Talk:Results of the 2015 Canadian federal election by riding

Upcoming Nomination Meetings
This is just a list to keep track of upcoming nomination meetings

Liberal:


 * Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques - 31 March 2015
 * Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock - 9 April 2015
 * Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou - 11 April 2015
 * Brampton South - 12 April 2015
 * Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine - 12 April 2015
 * Québec - 14 April 2015
 * Compton—Stanstead - 26 April 2015

Conservative:
 * Ottawa West—Nepean - 13 April 2015
 * University—Rosedale - 20 April 2015

NDP:


 * Markham—Thornhill - 30 March 2015
 * Vaughan—Woodbridge - 30 March 2015
 * Guelph - 31 March 2015
 * Simcoe North - 10 April 2015
 * South Shore—St. Margaret's - 10 April 2015
 * Barrie—Innisfil - 16 April 2015
 * Brome—Mississquoi - 18 April 2015
 * Yorkton—Melville - 18 April 2015
 * Richmond—Arthabaska - 19 April 2015
 * London North Centre - 19 April 2015
 * Joliette
 * Portage—Lisgar

Green:


 * Vancouver East - 1 May 2015

--Jack Cox (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Italics
Are the candidates in italics not yet nominated? If so can we indicate this somewhere? MarkFizz (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies as I had not noticed this comment before I went and removed all the italics, thereby causing Earl Andrew to have to undo all those changes. I will try to remember to look at the talk page first next time!! hwallis (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been customary on Wikipedia since 2004. I was surprised to find out it wasn't in the legend, so I added it in. No worries about the reverts, it only took about a minute. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an error in the Ontario East listings...What used to be Prince Edward/Hastings has been split into two ridings: Hastings-Lennox-Addington AND Bay of Quinte. Incumbent of the former riding - Daryl Kramp - has been listed in error as moving to Bay of Quinte, when in fact he choose Hastings (the northern part of the former riding). It is the Bay of Quinte riding that has no incumbent. Thank you Plainwordsmith (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of Bay of Quinte (62%) came from Prince Edward-Hastings, making that the predecessor riding, while 57% of Prince Edward-Hastings became Bay of Quinte, making it the successor riding. While 55% of Hastings-Lennox and Addington came from Prince Edward-Hastings, only 43% of Prince Edward-Hastings became Hastings-Lennox and Addington. This makes Hastings-Lennox and Addington the odd riding out, which is why it is labelled as a "New district" even though Kramp is choosing it to run it. His choice is likely because the new riding is a safer Conservative seat, plus he lives in the new riding (Madoc). -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Earl Andrew for this attempt at an explanation, and why it is not being corrected right away. But it makes no sense to the actual politics of Bay of Quinte: in this election Hastings is felt to be much the same as the former riding demographic (very rural)... whereas Bay of Quinte is very much perceived as the "new" riding, whose demographics have changed significantly in the past decade. Which is indeed why Daryl Kramp went to "safe" rural Hastings. Though he still shows up for the odd public event in BoQ, he is seldom seen in Prince Edward County these days... he is busy in Hastings (north of the 401) trying to keep his seat there. And the actual BoQ candidates (CPC, Lib, NDP; no Green yet) are out and about every day. So those "percentages" supplied do not reflect actual political reality. If you are following some specific "rule" in assigning these categories, I'd like to see the citation for it (who actually decides this?)... otherwise let's please change that info in the chart. I have offered - and would like to continue to do so - this page to many people as a reference in the election, but will not if it is incorrect or arbitrary... not based on a political reality.


 * We don't make decisions about how they "feel", we make decisions based on the facts. And the facts are Bay of Quinte is the successor riding. Otherwise, it is original research. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination Dates
Is there a policy that prevents adding these to the tables? Somebody has been removing this information whenever I post it, but it seems useful to have it there until after a candidate has been picked. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Libertarians
I wanted to get my opinion in on this before it becomes a dispute/debate.

I have no problem with a column for Libertarians - or any other party - if they run enough candidates to warrant it.

However. I say that we should not bother making any decision on that until the deadline for candidates. Many times before we've listed people who the party lists on their website, who do not manage to get their signatures/money in on time, and thus, do not officially become candidates as listed on the ballot.

Until then I say that any 'dispute' about having an extra column to list the Libertarian (or any other party) candidates is meaningless, and as such, support the existing status quo until such a time.

Nickjbor (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is silly for the Libertarians, and ML to have columns only in regions they are running strong slates. It is making the columns very cluttered and unnecessarily so. Same with the FD, there is no indication that they'll be fielding more than a handful of candidates in Quebec. 174.119.0.69 (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We've already discussed this policy in the Talk:Ontario general election, 2014 article. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Bozo casualties.
Should be start marking candidates who are on the ballot but not running? Are footnotes sufficient to the task? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Elections Canada keeps no official count of such candidates, so no NPOV source is available. - Tenebris 66.11.191.217 (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Live update?
Should this article be updated as the results pour in?

The government now allows results to be updated throughout the country. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Bolding winners
Typically the winners are bolder in these sorts of election tables. Abductive (reasoning) 16:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

'FD' for Quebec City
Shouldn't there be an abbreviation indicating what 'FD' stands for the Quebec City results? 75.119.236.219 (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind, realised 'F' stands for Strength in Democracy in French — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.236.219 (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, there shouldn't be a separate column for SD in that section anyway, because it's poor space management to add a column for a party that doesn't run candidates in at least the majority of ridings in the section. I tried to remove the column, but someone reverted it. So, I'm not touching it again, but I still think it should be removed, if someone else wants to give it another try. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Footnotes and References
Something is suddenly interfering with display of footnotes and references. A series of edits to the template pages appeared to have been the problem but Undo worked on bc-vi and not on any other I tried.

The changes by the other user involved changing refn|group=note| to efn | 1 at each footnote, replacing reflist|group=note with notelist, and moving the noinclude tag. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem user seems gone from wikipedia after some problem behaviour elsewhere.
 * There's a secondary Notes and Reference list appearing partway through the page. Wikipedia seems determined to take a long time to apply changes to the templates today so it may already be solved. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Seat and vote totals
Should we add seat and vote totals in a bottom row in the tables? It could help add perspective on how well each party did in a regional sense. Shin Jun Bak (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Templates
I'd like to list results on the main page rather than in templates, moving it in line with the 2019 and 2021 articles. This would make future edits easier. Are there any objections? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)