Talk:Results of the 2019 Canadian federal election by riding

Image of Canadian regions
The numbers that appear on the image of Canada (File:Canregions.PNG) don't seem to correlate to anything in the list, and are therefore confusing. If there is a correlation, please set up a caption to explain it - otherwise a different image should be used here. Thanks,  PK T (alk)  11:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Use of The Hill Times
Should we be using The Hill Times as a reliable source? Last election their article on chosen candidates incorrectly listed dozens of candidates who never ran and whose supposed candidacies were not mentioned in any other source. Elections Canada has an official database of political nomination contests. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Column Widths
Linebreaks should not be set in riding names; column widths should be set in table headers. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Return to Mainspace
Should we move the draft back to the main space? Looks like Liberal nominations are underway now as well so we have two of the three major parties making progress on the nominated candidate totals. Canadianpoliticalwatcher (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Scheduled nominations
Highlighting a cell seems less informative than noting the date, so I've killed that as an attribute. I've adopted the notation used for the New Brunswick election template, a linebreak followed by bracketed note of date in small text. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not actual candidates on the list, just candidates for nomination.
So there are some ridings that have not had an actual "official" candidate, like Etobicoke-Lakeshore Conservatives or Milton Liberals, both have TWO names.

Barry O'Brien & Theodore Tsirpas for Etobocke-Lakeshore Azim Rizvee & Adam van Koeverden for Milton

I tried finding NDP, GREEN and other parties's examples but did not find any.

Neither Barry and Theodore are the candidates for the Conservatives in Etobicoke-Lakeshore Neither Azim and Adam are the candidates for the Liberals in Milton.


 * Candidates in italics have publicly declared their interest in their party's nomination and it has appeared on a source that can be cited. The reason for so many more Conservatives appearing is that their party began nominating candidates nearly a year before anyone else. The Liberals started choosing candidates this summer and the third parties are lagging badly. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

They might be running for their respective parties in the ridings mentioned above but they are just running in nominations. Not the legitimate candidates. All parties have the list of official candidates on their websites. That is official, not what you read on a tweet or insta. Unless a candidate wins that party's nomination and is declared the official party candidate then he/she/other should not be on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiroslavGlavic (talk • contribs) 01:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Only the Conservatives have a functioning candidate page last time I checked. Announcements via official party social media or news media that can be cited are sufficient to treat candidates as confirmed. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Spamming on the candidates tables
So someone put on the Green candidate for Ottawa South, after his/her name, his/her twitter account and below that their name.

Les Schram @twitterusername websiteofcandidate.ca

Can we keep it to just the candidate names? those tables are not usually for anything either than their names. Add their social media, websites and so forth links to the bottom of their Wikipedia entry of the candidate. Not at the tables.

It is spam when you do that. Heck, create their own Wikipedia entry if they don't have one and put content on their Wikipedia entries from official sources/trustworthy sources, not just what you read on a tweet. I have no idea how to create a brand new Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiroslavGlavic (talk • contribs) 01:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

PPC Candidate for the Burnaby By election
I notice that there has been a bit of a mini edit war of the PPC Candidate. I notice a tweet (which I do not consider a "WP:V" source since it did not come from the party of the riding) announced a person to be a candidate, However according to a Canada press article [] which stated that "Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada plans to name a candidate in the next two weeks, spokesman Martin Masse said. Because the party is so new and only recently established electoral district associations in the riding, the candidate won’t be selected through a typical nomination voting process.“Essentially, the leader will choose the candidate in each byelection,” Masse said." Thus the reason why it was removed because it would be misleading if the party selected another person to be the candidate. So until the party announced a candidate, it should be kept off. Any thoughts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65Karlson (talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Candidates are often selected by local EDAs well before the party makes its official announcement, sometimes months later. This list has many candidates who have been noted in news stories, candidate Facebook pages, EDA sites or tweet, as having been selected; others have been confirmed by official party tweets, press releases or candidate pages sometime after they appeared here. Multiple PPC EDA twitter accounts from the area have named the PPC candidate and they are definitely connected to the party. CP stating that the party plans to name the candidate later does not negate the multiple sources that have already released the information.
 * Please do not repeat your edits until someone with more authority has commented. This is in danger of becoming an edit war. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As a compromise I've marked Thompson as an unconfirmed candidate by italicising her name, pending confirmation of her status. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Should the PPC have their own separate candidate infobox
I just notice that in the riding Saskatchewan Grasswood; that there are two candidates that declared interest for the nomination. I am starting to wonder if the PPC needs to have their separate infobox. 65Karlson (talk) 17:05, 6 Feburary 2019 (UTC)


 * In past elections the policy was to not add minor parties unless they have candidates in half the ridings of a particular region, which the PPC haven't done anywhere (and keep in mind that the Libertarians claim each election to be aiming for candidates in every riding but always come up far short). I don't think the issue of multiple contestants for a minor-party nomination has come up before and I have no idea just how to indicate multiple contestants in such a situation. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Leave it as is for now. Kevinhanit (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the PPC should replace the Green party in the list of candidates columns. They are polling higher and have more members than the Green Party. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The Greens have traditionally run candidates in nearly every riding in the country so they get a column. The PPC claims that it will have candidates in every riding but the Libertarian Party has made such a claim in past elections yet not managed to have candidates in even ninety ridings. Last election the Rhinos (2), Marxist-Leninists (4), Independents (1), and Libertarians (6) all got columns in various regions despite usually polling less than 1% of votes where they ran; none of them will automatically get columns anywhere unless they meet the threshold of candidates in at least half the ridings in a region. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with G. Timothy Walton that we should leave the Greens in the columns. Kevinhanit (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

"Official" candidates without a nomination meeting
I've noticed that many candidates are not italicized, implying that they have confirmed their nomination. The reference for many is Twitter. However, my understanding is that the candidacy is not "official" until a nomination meeting has taken place. One is usually held, even if an incumbent is acclaimed. The schedule for Liberal Party nomination meetings is at https://www.liberal.ca/nomination-investiture/. The reason I'm asking is that Jody Wilson-Raybould's tweet that is used as a reference backing her confirmation is ambiguous. The official party Twitter account has never tweeted anything close to a confirmation of her 2019 candidacy (They have done so for other incumbents like Harjit Sajjan). I believe her name should be italicized. 65.112.8.140 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The Liberal party rules allow an incumbent to be assured the nomination if they meet various criteria. As with the Conservatives, the Liberals have been inconsistent with their announcements of candidates' nominations - some candidates have been announced months before the actual nomination meeting, some are not announced until months after being chosen by their Electoral District Association. Wilson-Raybould's tweet is, to me, unambiguous about her receiving the nomination under party rules. For all we know the formality of her nomination meeting may have already taken place. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. But her tweet starts with "I want to say".  She's a lawyer and I took that to mean the statement which follows is not necessarily confirmed to be true.  Especially in light of recent developments, I feel she is not confirmed to be the candidate until the party says she's confirmed. Manougian (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, the tweet starts with "Seeing twitter traffic...", so "I want to say" takes on a different meaning as a subordinate clause rather than the start of the message. I read it as if she were starting a message with "I just want to say that I've been confirmed..." One thing to keep in mind is that the party can withdraw any candidate's nomination until they are actually on the Elections Canada candidates list after the writ drops, so no candidate can be said to be ironclad until the registration period closes before the advance polls open. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Some parties allow appointment of a candidate, especially if the electoral district assocation is non-existent or does not meet certain organizational criteria. For example, CHP associations cannot nominate their own unless they meet Elections Canada requirements for registration. So, a candidate can be official without a nomination meeting, if the party's mechanism, through its higher-level councils or the leader, provides for appointment. GBC (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

JWR?!
I have added Jody Wilson-Raybould back into the Liberal column with a note about today's events. I understand the the party leader has indicated she will not be running for the party, but perhaps we should leave it as is until the riding association and JWR have indicated what next steps will be taken. I assume the riding association will make its own announcement soon, and JWR will likley also. I expect reporters will be asking her whether she will still be running, or running as an independent or with another party.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The news reports I've seen have her expelled from caucus and stripped of the right to run as a Liberal candidate in October. Unless she states post-expulsion that she still wants to run as a Liberal she should be left out of the column. Erin Weir is listed with the NDP because he's publicly stated wanting to run for the party and the local EDA backing him. Let's stick with the simple here. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine. I have added an asterisk and noted that all other things are up in the air.  Not sure it is great to make these sorts of changes to current events before all facts are known, and without reference to actual sources saying what is going to happen with the riding association etc.  I am not seeing much in terms of sources, besides what I have linked.  The reporting I have seen has been JWR self reporting what JT said to her about whether she could run.  No other mention of that elsewhere that I have seen.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * CBC has posted a story quoting the social-media statements of both JWR and Jane Philpott. Neither is definitive, but Philpott's implies she'll retire at end of term and JWR is undecided. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Tweet titles
Since most parties have been making the bulk of their candidate announcements on Twitter or Facebook, social media has become the main source of party announcements. Even when a party does have a candidate page there's often significant lag.

Wiki citations demand a Title attribute but neither tweets nor status updates technically have titles. What protocol should we use for social media titles in citations? Not including a Title entry, even deleting the field entirely, causes an error message in a citation.

I've been using the first sentence of Facebook posts when I think of it but I've been inconsistent; I know others have done it differently.

With tweets, the Account Name has been used as the title by others, but technically Account Name should used as the Author attribute.

I've been using first sentence or two of the tweet body, making a point of snipping out anything more controversial than lauding the individual's accomplishment. Some tweets, through, are so poorly written that there's no way to shorten the body to a convenient form. Ad there's always the issue of partisan or controversial statements in a tweet.

I propose that we come up with come sort of boilerplate title for tweets that don't give a convenient, concise title as the first sentence of their body. If a tweet has something simple like So-and-so is our candidate in October, that's simple enough to use.

Other suggestions solicited. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Colour for PPC Column
I am the Financial Agent for the Dufferin-Caledon-PPC Association and I also manage the Twitter account @ppclists. I sent a message to party HQ today showing them the current "dark blue" column heading which is problematic since the black letters render the "PPC" name as effectively invisible.

They advised me that there is an official party purple colour which is HEX #442d7b. I believe that this colour will have the same problem as the current dark blue. So there are two possible solutions: a) use white text on this dark colour which I realize may be difficult or impossible, OR b) choose a lighter purple/mauve that allows the PPC to be seen.

Regards Jim Donovan, Financial Agent Dufferin-Caledon-PPC Association — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimDonovan12 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * We don't control the template colours from this page. There's a WikiProject page that doesn't include the PPC, so that's not the source. Anyone else know how to go about getting a party colour changed? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Where's the WikiProject page, G. Timothy Walton? Kevinhanit (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Kevinhanit, it's at WikiProject_Political_parties_and_politicians_in_Canada/list_of_parties G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * G. Timothy Walton, I also cannot figure out how to change the colour. Kevinhanit (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * That's not where you change it. I can change it as an admin, but I don't see purple being used anywhere in campaign materials.-- Earl Andrew - talk 03:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Earl Andrew, Can you please change it, so that we can read the column headers of the PPCs on all pages. Kevinhanit (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The PPC colour in these tables is very definitely too dark and needs to be lightened up; Jim Donovan is entirely correct that it renders the "PPC" text virtually invisible because it's too close to black-on-black. That said, we do not have any requirement to actually match the exact "official" colour shade that a party uses in campaign materials — for example, we use a shade of red to represent the Liberals, but we do not use (nor do we have any requirement to use) the exact shade of red that the Liberals use in their own campaign materials. So the PPC column doesn't have to use #442d7b just because that's what the party considers its official hexcolour; it just has to be a shade in the general vicinity of reader expectations — and in actual fact, #442d7b would still be too dark to be a viable background colour, because black text against #442d7b would still be hard to read for people with vision impairments. So I'd support changing the PPC colour to a shade of purple — their website clearly uses purple as an accent colour and the riding map at the top of the article already has various shades of purple to represent the PPC in its colour key, so there's clearly an association between the PPC and purple — but it has to be a lighter shade of purple than #442d7b itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Alright, I see that they've switched to purple on their site. I've changed their colour to a lighter purple colour. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Date format
MOS:DATETIES makes it clear that "Articles related to Canada or Israel may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article" and 2019 Canadian federal election used mdy format. While I'm fine leaving this article at DMY, which is the default date format for most referencing tools, a valid rationale should be provided, and using subjective terms such as "ugly" or attempting to denigrate it by calling it "American" really do not fly on an encyclopedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You rejected the valid rationale that there was a system already in place that was fine with the contributors, which you wanted to change for the equivalent of decorating style overriding function.
 * Despite the stereotype, not all of us are unfailingly polite, especially when somebody tries to do something that reads as Americanising our culture. File this affair under cultural sensitivity and move on. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually reject that argument as this is the first time I've seen that offered here. Your actual argument was very different and is linked above. However I'm fine with DATERET.
 * Despite your lies, MDY is not an American date format. This was established years ago and is supported at MOS:DATETIES which states,
 * Articles related to Canada or Israel may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article.
 * My actual argument was that 2019 Canadian federal election uses MDY and so it makes sense to follow that here. However, you've done an exemplary job of maintaining a consistent DMY format. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to close this discussion, there is no interest in conforming that date formats here with those in 2019 Canadian federal election. Is that correct? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there is no interest in doing so. Stick to what's been working so far. Note that nobody has spoken in favour of such a change while I am not the only one who has spoken against it. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The MoS has spoken in favour of them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Change columns to be alphabetical
Can we please rearrange the columns so they follow alphabetical order? Conservatives, Greens, Liberals, Libertarians, NDP, Other, ...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontyBoa (talk • contribs) 15:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No. This would affect way too many articles; we have a precedent to order the columns based on the party's result in the previous election. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No as well. I agree with Earl Andrew, that making a change like that will affect too many articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinhanit (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Suburban Toronto
Can someone please add distinct Libertarian and PPC columns to better organize the table? Libertarian colour is yellow, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontyBoa (talk • contribs) 23:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No as they need to have candidates in 7 of the 14 electoral districts to qualify. PPC need 2 more and then they will get their own column. Kevinhanit (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As noted by Kevinhanit, a party only gets bumped from "other" to having its own dedicated column when it has nominated candidates in half or more of the electoral districts in the region covered by that table. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Correct citation formatting by Walter Görlitz
Dude, why? Why the ridiculous changes to publisher and work attributes in the article? The previous format was supported by the Cite News and Cite Web templates, which automatically insert quotation marks where they belong in the citation.

Please stop the unnecessary and unrequested changes to this article. The editors have been comfortable with the page as is. You seem to be the only one who wants the changes you make.

And in case anyone's not paying attention, Görlitz is trying to sneak in another change to the date format. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a problem I introduced. Are you familiar with the MoS? Did you check the link?
 * I'm not trying sneak a change in either. I'm suggesting it would be an improvement to the article as 2019 Canadian federal election uses MDY (October 21, 2019) and it would be best to be consistent. However, WP:DATERET suggests that it should remain in DMY (21 October 2019). Either way I'm happy, but I'd prefer an actual discussion rather than your approach. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The MoS is broken by several of the marking conventions on this page, and apparently by the very templates of Cite news and Cite web. I think I'll trust them as they're official Wikipedia templates.
 * And there was already a discussion on here about changing the date format, which became a bit acrimonious and what seemed to be a decision by you to let things be. I would consider your notation in the list of edits after this discussion occurred to be an attempt to sneak in the exact same change that was unwanted by anyone but you. Checking the section in question, much of it has been removed, including support for my position.
 * As for my approach, it's much less passive-aggressive than what I'm seeing from you. Please just stop, already. I don't need to keep fighting the same ridiculous fight in slightly different form on a repeated basis. The format of this page should stay as it was before your arrival; that includes changing the work= and publisher= attributes back to what is used by the Wikipedia templates. It ain't broke, but you're apparently determined to fix it. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Timothy, that you should stop trying to fix things that aren't broken. Kevinhanit (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You, sir, are the definition of passive-aggressive! I simply apply the scripts, I do not maintain them, but they are not broken in any sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Passive-aggressive" means "not openly aggressive", whereas what I'm doing is rather openly aggressive.
 * The idiom "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is a common one in English, meaning that one should not change something that is working. Whether the scripts work is not in any way the issue; what is the issue is that you are applying them without regard to whether or not they need to be used. That the MoS exists is not the issue, it's whether it should apply to this page, which only you seem to believe necessary.
 * Given your unfamiliarity with a classic English idiom, should I assume English is not your first language and adjust my reading of your comments with that in mind? It does make a difference in how one should write for communication.
 * Regardless, your attempts to do unwanted major overhauls to the appearance of this page are disruptive.
 * And they are wasting time that I could be using to improve the article's contents. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Born in Canada. Raised in Canada. English is my first language. You are the very definition of passive-aggressive. Given your familiarity with the term I assume it's been used of you frequently.
 * Regardless, your complete disregard for Wikipedia guidelines and manuals of style are disruptive, and explaining them to you are wasting time that I could be using to improve the entire project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is not an improvement to anyone but you, as has been agreed with by other users. I've been adding significant amounts of content; you've just been mucking about with its appearance.
 * More time wasted on you when I could be working on content. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So just to be clear, your opinion is that what I'm doing is is not an improvement to anyone but me. However, when I link to manuals of style and editing guidelines, such as the formatting of dates, publications and now Canadian place names, it's clear that the changes I'm making are in-line with the greater project, not some pet project that a single editor has been marshalling. As for thinking that working cooperatively is a waste of time, you might want to read WP:NOTHERE. As as for content vs. "mucking about with … appearance", that's what keeps the project presentable. I have yet to revert your poor content additions, but recognize that has not been the case from all editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is my opinion, yes. I have never stated that working coöperatively is a waste of time; that is your inference. People that genuinely want to improve this page, them I'm willing to work with. A scriptkiddy wanting to force it into a mold that doesn't fit, despite comments from multiple page editors, that I don't consider working coöperatively.
 * As to the quality of my content additions, it's not always perfect but it's more coöperative than anything you've done. A couple of innovations made sense; using underlining as a marker was not properly thought out and I admitted such when it was explained to me.
 * Here, fill in the blank for whatever WP:PA you wish. I'm done wasting my time on you. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * About time! Plankeye and all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Spelling
It seems a WP:LANGVAR spelling war is brewing. In Canadian English, is the past tense of "spell" "spelled" or "spelt"? Never in all my days of schooling have I seen that spelling except when reading British or other international English works. I can't seem to find an official style guide to support either spelling. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Canadian Oxford Dictionary lists both, as does The Nelson Gage Canadian Dictionary. Meters (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC).
 * And no, "spelt" is not listed as a chiefly British usage in either. dictionary. Meters (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're going to decide this on the talk page, my preference is for "spelled". In my experience, for what it's worth, while "spelt" may not be incorrect, it is very uncommon in Canadian English. Meters (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm from the Maritimes, so my spelling may be a bit more archaic than some. I still use dove, lit, and learnt, all of which I learnt in childhood.
 * If I'm going to try to correct somebody else's spelling I at least try to ensure that I'm in the right before doing so. A minute or two checking an online dictionary is reasonable effort to put forth. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Dove" and "lit" for me, but not "spelt" or "learnt". Meters (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Same as Meters for me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I usually consult the Hansard Style Guide for these things, and while "spelled" isn't in the word list, the word itself is used elsewhere in the document, so spelled is correct IMO. Also, my Canadian English spellcheck likes spelled and not 'spelt'. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems commenters are slightly more in favour of the Americanized spelling than the International spelling. Any objections to the change? We could avoid it entirely by waiting for the Elections Canada reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll just add that the Canadian Oxford Dictionary lists "spelled" first (as does the Gage), and the COD introductory material on variant spellings states that "the main headword represents the most common form in Canadian usage." Meters (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Québec regions
Hello,

I havn't had a chance to look at everything, but some of the regions are just not correct. For example, Beauce, and Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot are most definitely not in the "Eastern Townships" region. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.120.9 (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn candidates
I started adding footnotes for withdrawn/replaced candidates as a way of preventing them being added back into the list when somebody found an old reference and didn't know they'd been removed.

There weren't many at first and it wasn't a problem. Now there are so many it's a distraction. But we don't want somebody new finding an old reference, etc. The PPC playing hokey-pokey with their candidates certainly doesn't help.

I'm thinking hidden text at the start of the cell for such cases and saving footnotes for exceptional circumstances. I'd appreciate any helpful input on whether this will create other problems for people reading the page. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Citation error messages
Template:Cite news reveals what's causing the error messages after script is run:
 * If name of work and publisher are substantially similar, leave publisher blank. For news websites, Cite news is used; work= attribute avoids having to use newspaper= attribute.
 * No formatting within citations - italics will appear if wikipedia's programming says they should.

The error messages started appearing today when there is no work/newspaper/website attribute or italics were applied within a citation. The website= missing error with tweets has apparently been fixed.

(I've been using wikipedia's Cite news and Cite web templates, which I assume meet their citation criteria.) G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no errors in the second one you reverted. Please stop being reactive and start looking at what you're reverting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the edit I made and it was free of errors. If you see any, feel free to list them. However, if you'd like to list any errors you see, I'd be pleased to fix them rather than have an edit war over it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There were red error messages stating that Cite web required a website= attribute and Cite news required a newspaper= attribute, either of which was fixed by changing publisher= to work=. These appeared at the same time as the error message requiring website= for Cite tweet.


 * I was short on time and assumed what looked like exactly the same edits that caused the error messages before were still doing so.


 * As for being reactive and looking at what I'm reverting, I did. Several times. I would recommend the same for you, as the errors only reappeared when you ignored the guidelines of Cite news and blindly applied a script that was conflicting with Wikipedia's own citation templates.


 * I quote:


 * Publisher
 * publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.). Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc.", or "GmbH" are not usually included. Not normally used for periodicals. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher). Displays after title. [markup added to match formatting used in original]


 * In other words, if publisher and name of work are the same or nearly so, fill in the name of the work in the appropriate attribute and leave publisher= blank. Cite news will italicise the name of the work in the generated citation, so there's no need to apply markups within the citation.


 * Since Cite news is one of the default templates that shows up when editing without using a script, this means one of three things: Wikipedia is wrong, your script is wrong, or your interpretation of citation requirements is wrong.


 * In future, please look before scripting. And after, to make sure the script hasn't had unintended consequences.


 * G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * First things firsts: there were errors before I realized that the template was changed. Once you pointed that out, I fixed the errors. You didn't check even though I stated that the errors were corrected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I was in a hurry. At a glance the exact same code that was causing red error messages was highlighted as being restored. There seemed no point in looking further.


 * Checking now, I see that the use of publisher= for work= errors, according to what's required by Cite news, still exist but are not throwing red error messages. Please refer to Template:Cite news and correct improper use of publisher= attribute. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Insufficient columns in candlist header
Candlist will only allow eight party columns, but Eastern Montreal has nine parties that meet the 50% criterion.

I tried to fix the table so that it would display the following parties:
 * Liberal
 * Conservative
 * NDP
 * BQ
 * Green
 * Communist
 * Marxist-Leninist
 * PPC (they're unelected, so they should go here)
 * Rhinoceros
 * Other

What I got was a table that lacked headers for Rhinoceros and Other, with Incumbent coming after PPC. The content rows displayed properly.

Since there's a very real chance of this happening in some of the other ridings in major cities, it looks like candlist needs to be able to handle at least twelve party columns: five countrywide parties in every region, an Other column, and a reasonable expectation that the two communist parties, Libertarians, Rhinos, and probably CHP will have a few regions where they need columns, and NOTA may make a No affiliation column necessary somewhere.

Anyone know how to get this changed, or if there's an alternative header that could be used? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Last year, Earl Andrew experimented with modifying the template Canadian politics/candlist header to increase the number of columns from 8 to 10, but he reverted his edit . Maybe we can ask him what was the result of this experiment. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why can't the others be listed under other? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They can, but parties with candidates in 50% of ridings are supposed to receive a column, presumably to save vertical space. Some ridings would have more than a half-dozen entries in Other without the extra columns. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We have to save on not only vertical space, but horizontal, so I guess that means we only get 8 columns. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The "parties with candidates in 50% of ridings" rule is artificial. It's easy enough to ammend it to read the first seven columns are reserved for parties with candidates in at least 50% of the ridings, if more than eight parties are running, order them by percentage of ridings and place parties eight and following in the eighth. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the way it's being done there is fine. Most will not even get 1% of the vote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is still the possibility of a region having full slates in too many columns to fit what we have now. With the campaign deposits no longer required some of the fringe parties are likely to run more candidates than they ever have before.
 * Would Other 1/Other 2/Other 3 be the least horrible solution? I can see lots of edit wars from PPC supporters if they were put into a combined column. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that if more than 8 parties run a full slate in a region, we should go by how many candidates that party is running nation-wide, so the PPC should get a column in that case. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Registered candidates
If anyone has a link to a unified list of candidates at Elections Canada, one that doesn't require clicking on each riding, would you please post it here? It's a lot faster to grab a spreadsheet and run a comparison query to find changes. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind, found a workaround for getting the list. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't know what your method is, but in case someone else is looking for a list, there's this. In the search tool by name, you can enter an asterisk instead of a name. The list is sorted alphabetically. This link is for a list of Canada. A province can also be specified. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

What to do with dropped candidates?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_candidates_by_riding_for_the_2019_Canadian_federal_election&curid=56806746&diff=919671324&oldid=919670878 and I'm sure a few more will appear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's after the registration deadline, and Elections Canada still has one dropped candidate (Heather Leung, Burnaby North--Seymour) as a Conservative, and this is how she will likely appear on the ballot. For this reason, I think she should remain listed as a Conservative candidate. Joe C London (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought it was the day after the cutoff date. We should use strike text ( Heather Leung ) or a note or a combination of both to indicate the situation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Putting a strikethrough would imply that she's not going to be on the ballot, which would be the wrong impression. We should keep her name under the Conservative column, as that's how she'll appear on the ballot, with a note that she'd lost the Conservative endorsement and would sit as an Independent MP if elected. Joe C London (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Use footnotes. That's what was done last election with two candidates who left the campaign (one withdrew, one expelled from party) too late to be removed from the ballot.
 * I'll add a footnote to Leung today. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Added footnote for withdrawal of Micheal Kalmanovitch in Edmonton-Strathcona. Meters (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Validated vs. preliminary results
I see someone started on inputting results. Good stuff! However, the validated results are showing some large discrepancies. Don't want anyone to waste their time. Let's all pitch in to get the percentages and numbers formatted similarly to the work that was started. Great initiative. Political junky (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The discrepancies were a problem last election, too. I remember one riding where 200 votes shifted from one losing candidate to another. I think it's more important to get the current numbers in and then correct them as they go.
 * Today's first task is colour-marking the riding cell's to indicate preliminary results. A simple find-and-replace (I assume) and then back to whitesmoke as results are validated. I only found one validated riding in all the entries I did so far. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

That's bizarre! Most of them I see are validated now. Check out Toronto Centre or Fredericton, for example. Political junky (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I started Tuesday, when most results were only preliminary. I'm going back and updating what's been validated since I started. I'm also updating percentages because some sadist at Elections Canada included a % of ballots column but not % of votes and I missed that until updating Nova Scotia. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)