Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] People's Political Power of Canada
I posted a comment to the discussion section on the page for that party, but I see from the banner that discussion should take place here, so I'll post my comment here - I was wondering if maybe that party shouldn't be considered Christian Democratic? From their platform and description, it looks like their socially-conservative/economically-left-wing views could be viewed as being on the radical side of Christian Democracy, but I would like to know what others might think on that point. 24.32.220.158 03:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)James
[edit] English Party Names
Currently the page says "All names should be in English.". Is this intended to apply to Quebec provincial parties? Looking at Category:Provincial political parties in Quebec, it seems we normally use the French name, even if there's a commonly used official English name, such as the Quebec Liberal Party having the name Parti libéral du Québec. --Rob 06:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's own naming convention policy says articles should have the titles in English. My own opinion is that they should be in English, but if consensus is to drop that line, I'll abide by that. Ardenn 06:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) --Ardenn 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Naming conventions
For those joining this section's discussion, it is in regards to the line in the "Naming conventions" section that currently reads: "Political parties: As their common name is. Such as the Alberta Greens, not Green Party of Alberta." The section above (regarding English or French names) is a separate discussion. --Ckatz 05:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The party articles should really be named with their proper names, with redirects from the common names. What's currently proposed is the opposite - any particular reason why? --Ckatz 08:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Current policy says to use the common name, and re-direct to the proper name. Ardenn 16:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. See Joe Clark. The article is not "Charles Joseph Clark". However, let's not assume that the common name is the English name. The Parti Quebecois, Bloc Quebecois, Quebec Solidaire and Action Democratique du Quebec do not even have English names, and it would make no sense to translate them. Real Caouette's party is now commonly called the Ralliement creditiste, even though, at the time, some English-language newspapers called it the "Social Credit Rally". I think the only real question is, what is the common name of the Liberal Party of Quebec/Parti Liberal du Quebec? The article currently uses the French name as the common name, and I am not sure that that is the correct conclusion. Ground Zero | t 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can concede that the PQ name should possibly stay french. But the Liberal party should be in English. Ardenn 20:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. See Joe Clark. The article is not "Charles Joseph Clark". However, let's not assume that the common name is the English name. The Parti Quebecois, Bloc Quebecois, Quebec Solidaire and Action Democratique du Quebec do not even have English names, and it would make no sense to translate them. Real Caouette's party is now commonly called the Ralliement creditiste, even though, at the time, some English-language newspapers called it the "Social Credit Rally". I think the only real question is, what is the common name of the Liberal Party of Quebec/Parti Liberal du Quebec? The article currently uses the French name as the common name, and I am not sure that that is the correct conclusion. Ground Zero | t 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Which "current policy" - Wikipedia, or just this project? If it's the latter, it should be discussed, as this is different from the French-English debate above. --Ckatz 03:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's the guideline, I posted the link in the above section. Ardenn 03:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I believe there's a slight misinterpretation of the guideline. What you're referring to applies to common names, and using the most common version. This would include English translations, the most common spelling, and so on, and it is more appropriate to the discussion over French vs. English names. That's a different issue from the question of what to label a political party. The project page's example (Green Party of Alberta vs. Alberta Greens) sides with the popular name, which is perhaps not the best approach. Using that same example of the Greens, their own web site is titled "Green Party of Alberta", and there are numerous references to that title throughout the page. I'd think that the natural choice would be to use the official party title, as registered with Elections Canada, along with redirects from all the common names. Something to discuss, before the project adopts it as a policy. --Ckatz 04:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- For that article, that's a good point. For the French vs English, we need to keep the guideline in mind. --Ardenn 04:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but let's keep this discussion on track. If there's no objection, I'd like to revise the naming convention to call for official party names, as I described earlier, along with appropriate redirects. --Ckatz 04:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine with me. We can debate the English bit still. Ardenn 04:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Given that no-one has objected to the proposal, I've revised the "Political parties" naming convention as follows: "*Political parties: By their official name, as registered with Elections Canada, accompanied by redirects from all appropriate common names. (Example: article is Green Party of Alberta, with a redirect from Alberta Greens.)" --Ckatz 23:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- So should Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) be a redirect to Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada instead of the other way around? (Please say yes; I've been dying to do this since I became an editor). Carolynparrishfan 23:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Given that no-one has objected to the proposal, I've revised the "Political parties" naming convention as follows: "*Political parties: By their official name, as registered with Elections Canada, accompanied by redirects from all appropriate common names. (Example: article is Green Party of Alberta, with a redirect from Alberta Greens.)" --Ckatz 23:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine with me. We can debate the English bit still. Ardenn 04:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but let's keep this discussion on track. If there's no objection, I'd like to revise the naming convention to call for official party names, as I described earlier, along with appropriate redirects. --Ckatz 04:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- For that article, that's a good point. For the French vs English, we need to keep the guideline in mind. --Ardenn 04:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I believe there's a slight misinterpretation of the guideline. What you're referring to applies to common names, and using the most common version. This would include English translations, the most common spelling, and so on, and it is more appropriate to the discussion over French vs. English names. That's a different issue from the question of what to label a political party. The project page's example (Green Party of Alberta vs. Alberta Greens) sides with the popular name, which is perhaps not the best approach. Using that same example of the Greens, their own web site is titled "Green Party of Alberta", and there are numerous references to that title throughout the page. I'd think that the natural choice would be to use the official party title, as registered with Elections Canada, along with redirects from all the common names. Something to discuss, before the project adopts it as a policy. --Ckatz 04:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's the guideline, I posted the link in the above section. Ardenn 03:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Which "current policy" - Wikipedia, or just this project? If it's the latter, it should be discussed, as this is different from the French-English debate above. --Ckatz 03:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fringe party articles
While I think it is a noble endeavour to create articles on all of the parties on the List of political parties in Canada, we should remain aware that there are some editors who do not agree that every party should have an article. There have been attempts to delete articles on small parties on the basis that they are "not notable". Indeed, the AfD was successful on Direct Access Democracy Canada, an attempt to create a new party that nominated one candidate in 2004. The article outlined the party's policy, which was fairly well-developed for a fringe group. creating articles for fringe parties could be wasted effort if the articles are subsequently deleted. Any thoughts on how to avoid this? Ground Zero | t 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- My feeling is, we only create it, if they're registered with Elections Canada, or the provincial elections office. Ardenn 20:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not certain I agree with this. There are some unregistered parties that have been around for years, and that are obviously "notable" in their local scene. I could point to the Humanist Party of Ontario as an example -- they've been fielding candidates since the 1980s, but have never sought official party status. CJCurrie 20:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- That could be the flip side of the coin. If they've done one or the other, the article is fine to be created. Ardenn 20:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not certain I agree with this. There are some unregistered parties that have been around for years, and that are obviously "notable" in their local scene. I could point to the Humanist Party of Ontario as an example -- they've been fielding candidates since the 1980s, but have never sought official party status. CJCurrie 20:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the minimum number of candidates that an unregistered party has to field to qualify for an article, then? There are lots of "parties" that fielded only one or a few candidates in the days when you could represent yourself in an election as being a candidate of a party without going through any formal registration process. Ground Zero | t 17:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Good question. I'd say it would most certainly need more than 1. My gut says they'd have to run 5, but then that's just an arbitrary number. Ardenn 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Only problem is that that creates an inequality in that today, Elections Canada will register a party that runs only one candidate. - Jord 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- If they're registered, that's the threashold for me. If they're not registered, then I'm not sure. Ardenn 22:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but the courts ruled only a few years ago you needed only one candidate to be registered; prior to that you needed 50 for many years. How is a party that registers one candidate in 2006 under the new rules and gets registered more notable than a hypothetical party that ran 49 candidates in 1988, 1993 and 1997? - Jord 20:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- At least if they're registered, it's a sort of commitment. It's better than not being registered. Ardenn 20:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but the courts ruled only a few years ago you needed only one candidate to be registered; prior to that you needed 50 for many years. How is a party that registers one candidate in 2006 under the new rules and gets registered more notable than a hypothetical party that ran 49 candidates in 1988, 1993 and 1997? - Jord 20:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- If they're registered, that's the threashold for me. If they're not registered, then I'm not sure. Ardenn 22:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Only problem is that that creates an inequality in that today, Elections Canada will register a party that runs only one candidate. - Jord 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I usually follow the standard of "is there enough material to write a decent article". If the party in question is just one person's vanity project, the answer will usually be "no". CJCurrie 02:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's another good rule. We don't want perpetual stubs. Ardenn 02:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Political Party Logos
I just wanted to alert this Wikiproject that User:Durin has been removing party logos from all templates because of so-called "fair use policy" (his explanation here). The template for federal political parties is now just a bunch of words, as opposed to what it was before.[1] He seems to be going after all templates that are like this. Is it likely that political parties in Canada will sue Wikipedia for using their logo in a template? Do the template still look any good without logos? -Royalguard11Talk 01:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a question of whether or not an individual organization will sue or not, in a particular jurisdiction. Nor is it a "so-called" fair use policy - it's a Wikipedia policy. (I can certainly understand your concerns, though, and I empathize with the frustration at not being able to use images as we see fit, but it's what we have to work with.) --Ckatz 04:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well you have some partially good advice, lets work to change the policy, since it's all user created, and the users that created seem to love rules and bureaucracy, lets get it amended --Cloveious 05:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Consensus to keep political party logos in templates
I call the members of the community who work on articles related to political parties and politicians that are Canadian related to vote on a consensus to keep political party logos in templates, provided those templates are not used in a defamatory matter, and are used on relevant pages, that further the goal of creating an encyclopedia.
Article #9 which was used to remove the logos from the templates, comes complete with it's own notwithstanding clause. I have pasted the relevant clause.
Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page).
--Cloveious 06:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. I believe the use of the party logos in this manner actually falls within the definition of Fair Use (both legal and WP) because it is specifically in the context of presenting information on those parties. (Although I'm sure there are folks who see it differently, I believe they are mistaken.) —GrantNeufeld 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agree per above. —Nightstallion (?) 22:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose The rule is against having a logo specified (e.g. hardcoded) in the template. You can still have a logo visually appear inside an info box (made by template). It just doesn't automatically appear in every transclusion of the same template. I want a specific example of something we can't do now, which we should be able to do. Specifying fairuse images in a template is bad, because it means the template can only be transcluded in cases where a clear fair use rationale can be made. We're essentially making templates "unfree" and restricted, which seems pointless. For instance, such unfree templates could never be transcluded ouside of article space. --Rob 23:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, not because I don't want to debate this issue, but instead on the basis that this is not the correct forum for such a discussion. I agree with Rob's reasoning above. I'd also add that this straw poll is not exactly in keeping with the clause quoted above, as we cannot claim to have a "broad consensus" when the question is only posed to a very small number of community members. It would be more appropriate to take up this discussion at the talk page for the policy, or somewhere similar, so that any conclusions are reached with the involvement of the wider Wiki community. (That aside, I'd say that - as nice as it would be to have logos - they're certainly not necessary for the template. There was an argument posted a little while back suggesting that many people identify the parties by their logos, and not by their names. If there's proof of that assertion, please present it - otherwise, I would find it highly unlikely that such a thing were true. If it were, then we would certainly see something to reflect it on the ballots and in official Elections Canada publications of results.) --Ckatz 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cat:Canadian politician stubs split
I've made a proposal to split the existing {{Canada-politician-stub}} type, which is qetting quite large. If you have any objections, modifications, or additions (or offers to help with the heavy lifting), please comment there. Alai 19:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] That was close
"All names should be in English."
- After reading that quote, I thought that we were going to have to cange Jean Chrétien to John Christian. NorthernThunder 07:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 18:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Strongly Dispute Neutrality of the "Ontario PC Party" Article
Hold on, here !!!!!!!!
Drew and Frost, being called "anti-French, anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant" is a very, very broad and general statement. I can not see any specifics in the article, only vague references to 'strains' of the above thought process. GROSSLY UNFAIR !
The author has these 2 men convicted without citing any evidence of his charge. It may be better to say, that Drew and Frost were 'thought to have anti-so and so tendencies by this academic/advocate'. Or better yet, to say that this is what they did/did not do/did not support that lent credence to the belief that they were anti-this or that.
207.144.205.124 07:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Eric207.144.205.124 07:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Provincial Flags in PM articles
Seems someone's added the provincial flag of the birth place and death place of every PM to their info box? Is this really wise considering most provinces just used the Union Jack until well into the 20th C? Kevlar67 15:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template: Infobox CanadianMP
Hi Folks:
It looks like you put a lot of effort into making the Canadian MP infobox. I would suggest though, that it follows more of the standard of the Infobox Politician (IBP). Currently, there isn't a provision to make a multiple office citation, like IBP. As well, the portfolio section is not set-up to have term dates (yes there is term2 start/finish, but that should be reserved to offices). A better descriptor for portfolio term would be pterm. That way, we could just import the IBF categories and have the same flexibility that that box offers. This came up, when I tried putting David Lewis (politician)'s leadership info, and it looked like whoever added his second term as an MP, added it in the Portfolio term section. I think the proposal i'm suggesting should fix this. I think we should also have four or five portfolio's, because many of these politicians held several like C.D. Howe, Marc Lalonde, Allen MacEachen to name a few. What do you think? Abebenjoe 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
