players in an election. Further to that point, we should really refrain from political debates on "how a party will do" in a talk section.
-CanadianCon2020 (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NoWikiNoLife:, FWIW, I've never donated to Wikipedia. PS: Would you please sign your posts, properly? GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I have edited the lead paragraph to conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, namely WP:REDUNDANCY and WP:AVOIDBOLD. I changed it from

The 2021 Canadian federal election will take place on September 20, 2021, to elect members of the House of Commons to the 44th Canadian Parliament after Governor General Mary Simon dissolved Parliament on August 15, 2021, at the request of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

to

Members of the House of Commons of the 44th Canadian Parliament will be elected on September 20, 2021. Governor General Mary Simon dissolved Parliament on August 15, 2021, at the request of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

In the edit summary I pointed to the Manual of Style and wrote that links are more useful than boldface for the sake of boldface. (The guideline supplement Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained is also pertinent.) The edit was reverted by Ahunt, who claims that it "serves no purpose". I am curious about what is meant by that. Surtsicna (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is WP:BOLDLEAD If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence. You need a good reason to not follow that and use the alternatives. MOS:AVOIDBOLD says If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy, but that is not the case here, since the standard bolded lead reads fine as it is. As far as filling the lead with links goes, see WP:OVERLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE. I am interested to read what other editors working on this page think, since I was "thanked" for reverting your change to the lead. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the article's title is not a "formal or widely accepted name for the subject"; it gets only 48 Google search hits. It is merely a descriptive term. Boldface is not standard in such situations, and the wording is indeed distorted to include the title because we end up with an absurdly redundant definition of the 2021 Canadian federal election as an election in Canada in 2021. WP:REDUNDANCY warns against that: Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article. The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead if the article title is descriptive. I believe Member of Parliament (Canada) and List of Canadian federal general elections are essential topics and that links to them do not qualify as overlinking; but I care more about the structure of the lead sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"2021 Canadian federal election" is not the widely accepted term for the 2021 Canadian federal election??? I would not give any credence to Google for that, see WP:GHITS for why why ignore Google search results. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GHITS refers to deletion discussions. No, "2021 Canadian federal election" is not a widely accepted name. That is evident from the sources cited in the article, the sources available online, and the printed sources. It is a term of convenience, a descriptive term, and sources use countless variations. MOS:LEADSENTENCE: If the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text. Why should the article state that the 2021 Canadian federal election is an election in Canada in 2021? How do readers benefit from that? Surtsicna (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well you have stated your case and I have now received several "thanks" for reverting your change. Now let's see if any other editors here agree with you.- Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's still the 1980 to 1997 & 2019 elections, which need to be restored to their status quo. I've already done that once & got banged over the head for it. Somebody should take up that task. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend an RFC on the topic, concerning all international elections. Federal level, provincial/state/territorial, mayoral levels, etc. Otherwise, we'll end up with said-articles out of sync & likely more reverts (thus a 'red box' with a high number on each of our user talkpages). For example: I'm guessing there'd by some resistance at the American & British election articles, to start with. Best to find out now, then the hard way later. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, would be an ideal place for an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Applying Surtsicna's logic, there are a lot of articles that need to have their leads rewritten simply to misapply a principle nobody else seems to think applies. Much like the editor who tried to reorder the Candidates article, it's possible to make things worse by following what seems to be the right guideline at first glance. I'm with Ahunt on this. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are indeed a lot of articles that need to have their leads rewritten. Is it surprising that Wikipedia is not perfect? Wikipedia has a boldface fetish problem, as elaborated on at the Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained guideline supplement. Neither of you has explained how exactly the Manual of Style "makes things worse" or why defining the 2021 Canadian federal election as an election in Canada in 2021 is the best Wikipedia can do for its readers. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's being said is that either you've misunderstood the application of the MOS or thousands of other editors have. Which seems more likely? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that those are the only two options. The supplement explains how superfluous bolding happens. Can you please tell me how you interpret the Manual of Style? And can you please (finally) explain why the article should open with a tautology? Surtsicna (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be better off following my RFC advise. What it all comes down to is numbers. Would you have enough editors supporting the changes you propose, in order to get a consensus for said-proposals. There's no point in making such changes across many articles, without that consensus being obtained. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with User:GoodDay here, so far there is clearly no support for your proposal, regardless of your interpretations of the MOS. So you can either drop it, or else start a much wider scope RFC for general editor input. I should note that the RFC will probably not be a good use of your time either, as it will take a lot of effort and is very unlikely to be accepted, as it would basically change a huge number of articles. - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to save you from bigger headaches. If you were so upset, when I reverted your changes to the other Year Canadian federal election articles? Think how overly discouraged you'd feel, if down the road hundreds of such changes by you ended up being reverted by other editors, all because you didn't require a consensus first. Admit it, it would be a total waste of your time & effort, if that occurred. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna's proposal

I'll leave the RfC discussion aside, and address the two MoS issues and COMMONNAME concern. We do not need to AVOIDBLUE if we can work the title of the article into the lede, and that seems to be case with this article. However, if 2021 Canadian federal election is not a common name, is it at least recognizable? What would you call the election? What do you see RSes calling it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, they are all calling it a variation of that. Elections 2021 (iPolitics), Vote 2021 (Toronto Star), Elections 2021/Federal Elections 2021 (CTV News). I can't find anything on Global News. But, the CBC uses Canada Votes 2021 in their news broadcasts. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchet Picture

After searching again, I have found a recent Blanchet Picture but I was wondering if it was good since he was smiling. It was found on French Wikipedia. For reference, we established in 2019 through consensus that the picture of a leader should not look at another leader, should be high quality and not include flags. There's also the neutrality of the picture rule we had that was established before that.

Granted, I'm not sure about that last rule...

File:Yves-François Blanchet à l'été 2021.png

Then, I remembered that one of the PET pictures we use has him smiling and I saw that O'Toole is smiling, which confused me.

So, I'm asking here.

Would this one be appropriate to use for the 2019 and 2021 election infobox? It is more recent than the 2009 picture.

What do you think Ahunt,GoodDay,G. Timothy Walton,Kawnhr, Aryan Persaud (I'm asking people that were involved in the Trudeau picture consensus above)? - MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good, I say we go with it because the one on the article is very outdated. Aryan Persaud (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the proposed image. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better than I'd hoped. A bit of cropping and it should fit right in. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. If "no smiling" is a rule that has been set in place then we should really toss that. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the photo has received unanimous approval, I went ahead and added it to the page. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kawnhr, I was about to do it. You beat me to it lol. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus Change?

Up-scaled Version

I just up-scaled this image. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prime_Minister_Trudeau%27s_message_on_International_Youth_Day_(Cropped).png.

Now, I know an agreement was just reached over the image dispute at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_Canadian_federal_election#So_let's_talk_about_Trudeau's_photo but that was before I up-scaled this image so I'm requesting a consensus change.

I just want to know should the current image be kept or changed to this? (Proposed image on right of page)

- Editor50545 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My main concerns with the current image is that it is the same one used in the 2019 election. The image you are proposing is good and I could see it being a viable image Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll quote myself from Talk:2019 Canadian federal election, since there was a similar proposal there: I guess the suggested image is fine, but I don't see why this needs to be changed in the first place… I don't think it's an issue for the same image to be used across multiple elections in instances where the person in question looks basically the same. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but the image is more recent and now better because of the up scaling, which solves the issue of the blurriness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:e263:a900:b9d8:f3f:a994:3e2c (talk • contribs)
The image is recent and doesn't have much blur anymore, however, the only problem is that it's still low quality compared to the other images. I think we should keep the 2019 one until we get something better, being completely honest with you. Aryan Persaud (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aryan Persaud, same thoughts ultimately. Hopefully something better will get released during the campaign. For reference, the current Scheer pic for 2019 was not used before the campaign in 2019 if I remember correctly. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image from Aryan Persaud for Consensus Discussion

An anon 2607:fea8:e263:a900:b9d8:f3f:a994:3e2c (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has tried to unsuccessfully link to https://www.flickr.com/photos/193295580@N03/51377085135/, however that source is not legally disseminating that work. I ran an search on the image itself, https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51377085135_fbcb604768_h.jpg, and it was previously published. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I give up. 2019 image is fine and it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:E263:A900:B9D8:F3F:A994:3E2C (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Trudeau Image

So, I know we were talking about the Trudeau image earlier, however.. after checking around on Flickr, I found numerous freely licensed images of JT (Justin Trudeau).

Here's one that I already uploaded, and is awaiting review from an Admin, mainly so I can crop it.

Ahunt MikkelJSmith What do you think lads?

File:Justin Trudeau at Rideau Hall 2021.jpg
Image I Uploaded

Aryan Persaud (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear and good resolution, but the photo caught him in mid-word and so the facial expression is not great, really. - Ahunt (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's a commercial image. I did a TinEye search and found it at https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021-08-15T155152Z_1901882450_RC2N5P9K0JEX_RTRMADP_3_CANADA-POLITICS-ELECTION.jpg?resize=570%2C380 as the oldest, multiple on Wall Street Journal, and multiple other sources. Look at https://tineye.com. The image has been tagged in Commons: "the Flickr user is known to upload images with possibly problematic license information". Other images at that Flikr account are copy vios. I would suggest avoiding them for our use. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't even looked at the EXIF data until I nominated it for deletion there: "Copyright holder: REUTERS". DOH! Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dammit.. really had my hopes up for at least one of the three I uploaded. Oh, well! Guess we have to bare up with the 2019 image (which I was really hoping to replace sooner rather than later). :( Aryan Persaud (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If only he were travelling around the country in a well-publicized election campaign where individuals with cameras could attend the events and take an appropriate photo. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aryan Persaud, there will probably some pics from the campaign trail that can be used. I know that last time Scheer's pic changed like during the campaign or just before it. So, it's happened before. One of the photographers just needs to make the pictures Public domain/Creative Commons. MikkelJSmith (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Canadian_federal_election&oldid=1039702824"