Talk:Canadian federal election, 2015

Monarch's power to dissolve Parliament

"This does not diminish the power of the Monarch, or her representative in Canada, the governor general, to call an election at any time." This suggests that the Monarch retains the power to dissolve the Canadian Parliament, independent of the Governor-General, who is the Monarch's representative in Canada. This in turn would suggest that the Prime Minister can request a dissolution directly from the Monarch, bypassing the Governor-General. Is that what the Canadian constitution actually says? I very much doubt it. To take the nearest analogous situation, the Australian constitution specifies that the Governor-General exercises all the Monarch's powers in Australia, and that the Monarch retains no personal prerogative. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it implies "the Monarch retains the power to dissolve the Canadian Parliament, independent of the Governor-General, who is the Monarch's representative in Canada." But I do not interpret it as the Prime Minister can make a request of the monarch. It means that, in an extremely dire situation, the monarch can intervene by going over the heads (so to speak) of the Prime Minister and Governor-General, and dissolve parliament, likely dismissing the Prime Minister and Governor-General as well. 117Avenue (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Does the Canadian Constitution specify that? As I noted, the Australian Constitution specifically excludes that possibility. If the Canadian Constitution does not specify this, the reference to the Monarch's prerogative is speculation and ought to be deleted. This sentence should state what the Constitution says, and nothing else. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The Canadian Constitution is different from that of Australia in this regard. It doesn't actually constitute the office of the Governor General, instead it vests all executive authority with the Queen and then describes the role of anyone the Queen designates as the person to carry out the government of Canada. In the constitution, the term "Governor General" refers to this person, regardless of who they are or what their actual office is. The office of the Governor General itself is created entirely under royal prerogative, and its powers consist solely of those which the Queen has chosen to delegate. The Queen is thus capable of taking up any of these powers at any time. SteveMcQwark (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Definition of "leader's seat"

This has been discussed elsewhere in the past, but with this major article about to become very active as we approach an election just over a year away, I thought I would raise it here in the hopes of finding some consensus. User:117Avenue recently reverted a change by User:Jack_Cox in terms of the leader's seat for Stephen Harper. Is the leader's seat the seat he or she represents? Or is it the seat he or she seeks to represent? Often this is the same, but not always, especially after a boundaries redistribution. I would argue that it should be the latter. The article is about the election, so the pertinent fact is the seat in which the leader runs in that election, is it not? Tradition has been to use the outgoing seat, but when you think of it, does that really make sense? An article about the 2015 election refers in the infobox to a seat that does not exist in 2015 and was last contested in 2011? Thoughts of others? - Nbpolitico (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nbpolitico for the exact same reasons they outlined, so I won't bother repeating them. I'll only add that this debate briefly occurred over Philippe Couillard's seat in the recent QC election, and following a couple of reverts it settled on the seat he contested in the election in question (which makes sense to me), not the one he previously held, so there's a precedent there. -Undermedia (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that the best compromise would be (at least in the leadup to the election) to have his seat as Calgary Southwest (and the other seats in the 2011 election for the other leaders, and then put underneath in small letters running in (new riding). After the election, we can then put in the new seat as the leaders seat, or leave it the same way. Bkissin (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that puts the emphasis in the wrong place - on the previous election, not the election the article is about. Perhaps a better alternative would be to state the 2015 seat then put underneath in small letters incumbent from (old riding)? - Nbpolitico (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think recently we've been putting both, but I don't think we are consistent. 117Avenue (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

What is known is the man is running in Calgary Heritage during the next election. I would however favor exactly what Nbpolitico is suggesting since Calgary Heritage isn't exactly his seat at the current moment.--Jack Cox (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Time to change the name

Ho-kay...If the Commons were dissolved this afternoon, the election would be held in early January, which means that the title should be changed to "2015 Canadian Federal Election." There's really no other choice so let's do it now and get it over with....Ericl (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Terrific..I love living in Pedant City. How about keeping the name as it is because of the possibility, however remote, that the next election might not occur until after 2015. Harper could declare marshal law and abolish elections, or Canada could become embroiled in a world war resulting in a postponement, or Canada could suffer an environmental catastrophy that could make it impractical to hold elections. I'm sure there may be other, more unlikely circumstances. Graemp (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, there are lots of reasons why the election might not be held in 2015. Let's leave the title until the writ is dropped. - Ahunt (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The future is always full of "if"s. But people expect to see future election articles at their prescribed dates. I'm surprised there's a hesitation, usually I have to fight to remove the date from the title, in the more likely event that there's an early election. 117Avenue (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It is probably worth pointing out that 2015 Canadian federal election is already a redirect pointing to this article, so readers will find it under that title quickly. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Given Ahunt's excellent point, there is probably no need to change the title of the article. However that shouldn't stop us having a good old argue about the article's first sentence which probably ought to changed back in my pedantic opinion. As for the supposed unlikeliness of the election being postponed by at least three months, this is perhaps not that unlikely; consider the impact of a foot and mouth breakout. One of the first things the government would do to try and control the disease would be to restrict movement, which would greatly hinder an election. So postponing an election would be a serious option. Graemp (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the lead back as it did not comply with WP:LEAD and wasn't even accurate. No matter when it is held it will still be the 42nd Canadian general election. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

But it doesn't, now does it? The 1980 election began in December and took place in Late February, a little over two months: If the writ dropped five minutes ago for a new election, the thing wouldn't take place until the middle of January. That's 2015. The law demands that it be held by October, and whether or not it takes place in January or October or anywhere inbetween is immaterial. There were general elections in Canada during both World Wars (1917, 1940, 1945), so the world war argument doesn't work. Also, Canada has never in it's modern history (Larier–Harper), EVER had a parliament beyond it's legal mandate. Unless God smites Ottawa with an asteroid bearing super-Ebola, it legally CANNOT happen. So nonwithstanding something supernatural, the election will be held in 2015. Also, we need to get rid of the redirect for the timeline article, which should exist but doesn't. As the election starts to loom, and it IS only eleven months away, we need a splitting and we need it soon. 14:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually the constitution requires that the election be held by October 2016, the five year mandate. The fixed election law, which our current PM has already broken once, says we are supposed to hold an election in October 2015. It is not a foregone conclusion that we will have an election in 2015. To say otherwise, prior to the writ being issued is WP:CRYSTALBALL.

Regardless, the lead para needs to comply with WP:LEAD and thus the bolding needs to match the current name of the article. Also if and when this election is held is will not be "formerly the 42nd federal election" it will still be the "42nd federal election". To call it "formerly the 42nd federal election" is factually incorrect. - Ahunt (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine, it's now "formally" now somebody change the title please!!!!" It is NOT WP:CRYSTALBALL. It is The LAW. The law is still in place, and expecting criminal behavior on the part of a democraticly elected government is far more WP:CRYSTALBALL than anything I've done here. Ericl (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to read what you have written there? The lead now reads "The 2015 Canadian federal election (formally the 42nd Canadian general election) was held Monday, May 2, 2011, to elect members to the House of Commons of the 41st Canadian Parliament.is tentatively scheduled for October 19, 2015". That makes absolutely no sense at all. Please fix that.

Furthermore as per WP:BOLDTITLE the bolding is supposed to match the article title and it doesn't, so that needs fixing as well.

So far there is no consensus to change the title of the article. You need to put forward better and more convincing arguments than you have done so and stop edit warring to get your own way here. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, a special thank you to the above posters for accepting my suggestion to start quibbling about the first sentence of the article. Friday afternoons really need this sort of stuff. The anon contributor at 14:33 said that the two world wars had not resulted in the cancellation/postponement of any elections. We can ignore the 1945 case as the war was all but over with the UK holding one at the same time. However the editor mentioning 1917 has fallen neatly into my trap as the election had to take place by law by 1916 but the government chose to delay the election and only chose to hold it when a clear difference of opinion arose in parliament over a major issue that arguably could only be resolved by an election.Graemp (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The lead para currently makes no sense, it says the election was held in 2011. It needs fixing, but I have already reverted this mess twice, so if someone else would like to deal with that it would be appreciated. - Ahunt (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

done. feel free to tweak. Graemp (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that reads fine and is factually accurate, at least. - Ahunt (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

But it wasn't, of course. There was no "tweaking" just a silly reversion that had to once again be reverted.

There was never any mess, BTW, just some acknowledgement of facts. The 1917 election took place during World War I, this means, and it's simple, don'tcha know, General Elections in Canada can take place during World Wars. The 1940 election proves the same thing. Also, it appears Graemp is doing this to be mean. "Firstly, a special thank you to the above posters for accepting my suggestion to start quibbling..." then going on about "fallen neatly into my trap..." Thank you for quibbling? Setting TRAPS? What the heck did I ever do to you to deserve a conserted effort of "Quibbling" and having TRAPs set out for me? Does making an article better offend that much?Ericl (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric, You did absolutely the right thing by initiating this discussion on this page to see if there was consensus. Unfortunately there isn't. I have given you three reasons why your change may not be right and have supplied one example of where that has previously happened (1916 decision to defer the election beyond the legal max which is what we are talking about)and your response was to infer that I am an insane conspiracy theorist. Perhaps that is your sense of humour? I'm sorry you don't like my sense of humour but I was doing my best to avoid conflict as I sensed where this might lead. I am 99.9% convinced that the election will be in 2015 as you infer but that is not a good enough reason to make something potentially inaccurate. Graemp (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW as for you thinking I was getting at you personally regarding traps etc. Dude, I didn't even know that was you as you did not sign that post. Graemp (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Move it to Canadian federal election, 2015. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely do not move it. The law says that the election must now be held in 2015. Parliament can amend or repeal that law if it sees fit. Wikipedia should not presume that Parliament will not exercise the authority that is had to amend laws. Note the "taxpayer protection" legislation that exists in Ontario and some other provinces that prevents governments from raising taxes without a referendum. Except when the Legislature amends that legislation to create an exception to it - both Tory and Liberal governments in Ontario have done this. A 2015 election is certainly very likely, but not certain. Ground Zero | t 02:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If Parliament were to push the next Fed election beyond 2015, we could easily move the article to compensate. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Or we could leave things as they are - 100% accurate - and save ourselves a lot of trouble. Graemp (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any convincing argument yet advanced here to move the article. So far there is clearly no consensus to move it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The Prime Minister did not break the law, the act says the Governor General is still allowed to dissolve Parliament at his discretion. Clearly there is no consensus here, a formal discussion is required. 117Avenue (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, Canadian federal election, 2015 is used as the infobox header. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That was done in this edit which changed the title in the lead as well. I've changed the infobox header to be consistent with the lead and article title. Maxim_(talk) 02:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Me & my big mouth ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved; there is no consensus to move the page at this time. The current title, while lacking in consistency with other titles, is not inaccurate. Of course, redirects are cheap and consensus can change in the future, so this is not a matter in which to become deeply emotionally invested. bd2412 T 23:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

42nd Canadian federal election → Canadian federal election, 2015 – It is practice to name the article on Canadian elections with the year the election is held. With fixed election dates now popular in Canada, the date for any future elections is known, or tentatively set anyways. With the possibility of early elections it was the feeling of Wikipedians here, that naming the article with a future year was a CRYSTALBALL prediction, and the articles were moved from the year title. I feel that part of that commitment is that when the time comes that an early election can no longer take place in any other year, the article gets moved to the title with the year. That time has come for this election. 117Avenue (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support in the unlikely event that the date changes, the article's year can be changed. Stickee (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: We have just had this discussion above and there is clearly no consensus to move it yet. The current article title is accurate and there is a redirect from Canadian federal election, 2015 here, so it is easy to find from a search for that name. - Ahunt (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose::Let's be patient. Krazytea(talk) 01:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Bottom line is that since we cannot be absolutely certain that the election will take place in 2015 (various possible, however unlikely, scenarios given by others above), why the rush to get ahead of ourselves? Undermedia (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is entirely a rush to get ahead of ourselves, I think it is working with the probabilities. Every future event is surrounded by scenarios, some likely, and some highly unlikely. There comes a time that the likely outweighs the highly unlikely, and WP:CRYSTALBALL is ignored as those highly unlikely scenarios are conjecture. That time has come, as all parties are preparing for a 2015 election. 117Avenue (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support, until we hear otherwise, October 19, 2015 is the latest date for the next Canadian federal election. GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support – While something could theoretically cause the elections to be postponed, they currently have a set date in 2015. Barring sudden disasters (in which case the page could be moved back), the elections are happening next year. As such, the article title should be consistent with others (including the previous Canadian federal elections articles). The move makes sense. --V2Blast (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: The argument for changing something on the grounds that if it turns out to be wrong then it can always be changed back is not a very good one. Someone above mentioned that constitutionally, the election need not take place until 2016, a point that was not challenged. It was also mentioned above that there is at least one precedent where the election was postponed beyond the legal maximum date, (1916 to 1917) which has also not been challenged. When wikipedia can be 100% accurate, it makes no sense to attempt to reduce that accuracy unnecessarily. Graemp (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: There is no need to change it now. Let's change when we know that it will be held in 2015. We only expect that it will be held then. It wouldn't take a sudden disaster, only an amendment to the legislation, which is entirely within Parliament's authority to make. Ground Zero | t 11:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Ground zero above. We should only change it when the election is actually called. Maxim_(talk) 21:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - We KNOW it will happen in 2015, it's the law. Now the argument against it is the "zombie invasion" scenario and that isn't good enough. The alleged 1916 precedent is not one at at all because the law has been changed. As I said before, If the writ was dropped NOW, the election would be held in 2015, and the scheduled date for the election UNDER THE LAW, is in October, which is also in 2015. So it's going to be in that year. Period, unless Canada is invaded by Russian zombies. If Harper tried to postpone the election to 2016, why not just pass a law extending it forever? The Backlash would be just as harsh. Ericl (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Or, Parliament can just amend the law to change the date. It can do that. It is within Parliament's power to do so. So maybe we can set aside the hyperbole about Russian zombie invasions. It's about something that is entirely within the realm of possibility in our parliamentary democracy. And, there is no need to change the title now. The current title works just fine. Ground Zero | t 15:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • So is the Governor General Firing Harper's ass and appointing himself PM and virtual dictator. Harper could technically get Parliament to pass a bill of atainder against Trudeau too. Each "silly" example I just gave would be just as likely as Harper getting the Parliament to postpone the election at the last minute, and would get just as big a backlash. Ericl (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Parliament amending its own legislation is as likely as Johnson staging a consitutional coup and establishing a dictatorship? I don't share your unusual view of Canadian politics, so I don't think this discussion is worth continuing. This is a contentious move that is unnecessary at this time, and that doesn't have consensus. Ground Zero | t 15:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
        • We do not KNOW anything about this election, we assume based on probability, knowledge is an absolute statement. While the probability of a 2015 election is extremely high it is not an absolute. Therefore until we know the date of the election it is presumptuous to assume that it will occur at the aforementioned time. Krazytea(talk) 22:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
          • • • You talk about "contentious!" Parliament changing this particular law in order to thwart democracy would certainly be that. BTW, this is not based on probability, this is based on LAW, the unilateral repeal of which would cause a massive backlash. There can be no doubt that the election will take place next year. Ericl (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Changing a law is consistent with democracy. That's what Parliament is there to do. Parliament passes, amends and repeals laws. It cannot be done "unilaterally", since it would require the support of the majority of MPs sitting, plus passage in the Senate and Royal Assent. As mentioned above, the Legislature of Ontario has amended its "Taxpayer Protection Act" to avoid having to have a referendum on a tax increase. These amendments were proposed first by a PC government (who introduced that act), and then by a Liberal government, who have been reelected several times since. Entirely legal, entirely within the Legislature's power to do so. Ground Zero | t 00:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support: The proposed title "Canadian Federal election 2015" is an easier title to identify with than "42nd Canadian federal election". —CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Terms were five years until Bill C-16 was passed in 2006. It could be changed back to five years as easily as it was changed to four, or any number of other unpredictable events could happen. There's nothing inaccurate or misleading about the title as it is, and there is no pressing reason to move it right now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support We have tens of election articles on Wikipedia for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and beyond. In all these cases it is because the dates and terms of the respective parliaments or posts are set by legislation. Of course, in all these cases the legislation can be changed, but IMO that argument is the WP:CRYSTAL violation, as opposed to stating when an election is currently scheduled for. Furthermore, reliable election-related sources like the IFES have the election down as occurring in 2015. Number 57 23:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a question of style. So what is done outside of wikipedia should not be taken as a guide. Your point about other wikipedia articles is just plain wrong, look here 41st British Columbia general election. If you would like to argue something other than "all" I suggest you flag some up so we can compare. Graemp (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your point about style – my point was that the IFES is stating that the election will take place on a certain date in 2015, so there is no crystal balling involved in stating this will be a 2015 election. And my point about other articles is not "just plain wrong" – see Category:2015 elections in Europe, Category:2016 elections in Europe, Category:2017 elections in Europe for a start. Number 57 00:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry friend, just providing links to lists, is not making the case that needs to be made here. Puzzled you don't understand the style point we have all been discussing, particularly when I accompanied my post with an actual example. Graemp (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you need it spelled out for you: I stated in my original reasoning that we have articles for elections in 2015, 2016, 2017 etc. You then stated this was "just plain wrong". I then provided a link to the categories above, which contain articles like Spanish general election, 2015, Romanian legislative election, 2016 and Armenian parliamentary election, 2017. I still don't understand your style point either – if we know the expected date of the election, we have the year in the article title – see the WP:NC-GAL guideline, the naming convention for election articles. Number 57 07:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is easily the most twisted mis-reading of both the letter and spirit of WP:CRYSTAL I have yet seen, made worse with an appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS essay actually states "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. For example, Harmonizing file names of a set of images is a valid rationale for renaming file. (To a lesser degree, this applies to article titles as well". Number 57 07:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A valid rationale when the titling itself is valid. The examples you provide (Spanish general election, 2015, Romanian legislative election, 2016 and Armenian parliamentary election, 2017) all violate WP:CRYSTAL. Pointing out other invalid CRYSTAL-violating articles is exactly what OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is supposed to discourage. Since Bill 16—which introduced fixed-date elections—there has not been a single election that fell on the fixed date—in other words, it's not well established (still only exists in the lawbooks) and could as easily be changed as it was in 2006. What's the rush, by the way? Why does the title desperately have to be changed now, now, now, and not at the time of the election? Is the sky falling or something? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, you need to read the policies/guidelines/essays you're quoting before using them. WP:CRYSTAL specifically references future elections: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2016 U.S. presidential election..." Number 57 09:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What you've quoted backs up exactly what I've been saying. What point are you trying to make? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That having an article entitled United States presidential election, 2016 is specifically mentioned as being appropriate in WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure how that backs up what you've been saying, as you seem to have been saying exactly the opposite. Number 57 12:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you really not understand the differences between how the Canadian and American systems work? Please let us all know when you hear Obama announce he's dissolving Parliament. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget this time to answer my question that you ignored. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand the differences between the systems, but the fact that the two countries have different systems does nothing to detract from the fact that we have reliable sources saying what the date of this election is supposed to be. If the question you're referring to is why "now, now, now", the answer is simply that if we know the forecast date, we should use it. To be honest, I'm rather surprised at how much controversy and unpleasantness this debate has caused – the UK article was recently moved without any fuss (or even an RM). Number 57 12:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

So let's be clear on why the US example is not analogous: US elections have been held wevery four years under Article Two of the US Constitution since 1792. Canadian elections have been held every four years under amendments to an act since never. The act could be amended to change this just as easily as it was amended to bring in that rule. Ground Zero | t 13:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of repeating myself, so I'll leave with the comment that (1) we have reliable sources saying when the election will be, (b) there are numerous other examples of election articles from many different countries with different political systems at titles that include a future year and (c) the proposed title is in line with the election article naming guideline, WP:NC-GAL. I will leave the closer and further contributors to the debate to evaluate the relevant strengths of our arguments. Number 57 13:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NC-GAL says: "For future elections of uncertain date, use a form similar to Next United Kingdom general election." Where we disagree is on the degree of certainty. And on the need to change it now. Ground Zero | t 13:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support: While it is relatively easy for the PM to call an early election, legislative changes would be required to delay the election. Under section 56.1 of the Canada Elections Act, the election will be held "on the third Monday of October" unless the Governor General exercises his power to call it early, or the Chief Electoral Officer recommends a slight adjustment to avoid conflict with a provincial election, municipal election or religious holiday. For legislation that would change this to be drafted, introduced and pass both the House and the Senate prior to a planned September election call would be highly unlikely and therefore it seems very appropriate to change the name; it is virtually impossible for this election to occur outside of 2015. WP:NC would suggest that the title 42nd Canadian federal election is generally inappropriate; we use it because we have no other choice when we're not sure, but now that it is a near certainty that the election will be in 2015, we should with Canadian federal election, 2015 which meets the Recognizability, Naturalness and Consistency tests that 42nd Canadian federal election does not. - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment

• Six !votes against and five !votes for the move? How is that a consensus to move? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Yeah, the conspiracy theorists are winning this one. Sure a zombie invasion is "possible", but one mustn't make plans based on it. ALL Canadian newspapers, the CBC, the five major parties, and internet sites (except this one) have a consensus that the election will take place next year sometime, and the first campaign ads have already aired. Shouldn't this be given more weight than Harper going nuts and forcing his caucus to cancel the election at the last minute? Ericl (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:CIVIL to learn how to interact with other editors here in a respectful manner. - Ahunt (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric's decision to focus on zombie apocalypses and ignore the argument about parliamentary democracy indicates that we can no longer assume good faith in dealing with him on this issue. Calling us conspiracy theorists violates WP:NPA. Eric, please withdraw that comment, apologize, and treat other Wikipedia editors with respect. Ground Zero | t 19:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ericl: perhaps you should read the oppositions (like mine, for example, based on recent history) instead of making up stuff about zombie apocalyspes. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

1916 is NOT recent history

Let's see....The Conservative Party is already airing pre-election TV commercials , and anything as ABNORMAL as postponing a scheduled election would cause the Grits and NDP, not to mention most of the Tories and Greens to go apeshit. Harper would be committing political suicide and he knows it. The only way he could possibly get away with it is in response to a zombie apocolypse, nuclear war or something of that severity. I would like to apologize, but you are talking about something totally unprecedented. You mention something that happened in 1916, before the 1931 act or the 1982 patriation of the constitution. Not only that, There are a lot of Tory Senators who wouldn't support such a bill. The ONLY way that the election will NOT happen next year is something completely insane. Ericl (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Ericl, 1916 isn't recent history. The date I explicitly mentioned, though, is 2006. You may want to adjust your monitor so you can read it better---you appear to be seeing "Bill C-16" as "1916". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

1916 is specifically referred to as it is an example of war causing a postponement and was only raised by me when an anomymous commenter, who turned out to be Ericl implied that this had never happened. War is not the only scenario that could cause a postponement. Any number of environmental incidents could disrupt everyday life to the point that it would be the logical step to delay an election until such an incident had come back under control. I mentioned one example that could easily occur, the outbreak of foot and mouth; Such an outbreak did actually cause a postponement of the 2001 UK General Election. Graemp (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Apologize Eric

Eric, I am asking you to apologize for violating Wikipedia policy on WP:No personal attacks and withdraw the remark. If you can't do that, you should walk away from this conversation and reconsider how participate in discussions in Wikipedia. This personal attack is your behaviour and you are solely responsible for it - no-one forced you to violate Wikipedia policy. Continuing to do this can lead to you being blocked from editing further. Ground Zero | t 14:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize for telling what I thought was the truth!!!!!@ Yes, Canadian politics permits a prime minister to cause massive havoc on the body politic, just for the fun of it!!! I admit it happens ALL THE TIME (when, history doesn't say)Ericl (talk)

I also apologize for believing Harper's press spokesman Jason MacDonald when he said: “There is no plan to change the election date. It will indeed be fall 2015." instead of some here.Ericl (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to believe the spokesman`s statement that there are no plans, although it is not unhead-of for a spokesman to bend the truth or to lie. Nonetheless, plans - like legislation - can be changed. Also, don't confuse your opinion for the truth. You do not have a monopoly oin the truth.

More importantly, Eric, your entirely insincere apology shows that you do not accept the spirit of WP:NPA. Ground Zero | t 15:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ericl - your lack of assuming good faith, sarcastic apology and incivility here is starting to become disruptive. It is time to either sincerely apologise and participate civilly or reclusive yourself from this discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(That's "recuse"). Ericl, the point is not whether anyone's lying or not (although we are talking about politicians here: "Zap! You're frozen!"), the point is that it hasn't happened yet—so why the rush? Even if it happened as schedualed, "42nd Canadian federal election" would still be an accurate article title, ayways. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What now?

So what do we do now? How do we move forward? When does the article get moved? I feel that pressure to move the article will only increase in time, and move protection will be required. Users unknowing of this discussion will come and move the article. Rumors about an election call will increase, and Canada's population will increasingly expect a soon election. In the days leading up to the previous election call, that article was moved multiple times. 117Avenue (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've never understood the problem. Once the election's called the article will be moved—and won't require an RfC to do it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • My thoughts exactly Curly Turkey. I'd say wait until an official election call. An election will happen eventually, and we can change it then. The information about the fixed election dates exists within the article for those who are worried about that. However, as with most Canadian election articles, users are very territorial about changes made to "their articles", especially by new users and IPs, so that will be an issue we will need to work with it. Bkissin (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think we should be so hasty. Even after an election is called, Eric's point is still valid -- there could be a zombie apocalypse that leads the postponement of the election. I think we should wait until the vote count has been completed before making the change. Ground Zero | t 04:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Certainly once the last vote has been counted there can be no argument to moving. Until then (and even after then) there's no inaccuracy in the current title, so shall we agree for the move to take place 20 October 2015? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I think that's ridiculous. 117Avenue (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. That's not even an argument---it's a pout. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought the argument was over, that's what the above section was. But you haven't addressed Nbpolitico's argument, WP:NC states the title should be recognizable and natural, "42nd Canadian federal election" won't be the best title for either of those characteristics well before October 20, and as I have argued, before the election call. 117Avenue (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You haven't made it clear why the sky will fall if it's not done now, especially when it'll inevitably be move in due time anyways. Just what is the problem supposed to be? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Now I feel really bad. My last comment was a joke. I should have made that clear. I am sorry. Writs drop -> article title changes. That should be simple. Ground Zero | t 12:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: No, the sky won't fall, but the article will violate every applicable naming policy. I thought by quoting a policy I could convince you that I'm not pouting, yet I am still waiting for you to enlighten me how "42nd Canadian federal election" is the best name for the article during the election campaign. As far as I know there is no policy, WP:COMMONNAME states "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used". If you can quote a policy that backs up your opinion, and not mention zombies, I will know you are not pouting. What do you mean by "it'll inevitably be move in due time"? I started this section in order to determine when inevitably is, as I said at the top, more users will come here, and expect to move the article. What was "no consensus" a couple weeks ago, is quickly shifting to the move side. 117Avenue (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

When the election gets called the article will be moved and no RfC will be required. We've already cited WP:CRYSTAL more than once, and I'm not one who brought up zombie apocalypses—I'm the one who brought up Bill C-16, which has yet to be followed even once. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I find those two comments hypocritical, you say "will be", then quote CRYSTAL. You cannot guarantee the article will be moved, you don't have the rights. 117Avenue (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

How many straws did you manage to grasp there? Everyone on this page has agreed that the page must be moved. The disagreement is entirely over moving it before an actual election has been called. Perhaps a zombie apocalypse will prevent the page from being moved? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right, that was uncalled for, I'm sorry. I became the commenter I don't like, the one that insults the other user rather than furthering the discussion. Let me try again. WP:CRYSTAL is not a naming policy, WP:NC is. You have interpreted CRYSTAL to support your argument, but it can also be interpreted to support my argument. It says, "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." Preparation is being made for a 2015 election, as well, there is plenty of speculation for a 2015 election that was referenced in the section above. CRYSTAL goes on to give examples of articles with years in their titles for future events that have been scheduled, even though "dates are not definite". Could you please admit that no one "agrees for the move to take place 20 October 2015?" Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking me to agree to. Has anyone proposed the article should stay at this title after 20 October? No, all the opposition has been to moving it before the election has been called—the article title is correct (though less precise) as it is, and may be incorrect if moved prematurely. I see nobody opposed to a future move—in fact, everyone appears to assume the move will take place. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In your 04:59, 8 December 2014 comment you opposed a move before 20 October. Have you changed your mind? 117Avenue (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there was no consensus for that, so it wouldn't matter if I hadn't, but for the record I'm fine with a move made the day the election's called. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Candidates by party

I have just noticed that the article section "Candidates by party" refers readers to Results by riding of the Canadian federal election, 2015 which links to an article that 117Avenue moved yesterday from page List of candidates by riding of the 42nd Canadian federal election. This would be an act that is consistent with 117Avenue's view that this article should have been changed to what Eric wanted. Given that did not happen, in my view 117Avenue's change ought to be reverted for consistency.Graemp (talk)

As I stated in my move edit summary, "Results by riding of the Canadian federal election, 2015" synchronizes with previous elections (Results by riding of the Canadian federal election, 2011, Results by riding of the Canadian federal election, 2008) and sub-articles (Conservative Party of Canada candidates, 2015 Canadian federal election, New Democratic Party candidates, 2015 Canadian federal election), any other name would be a fabrication. I find it interesting that that move was commented on, but not Newfoundland and Labrador general election, 2015 and Prince Edward Island general election, 2015. 117Avenue (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Broken

Despite the lack of consensus to move, the page was moved yet again, and then moved "back", but to a broken version of the title: "42 Canadian federal election". I tried to move it back to "42nd", but it looks like such a move now will require an admin. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. I also move-protected the article; today was the second time it was moved against/before consensus. Maxim_(talk) 23:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

2015 election templates in riding pages

It seems that a lot of riding pages now sport an election box for the upcoming 2015 election. It is my opinion that they should not be there, at least not until the writ is dropped and the election date set. It does show the candidates that have been selected by their respective riding association, but maybe that could be put into the text (and maybe this page), rather than have a large, mostly-empty election box. FUNgus guy (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 2015

Can we now confirm that this election will take place in 2015

f so, when will be appropriate to change the title? GC MathTeacher (talk; talk_zhwp) 05:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No we can't. See Requested move discussion above. Graemp (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I know.. But isn't it 2015 now? All the discussions I see above were from late 2014. GC MathTeacher (talk; talk_zhwp) 20:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it should be moved to Canadian federal election, 2015. But, that's apparently not going to happen until the date is actually set. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. GC MathTeacher (talk; talk_zhwp) 02:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's do it now, okay? The reason that it hasn't already is that there are a few people who believed that Harper is soooooooo evil (I'm not a fan of his myself), that he would somehow have his party vote to delay the election beyond 2015 to say, uh, 2034 or thereabouts. This was not ever going to happen. So, let's try for a new consensus to move this thing to where it belongs....I Vote YESEricl (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait for a date to be set and the writ dropped. - Ahunt (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing substantive has changed since Ericl first raised this at the end of 2014, when there was no consensus for change. It seems unlikely that such a consensus will magically appear. There is no need to change the title of an article from something that is already 100% accurate to something that may be less than 100% accurate. I agree with Ahunt, let's wait. Graemp (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait for what? A meteorite to slam into Ottawa? Harper to declare himself dictator and become Prime Minister for life? There is no evidence that the election will, or CAN be postponed beyond December 31, 2015 and into 2017, '19 or '34. It CANNOT happen without a coup de'tat or violent revolution. Yes, I suppose that the Cascadia tektonic plate could break and produce a magnitude 9.6 earthquake and everyone in western BC will DIE, Russian Zombies from the planet Mars will invade or somesuch with a one in ten to the negative 80th power chance of happening, but the simple fact IS, is that the election will happen no later than October, and if it happens earlier, it will still happen in THIS YEAR, which is 2015. The assumption is the title is that it WON'T, and that far more Crystal than changing it now. Let's have another vote.Ericl (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine waiting until the writ is dropped. What's a few more months? My vote would be to maintain status quo Bkissin (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ericl, that sort of behaviour is not suitable on Wikipedia. Your hysterics won't convince anyone of your point of view. Instead, they show you to be an irrational person who can be ignored. As noted in previous discussions, a legislative amendment to the fixed elections act would be sufficient to delay the election. That is within the power of the sitting Parliament. From now on, please be civil. Ground Zero | t 21:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Look who's talking. The Fixed election act is the law as it stands and while a change for the NEXT election, (2019 or thereabouts), might be a reasonable, getting the current session, that's right, this one, for no reason at all, to literally cancel an election without a massive calamity of biblical proportions, would be unacceptable to pretty much everyone in Canads.

A scheduled election is less than five months off, the commercials are already on the air, The Prime Minister and dozens of Tory operatives would have reassured the Canadian public, OVER AND OVER again there would be an election before October. Some Tory Minister introducing bill delaying the election to 2016 will be the equivelant of shooting one's self in the head. There is less than a month before the summer recess starts. I would be unreasonable to assume that the MPs would give up a paid vacation and the GG would dissolve Parliament then, which is why I'm not saying that we should put that in the article. However, Michael Ignatieff preferred Harper as PM then himself with Layton as Deputy in a coalition. That's why he came in third in the last election, the people who were center-left, or who just didn't like Harper, punished the Grits.

Cancelling an election, which is what changing the law to Delay it, outside an historical calamity of biblical proportions, would be a calamity unto itself, and Harper knows it. Canada is NOT Lebanon or Palestine. They cannot just lose their mandate to govern and go on forever on hot air and bad will. Canada is a democracy. Saying that Canada is a democracy and under the rule of law is not hystrical or irrational. Saying that the election might be held over the summer instead of September and October is not irrational, saying that there's a legitimate possibility that the election might be cancelled most certainly IS. Ericl (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

We have an existing consensus to not rename the article until the writ is dropped. The current title is still accurate and you haven't presented any convincing reason to rename it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to say this is just weird. The convention has long been, for Canadian jurisdictions as elsewhere, that an article moves when only one year is possible under existing election law. Why did this change for this article? I understand not naming the article Canadian federal election, 2015 just because there are fixed terms—only American-style election have ironclad dates—but the link between writ-drop and renaming has only existed for federal election articles because elections have come early since Wikipedia became a thing. -Rrius (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No Canadian federal election has been held yet according to the schedule set out in the fixed election date legislation, so it really isn't a good guide to follow. Ground Zero | t 13:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

A month has passed since the above post and still nothing has happened that would postpone the election until 2016 or later. The Summer recess is in TWO WEEKS. PLEEEEEEEEEESE change the title as it is embarrassing.Ericl (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Leaders' Debate

I added a table on proposed leaders' debates given the change in format this time around. Welcome feedback. -Foreen (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

BQ changes

So, the media is reporting a Gilles Duceppe comeback La Presse, CBC. Should we be changing the BQ leader in the infobox, or wait until it is official? Bkissin (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

He is not the leader right now. As the news articles indicate he is currently an adviser only. There will be a press conference on Wednesday that may clarify the situation, but no changes to the article are currently indicated. - Ahunt (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Federation of Canadian Municipalities call for debate

A listing of a debate to be hosted by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has now been added twice. In carefully reading the references I don't see that the FCM is planning on hosting an actual televised debate. What I read is that they are calling for a general debate during the election campaign on municipal issues, not putting forward a plan to host a debate. I think this entry is misleading and should be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay with no objections of debate raised, in accordance with WP:SILENCE I will remove this. If some evidence comes up it can be reinstated. - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

more evidence the election will be held in 2015

To quote the Tory Website: "Did you know that there are now less than 20 weeks left until Canadians head to the polls on October 19? It’s true." C'mon. You know why there's a "consensus" among two or three people....let's get it over with.Ericl (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

We have a consensus to wait until the writ is dropped. What reason do you have to reopen this? - Ahunt (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

because the "consensus" is based on false information.Ericl (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There was 'no consensus', regardless of any information it may have been based around. The 'new information' being provided is not new but an example of a political party seeking to ready itself and its supporters for a likely election date. There will probably be many other examples of this sort of thing over the next few weeks and it is probably best if editors didn't get excited about them. Graemp (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The false information was not that the exact date couldn't be brought up a few days or weeks, but that it would be POSTPONED a year or two. There was never any evidence that it would, or even COULD be postponed to 2016, '17 or later. Under the terms of the law that stands now, and there is NO evidence that the law will be changed, or even CAN be changed prior to the mandated dropping of the writ in August. The summer recess is less than two weeks away. If you look at the official Calender you will notice that. I Never said we should change it to "Canadian Election, Oct. 19, 2015", I said change it to "Canadian Election, 2015", as it's going to take place this year come hell or high water. I know that people were ticked off that I said that the only way an postponement could take place was in case of a zombie invasion or world war, and nobody could give me any decent answer aside from mentioning that during the first world war (a world war), there was a slight delay of an election. The question is: CAN the election be postponed without changing the law within the next week or so? Remember, there's the summer recess, so for any legislative business to be done it has to be before then.Ericl (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is simply to wait until the writ is dropped to move the article. The current title is 100% correct. What reason is there for moving the article now? - Ahunt (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ericl: don't be surprised that your aggressive and uncollaborative approach to the issue has been a big part of the problem here. In addition to using reductio ad absurdam arguments, you dismiss any evidence presented to you. Don't expect anyone to agree with you when you ridicule their arguments. The whole zombie angle showed that you were just not willing to discuss this in a respectful way. Here is a scenario that I think is plausible. The scenario: a major terrorist attack along the lines of 9/11 that creates great public concern over security, or creates conditions in which part of the country is disenfranchised because voting is disrupted. Parliament meets hastily, and the parties agree that the country needs to unite to get through a period instead of having a divisive election. They demonstrate national unity by quickly passing a bill to delay the election by 6 or 12 months. I really don't care whether you think it is plausible or not. We've wasted too much time debating it. The article title is 100% accurate now. There is no consensus to change it. We'll change it when the writs are dropped. Ground Zero | t 20:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

So it was purely personal. That scenario is the one you attacked me for mockingly suggesting. A zombie attack/WW3 type thing. That isn't plausable. The title is misleading, showing the assumption that Canadian democracy can easilly be derailed or destroyed and the Grits and NDP would meekly agree to it. We got a week before Summer recess.Ericl (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It not purely personal. I am just pointing out how your aggressive behaviour makes it more difficult for you to convince opther people of your point of view. And the terrorist attack scenario is plausible. Parliament can be recalled during the summer if there is agreement that delaying the elction is necessary to protect democracy. Summer recess is not relevant in this scenario. Ground Zero | t 14:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous. We have had a third-party arbitrate this issue already and they found that "there is no consensus to move the page at this time. The current title, while lacking in consistency with other titles, is not inaccurate. Of course, redirects are cheap and consensus can change in the future, so this is not a matter in which to become deeply emotionally invested". Unfortunately, as shown in nearly all articles related to Canadian elections, it is not possible for the editors not to become emotionally invested to the point of becoming insufferable. The editors have not reached a consensus on this issue, and it is not the end of the world if we don't redirect the article until the writ is dropped. Nor does it change Canada's standing on the world stage, because this is Wikipedia. A reasoning of "because Ericl wants to" does not seem like enough to sway my vote toward a redirect, though I highly doubt that the election will not take place at its scheduled time. Bkissin (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I am emotionally invested in the TRUTH. The only place where the election is NOT referred to as the 2015 Election is HERE at Wikipedia. Everywhere else, and I repeat, everywhere else. A 9/11 magnitude attack, as is the nuking of Ottawa, is possible, but NOT plausable. What I did was reasonable, and was foiled for purely personal reasons. 12:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That it will be the 42nd Canadian federal election is also the truth. Or do you think that an election held in 2015 will be given some other number? Before 9/11, 9/11 was not plausible either. Your claim that this is purely personal shows that you do not accept that views other than your own are legitimate. And that's why you're not going to be very successful in briefing other people around to your point of view. Throughout this discussion you have violated Wikipedia policy on being civil, no personal attacks, and assuming good faith. Do not expect that other people are going to start listening to you now. The way you are behaving is no t Wikipedians treat each other. Ground Zero | t 15:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it will look like every single other article on past national Canadian elections in the series. Another 9/11 still isn't plausable, as for the past 13 years every single western nation has been trying to prevent it. Your charges about bad faith and the like are wrong.Ericl (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

So we're treating a future event differently from past events? Yep. That makes sense. You'll notice that parts of the article are written using the future tense instead of the past tense. That's different too, and there are good reasons for the different treatment.

Your behaviour is well-documented above. Calling people "conspiracy theorists" for pointing out that Parliament has the ability to amend legislation is just one example. Dismissing othe people's arguments and complaining that the objections to the move are "purely personal" is another example. If, as is expected, the writs are dropped in early September, you'll get consensus to move the article, but not before then. Ground Zero | t

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation isn't even convinced that the election will be on 19 October. Their 17 June primer on the election says "...if election day is Oct. 19..." - Ahunt (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the last time we ran into this issue (i.e. in 2011), the consensus was to leave the article until the writ was dropped. Bkissin (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, none of that is evidence that the election will somehow be postponed until 2016, '17 or after. The first televised debate is in less than two months. The CBC primer says that because the election could be held earlier, not because Harper will recall Parliament in order to procure an emergency repeal of the Fixed Elections Act. It's too darn late for anything to change the date past January 1, 2016 without a World War magnitude event. The 2011 election was different. That was an EARLIER election than was scheduled ending a minority government. That is permissible under the FEA. The election was supposed to have taken place in 2013 or something. BTW, it's a conspiracy theory to say that the Prime Minister would for all intents and purposes stage another coup (I remember the porouging crisis all too well)Ericl (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No-one is saying that it will be postponed, only that it could. No-one has said that the PM will stage a coup. It would not take a world war magnitude event - it could be something that we can't anticipate because we don't have a crystal ball. There is no conspiracy theory here. Stop your personal attacks. They don't make you any friends. They make Wikipedia a crappier place to be. And they violate Wikipedia policy. You are becoming a problem editor. Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Your behaviour is not constructive. Ground Zero | t 12:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, YOU said it would take a World-war magnitude event, and I quote from above: "Here is a scenario that I think is plausible. The scenario: a major terrorist attack along the lines of 9/11 that creates great public concern over security, or creates conditions in which part of the country is disenfranchised because voting is disrupted." A terrorist attack on the scope of 9/11 is indeed a world-war magnitude event, and if said attack creates conditions in which part of the country is disenfranchised because voting is disrupted. suggests that a major war has started in Canada. Canada is a member of NATO, and that means that the terrorists who did this, once they were identified, would be bombed by the US, the UK, France....

Thus, short of a World-war event, which within Canada is NOT the least bit plausable, postponement of the election to 2016 or later CANNOT happen. An election can be brought up a few weeks, as the law states that the writ must be dropped by a date in September which is during the summer recess (which formally starts tomorrow, all but a few housekeeping chores have been done and most MPs have already left for home). Your suggesting that I violate the crystal ball provisions is not true. In fact it's quite the opposite. Expected events that are publicly scheduled are all over the place listed with the year they are scheduled. For example, there have been four Olympics (1914,'16, '40 and '44) which have been cancelled. Does this mean that under normal circumstances, that is the current status quo with no world shattering events, the 2016 Olympics could and would be cancelled? No. The article is called the 2016 Olympics, not the Next Olympics or the XXXI Summer Olympic Games. Even when there is more than a slight possibility of Cancellation, such as the 2022 FIFA World Cup has the year in the title. WP:CRYSTAL is about foreseeing ABNORMAL and UNLIKELY events.Ericl (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This conversation is getting surreal. Talk page is for discussing "facts" related to the article. It is not a forum for speculation and rumour. Please review wikipedia policy: WP:NOTFORUM before posting any further. Thank you. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with Mediatech. This has become beyond out of control, and the tone of debate is completely unacceptable and counter-productive. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Seconded! This conversation ceased being productive weeks ago, instead descending into what amounts to a slapfight between two editors. Let's try and get back to civility, stop dealing in hypotheticals, and wait patiently for the writ to drop. Bkissin (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine: to quote the relevant wikipedia page: "In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. " At this point in time, changing the title to include the year will improve the article immensely. It will make it look like all the other related articles and we could get on to more important subjects, as to when the second debate will be and the like...Parliament ends TOMORROW. That is not crystal, that's just the facts.Ericl (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

For the title of the article to change to what Ericl wants, either the writ needs to be dropped or a consensus needs to emerge as a result of all those editors who disagreed with him changing their minds. As far as I can work out, there is not a single editor who has changed their mind, therefore we are still in a state of 'no consensus'. Graemp (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It certainly hasn't changed mine, the level of "debate" here has only made me dig in my heels on the issue. Bkissin (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to participate in this debate in a constructive manner and following Wikipedia policies. Yes, there has been spirited debate. If I have crossed a line, I would appreciate someone explaining where I did so so that I can reconsider how I engage in this sort of discussion. I believe that Ericl crossed that line repeatedly, and let him know that. Ground Zero | t 12:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Forces et Démocratie

In announcing their first candidate outside of Ontario [Q, Forces et Démocratie debuted a new English name, "Strength in Democracy." Since an English name is offered, should this be used instead of the French name? Knoper (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Should that be the first candidate inside of Ontario and outside Quebec? GC MathTeacher (talk; talk_zhwp) 04:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it's pretty obvious that was a typo, yes. Knoper (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with the move, but you should propose the move on the article's talk page instead if here. Ground Zero | t 00:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Done here Talk:Forces_et_Démocratie, thanks for your help. Knoper (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Dissolution Date

I was thinking it would be a good idea to place this into the timeline, where the Dissolution section is (I'm showing the original & my proposed version to compare)...

ORIGINAL: August/September 2015: Parliament to be dissolved and writs of election dropped.

NEW: August/September 2015: Parliament to be dissolved and writs of election dropped. If Parliament dissolves the same amount of days before the election as in 2011 (37), then Parliament will be dissolved on Saturday, September 12, 2015.

This is just a statement to show that if Harper chooses to dissolve Parliament at the same time as last time, then this would be the date of dissolution. Brucejoel99 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This should not be included, aside from being unsourced and containing poor grammar, it has no relevance to what will happen in this election. - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Page move request

I recommend that this page be moved to Canadian federal election, 2015. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This should have happened months ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.92.230.217 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2015‎ (UTC)

• Since Harper dropped the writ this morning,[1] is there any reason not to rename the page? This seems obvious, now that the date is locked in. Even though there was a no-consensus requested move before, that was during 2014 and well before we hit the point of the date being locked in. —C.Fred (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Rename as soon as possible. Nations United (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• I am moving the page. It also resolves an issue with a page-history move, since an IP copy-and-paste moved the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this move was premature, and we should open the question up for discussion again. ;-) Ground Zero | t 03:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Drop "Amendment to the Canada Elections Act" Section?

• Now that the election has been called should we drop the section on "Amendment to the Canada Elections Act"? My vote would be yes as reference to the election act is made in the opening statement and it does not seem to add anything to the article.Foreen (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'd agree with this, especially now that the writ is dropped, there's not really need for more than a sentence in the "background" section about how the date was chosen, maybe some of the political controversy can be discussed there or in the "spending" section. Huadpe (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

42nd Canadian Election as alternate title in intro paragraph?

I added this this morning, but it was removed, and I wanted to discuss. Other Canadian election articles use this form, such as Canadian federal election, 2011 and Canadian federal election, 2008. I think it's an appropriate way to title the article in the intro paragraph. Huadpe (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and it looks like someone has re-added that in now. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Independent vs. No Affiliation

Can someone explain why there is an additional row called "No affiliation", in the list of candidates? How is No Affiliation different from Independent?? Engineeringisawesome (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Elections Canada requires a candidate to specifically write "Independent" as their "Political Affiliation". If the candidate leaves the "Political Affiliation" section blank on their registration form, Elections Canada lists them as "No Affiliation". maclean (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• No Affiliation is often used by people who either belong to an ineligible political party or a person who retains a party allegiance but is prohibited from that party's nomination. Last I checked, there was one of each listed as No Affiliation.

G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Issues

I note there is a lack of an Issues section. Would there be interest in making one? I think the 2011 election page provides a nice template. --Natural R_X 16:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Copy of the discussion from my talk page concerning to this issue

September 2015

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2015, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Shawn in Montreal Either in Portugal or in Canada, what's the point of displaying polls that clearly are repetitive and are done with the same people? If a poll is done, e.g., from 16-20 September and a following one from 21-25 September, I find it justifiable to display both. But what's the point of displaying a poll from 20-24 September and another from 21-25 September, since 80% of the people polled, at least, are exactly the same? It doesn't reflect any national reality, it just reflects the vote intentions of those few people. This is valid for Portugal and for Canada. Urgup-tur (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"political position" improper

This notion of "political position" should be removed. It is very subjective. What means left to one person does not to another for example. It also has "libertarian" as a position, which is obviously improper. (Lilic (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)).

I agree it should go. It is WP:POV and not supported by any sources. - Ahunt (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Lacking anyone jumping in to object and the rather time-sensitive nature of the subject, I will go ahead and remove this. - Ahunt (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

All federal election sites have this information and all parrties have this information on there official page. This is not a private and subjective information. And we are speaking about a "political position" and "political spectrum" which will be used since hundered of years. Take a look of the seats in the parliament, left, centre and right global view. Even the seats are not like in most parliament the some "political position" and political spectrum are the same. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragdy (talk • contribs) 12:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if their political positioning is actually stated on the party websites as you claim then it should be easy to provide refs for those claims. I'll just tag the offending parts that need refs cited. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have formatted the ref you added, but I am still not happy with these claims. While they may not generally be far from wrong over the course of history, in this election the Liberals have been campaigning well to the left of the NDP and the Bloc has been campaigning far to the right of the Conservatives. I don't think these stated "positions" are of any value and in fact serve to confuse understanding. I propose instead just removing the whole table as non-constructive. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There is additional discussion here as to why it is totally inappropriate to add those subjective labels. [2] (00:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilic (talk • contribs)

Okay lacking any objections to the removal and with reasons for not leaving it as it is, I will remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Strength in Democracy?

I have just seen that the Strength in Democracy party has been prompted in several parts of the article and is being shown alongisde the Cons, NDP, Libs, BQ and Green parties, such as in the infobox and the Contestants. What's the reasoning behind it? I know they had 2 seats before dissolution as a result from splits from other parties, but aside from that (which is merely a circumstantial event which in no way reflects party strength or relevance, specially when it is not a major breakup and since those seats were not won by the party through elections) they have no relevance whatsover. They are not invited to debates; are not polling in relevant enough numbers to appear in opinion polls; do only stand 17 candidates across all of Canada (and 12 of them in Quebec); have not stood in any of the by-elections held since its formation in October 2014 and have little to no relevance in media outlets as compared to the other five main parties.

I'm all in for inclusion if, once Election Day comes, they do surprisingly poll in significant numbers, but I think that prompting them before that even happens would be somewhat premature. The infobox is a summary of election results, and I don't find SiD has enough of a relevance to be granted equal status as the Cons, NDP, Libs, BQ and Greens neither there nor on the "Contestants" section (which could potentially be a violation of WP:UNDUE; they are given a weight in the article that, so far, they don't currently enjoy elsewhere). Opinions? Impru20 (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Another day, another argument about who should be in an infobox...! I can see arguments for and against including the party in the infobox. There's an argument for including every party that won seats last time (so no SiD), and there's an argument for including every party who had seats at dissolution (so including SiD). I don't see an easy way to pick between those though!

Another line of argument is that we should follow what reliable sources do. Reliable sources in Canada do not appear to be treating SiD as being in the same league as the other parties, so that would argue for excluding them from the infobox and making sure coverage of them elsewhere in the article is not undue. That feels to me like a safe line of argument that respects basic Wikipedia principles, so I vote for that. Bondegezou (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to say because there's no real precedent that we can point to in past elections, where a small party formed from other parties between elections runs (and possibly loses all their seats). That being said, SiD is clearly more significant than other minor parties, having the same number of seats at dissolution as the Green Party and the Bloc Quebecois. It's also gotten significantly more coverage than from reliable sources than a minor party withouts seats would've gotten, with coverage from both language versions of the CBC ([3], [4]), the National Post [5], The Walrus [6], the Ottawa Citizen [7], and even the UK's Guardian [8]. I would say that they stay (we also seem to conveniently have an open 6th slot in the infobox, which avoids the nasty extra line). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Pictures of incumbents who are not running

Is this not a classic example of cruft? These are people are are not important in this selection. Why do we take up a bunch of space with pictures that already appear in their own Wikipedia articles? Ground Zero | t 21:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, only some pictures were included. Others were not. I've been bold and removed these. Ground Zero | t 13:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

All pictures that had been available on WP had been included. However, I concede the point about notability.Raellerby (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Update

When does Wikipedia update itself to reflect election results? Justin's about to become PM, Harpers probably going away, as many defeated leaders do, and we can only speculate about the final results. This definitive now, we might update this soon. The 2000 presidential election in the US, Wikipedia (if it was operating then) probably didn't update for a while after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.156.139 (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Harper will be PM for another 2 weeks. That's roughly the length of transition time. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Notional Gains

What are "notional gains"? How do they differ from "defeated incumbents"? 50.72.201.97 (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The incumbent didn't run for the seat anymore, his party's new candidate failed to secure it, and the seat was won by another party. --Voyager (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Could an explanation of this or a Wikilink somehow be worked in somewhere, do you think? It wasn't very clear to me what that meant either. I don't really want to go mucking about with it myself – I don't personally know that side of politics very well.  DiscantX 10:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I made a post about this section below...I guss someone changed the name from Notional to Notable. Your explanation, Voyager, still doesn't make sense; isn't that the section for 'Incumbent MPs not running for re-election'? Reywas92^Talk 03:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No these are incumbent MPs who ran for reelection, but in a new riding because 30 new seats were added and most riding boundaries were changed, some dramatically. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Now Front Page

FYI, this article is now in the news and on the front page. --Natural R_X 13:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm very glad this article wasn't deleted. I live in the US, I'm a US citizen, and I'm not familiar with Canadian news sources. I have a mild interest in Canadian politics, such that I was aware that an election was going to be held. I now know quite a lot more about the results of the election; in particular, that the Liberals have an absolute majority. The level of detail is more than I need (speaking as a reader), but I recognize that other readers may appreciate such detailed description. Oaklandguy (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You'd do well to google Jon Oliver's commentary on the Canadian election. It's about 15 minutes, and as a Canadian and interested in politics, I thought it was both informative and effing hilarious. Ground Zero | t 17:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Notable gains

What is the Canadian_federal_election,_2015#Notable_gains section for? It offers no suggestion what makes these races notable. While I'm all for pointing out races that were for some reason special out of the 338, I will delete the section if there's not going to be an explanation for it. Reywas92^Talk 03:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It used to be called Notional Gains but someone changed the title. Looks like it's been changed back now. There is also a discussion a couple sections above this regarding it. DiscantX 21:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove 'Strength in Democracy" party from the page (table in the 'slogan" section)

First, they didn't win any seats at the election (nor at the preceeding one, as the party was formed between the 2, with people that left their party). Second, although they had as many seats as the BQ, and even though some might object by saying they received coverage from reliable, important media publications, they weren't featured in any of the TV debates (but the BQ was...). Third, if you really do wish to include this (and other minor parties) in the page, keep them were they should be, that is in the detailed results section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.140.121 (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Long Page Split

Per WP:Article size, I trimmed the result to a different page and linked it here (with no prejudice to future name changes of that page) and it fits in to the less than the 100k readability.Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Analysis section

This section clearly needs a re-write. However I'll leave that to someone more capable. Moonboy54 (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. A little less about everyone's favourite unhappy marriage in the middle-east and that middle power between Belarus and Alaska wouldn't do this article any harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.72.111 (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The section is extended POV about foreign relations with only 2 countries masquerading as a general "Analysis" section. I suggest moving it to Talk for massive reworking to be less embarrassing to Wikipedia. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Frankly I think it should be completely removed in its current form - it is completely a sole POV piece and unduly weighted on foreign affairs. --  R45  ^talk! 14:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this section should be removed until. There is clearly an anti-Trudeau bias. The section states that it is a loss for Israel yet proceeds to say that the PM-designate supports that country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.249.67 (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It is very biased, just remove the whole thing. - Ahunt (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Three in favour of removing. Here it is. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, lets wait until there is some academic analysis I think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Analysis

Trudeau's Liberal's defeat of Harper's Conservatives were read as a defeat for Israel, as well as, separately, a boon for Russia. Canadian Bank of England (BOE) Governor Mark Carney was also mentioned in the outcome.

While a traditionally more neutral Canada had been viewed as Israel-friendly under Harper, a change in government was read by the Israel as portending an alteration in the closeness of relations. As such, the relative isolation of Israel in the preceding years as more countries, particularly Western European ones that recognised Palestine, was viewed as having taken another step backwards in such moves that followed the pressure of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement and the raising of the flag of Palestine at the United Nations' organs. The Times of Israel said before the election that Harper was "undoubtedly the world leader most supportive of Israel" and that Israel "was about to lose one of its best friends on the international stage... the Harper administration one Benjamin Netanyahu's dream team." It followed Harper's government's withdrawal of financial support for pro-Palestinian NGOs and UNRWA. Yet, despite media speculation, Trudeau mentioned in the pre-election debates that there was not much of a difference between both parties over relations with Israel. Trudeau has also spoken of the BDS movement as "an example of the new anti-Semitism in the world," similarly as Harper had mentioned. He told Canadian Jewish News: "I'm all for freedom of speech and expression in Canada, and we need to be sure we're defending that. But when Canadian university students are feeling unsafe on their way to classes because of BDS or Israel Apartheid Week, that just goes against Canadian values."

In regards to relations with Russia following sanctions by Canada and counter-sanctions, the Vzglyad wrote that the election was a failure for Harper. In particular, it mentioned that during his tenure Canada was said to have obtained the status as one of the most "anti-Russian" countries in the world as on of the first states to impose sanctions, as well as visa restrictions. Director of the Canada Department at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of US and Canadian Studies Vasily Sokolov said that the Conservatives' defeat was a good sign for Russia. "The young leader of the Liberal Party is unlikely to bear any personal grudges against Russia. He is the son of Pierre Trudeau, who did a lot for Canada, particularly for the development of Canadian-USSR relations. With time this will happen. Contacts will become closer. From the Russian point of view, the Liberal Party's victory gives us certain hope."

Bloomberg suggested that the defeat was also a blow to the BOE's Carney, who harboured hopes of running as the Liberal's leader at some point in the future. This was partly due to his attempt to shorten his eight-year tenure to five years. Peter Loewen, of the University of Toronto was quoted as saying: "The thing about Carney is, he's genuinely publicly minded. If Justin Trudeau had flaked out, Carney's chances of being Liberal leader would have been good, but that door has closed." While other suggestions were made he could take a position at the IMF instead, Carney has said: "I'm surprised that it would be suggested that taking one of the most challenging jobs in central banking in another country would viewed as politically advantageous in my home country. If I had political ambitions, I would pursue them in Canada, so I think this is revealed preference that I do not have political ambitions."