Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada/Naming conventions/Ontario

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electoral districts in Ontario use the same boundaries federally and provincially, though sometimes they come into effect on different dates. Explanation:

Mike Harris' government passed a bill during his first term that makes Ontario provincial districts follow the same borders as federal ones, this was a cost saving measure as it eliminated about two dozen ridings and also saves Ontario the expense of redrawing boundaries every decade or so. The reason why a current disparity exists is because new boundaries only take effect when there is a new election. The most recent boundaries took effect on April 1, 2004, some months after the last provincial election. Thus, the Ontario provincial ridings will come back into sync with the federal ridings for Ontario general election, 2007.

Question: Should these be treated as two distinct ridings, created for two purposes, by two agencies? Or can the info be better presented in one article without the duplication of effort?

[edit] Comments

• I think there will be odd instances where the provincial boundaries will not follow federal boundaries. I believe that some provision is being made so that Northern Ontario does not lose a seat in the Legislature as it will in the House of Commons, i.e., provincial ridings in N.O. will remain the same while federal ridings are reduced by one. Given the size of some of the articles when election results are added in, I would favour separate articles clearly cross-linked. Ground Zero | t 13:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• It would require legislative change to make the above happen and that could happen though I have not heard of the McGuinty government considering any bill. Unless they plan to radically change the law, they would need to move soon as the districts have to be in effect for one year before they can be used, therefore the legislation would have to be passed and any necessary determination made in terms of what exactly would be done with the northern boundaries within the next 11 months which seems unlikely. I am however strongly in favour of having two separate articles for these disricts. The reasoning would be as follows: a) the boundaries usually begin and end use on different years at the different levels of government; b) the list of results at both levels would not only make the page large, but also could make it very confusing to readers. I would suggest the pages have the following text in their intros:

Since the 1999 Ontario provincial election, electoral districts with the same names and boundaries are used for both provincial and federal elections. This article is about the (federal/provincial) distict, for information on the (provincial/federal) district, [[(name of corresponding article)|click here]]. - Jord 15:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'm happy with that approach. Ground Zero | t 15:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• I think splitting the pages would be ideal. I'd prefer a shorter intro sentence though; we can probably get by with:

This article is about the federal electoral district; there is also a [[provincial district]] with this name. Mindmatrix 20:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I support this, but if you guys are willing to do all the work, then fine. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep them seperate I will give you an example of how large a riding page can get Little Bow (electoral district) in rural Alberta, its 90 years of history for one riding, if the same were to happen in a combined federal and provincial article it would go on forever. --Cloveious 05:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• The legislative change Ground Zero references has in fact been passed, as part of a Democratic Renewal omnibus bill this spring, IIRC. FWIW, I'm okay with having post-1999 provincial stuff sharing an articles with the federal districts, but the pre-1999 districts should not be lumped in, even if they shared names, as then we get messes like Ottawa South. Considering every provincial district grew by a good 20% or more when the 1999 switch went through, there's inevitably nowhere near coterminal boundaries. The Tom 04:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What would we do for Ottawa South? If the article were at Ottawa South (provincial electoral district), it would have to include the current riding as well. It never changed names. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems you are right, though the law has not passed yet, it is at third reading [1] so it is quite likely to pass being a government bill. That said, if the electoral districts are no longer going to be in sync + the fact that in the Ottawa South (and other) example(s) we have federal and provincial districts which at one time had the same name but were substantively different, I would suggest that these districts should be split into two pages. - Jord 22:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It would make things cofusing if Ottawa South (provincial electoral district) was not about the current riding. Besides, same MP, same general geographical area. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it would and I am proposing that it would be about the current riding. Ottawa South (provincial electoral district) would be about the provincial riding from its origin to its realignment with the federal boundaries to the present. In the meantime there would be a Ottawa South (federal electoral district) which would cover the federal district as created in 84 to the present - Jord 15:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Then where would the current *provincial* electoral district go? -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

And I quote, Ottawa South (provincial electoral district) would be about the provincial riding from its origin to its realignment with the federal boundaries to the present (emphasis added) - Jord 18:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)