Talk:Rhinoceros Party

Time reversed lawsuit
The intro to the Neorhino section states in its first sentence that Sa Tan announced a lawsuit on August 2007, which was dropped in 2004 after a new law reversed a certain ruling. Now, I understand this is an article on the Rhinoceros Party, but I'm sure in Wikipedia causality must follow the thermodinamic arrow. &8'D Jergas (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the only timing issue. The article says, "the Liberal government passed a law in 1993 stating registered parties must run candidates in at least 50 ridings, at a cost of $1,000 per riding, to keep their status" but the Liberals were not elected until the fall 1993 election. And the article itself says the Rhinoceros Party boycotted the 1993 election because of this law, and refers to the chief electoral officer's actions in September, 1993, before the Liberals were elected. So, somehow the Rhinos boycotted an election because of a law that was supposedly passed after the election. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.154.220 (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The 50 ridings rule was part of the 1970 change to the Federal Electoral System

Not the place for original humor
I've removed numerous unsourced and invalid items from the Platform section. Although Rhinoceros is a political party with a satirical platform which may have its humorous aspects, this is a serious article about it. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, this article must conform to all policies and guidelines and that most definitely includes verifiability and the requirement for citations to reliable sources. In particular, every item in the #Platform section must be explicitly sourced with a citation.

There is absolutely no room here for adding your own, invented "platform" items; any such additions will be removed, and may result in warnings; repeated offenses may involve loss of editing privileges. There is room for humor at Wikipedia, just not in encyclopedia articles: for example, to a point you can customize your user page with humorous material if you wish; but not here. Mathglot (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Rhinoceros_Party_of_Canada_(1963–93) be merged into Rhinoceros_Party. Both Parties are the same Party, but it stopped existing from 1993 to 2006. When the party restarted in 2006 (formed by members of the original party), the Party was named NeoRhino.ca and that might explain why it had a different wikipedia page. It only kept that name until 2010, and it's now name as the original party : Rhinoceros Party. I think it should all be together, but we can explain all the history of this 55 years old political party in Canada. Disclaimer : I have to say I am involved in the party. Xerwer (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, you make a good point. I think that it might be worth it to merge the two pages. The best precedence I can think of here is the Christian Heritage Party. When they weren't able to field enough candidates in the 2000 election, they were de-registered by Elections Canada. We don't have a separate article for the party during its hiatus. If the current incarnation of the Rhinoceros Party is now the same as the one de-registered in 1993, then I don't see why we shouldn't merge. Bkissin (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – I support a merge, because it satisfies the duplicate or overlap criteria at WP:MERGEREASON, and because a merged article would not be too long. Mathglot (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, I also note that they are partially merged already.  PK  T (alk)  10:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - the "new" Rhinoceros Party is clearly the same as the "old" Rhinoceros Party. It's a relaunch, not the organization of a new political entity. And as PKT says, they're already partially merged. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. It is entirely possible in reality for a defunct entity (political party, organization, company, musical group, etc.) to be revived — and we do not routinely deem that the revival always needs its own standalone article as a separate topic from the original thing. Sometimes we do start a separate article (the nominator is absolutely correct about why a separate article was started in this case — Neorhino initially billed itself not as a straight revival of the Rhinoceros Party, but as a new organization inspired by the prior generation of ungulates), but much more frequently we just update the existing one to reflect the new activity, and even if we did start a new article originally we do still have the option of merging them later on. The articles are not so very long that a split would be necessary for size purposes, especially given that some of the content is repeated across both articles — but the fact that the party was defunct for a time is not in and of itself a compelling reason why the revival would need to keep a separate article. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Seems reasonable to me. Outback the koala (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Categories - possible change and addition
The article is currently in Category:Political parties established in 2007, but as the text notes although it was "recognized by Elections Canada as an official political party on August 23, 2007" it was "refounded in Montreal on May 21, 2006" and it is 2006 the info box gives as the founding date. Therefore I wonder if Category:Political parties established in 2006 would be a more appropriate category. In addition the article also covers the original incarnation of the Rhinoceros Party which was of course founded in 1963. Therefore I wonder if the article should also be included in Category:political parties established in 1963 to better reflect the content of the article. I would welcome the opinions of other editors on this before making changes. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)