Talk:2015 Canadian federal election/Archive 2

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   5  7  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   5  7  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   5  7  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   5  7  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   5  7  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   5  7  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   5  7  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   5  7  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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)