Talk:Senate Liberal Caucus

Now that the Senate Liberal Caucus is dissolved …
… how should we portray them?

I removed the seat count from their infobox on the basis that a defunct caucus thus has no members, but made the point that leaving it (with a refn saying they're defunct) serves as an indication of their standing before dissolution. I must admit that didn't occur to me. Is there precedent for how dissolved parties should be treated? Both seem valid options me, so I've reverted my edit and left it as-is for now.

Another idead I had was that, since the SLC can only be talked of in the past tense, it would be worthwhile to expand the "Membership" section to include all its members— from foundation to dissolution. But there are several ways to go about it: a single list of everyone, or split into "Members at dissolution" and "Membership changes" (or something)? And should it include a column for why they departed (resignation or joining another caucus)? My thought was two lists, with the departure column, but I want to make sure that's not too much.

Thoughts? — Kawnhr (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the ping. I would say I would support my idea and as to expanding the Membership section to include tenure for former Senate Liberal Caucus members, yes, I'd support that. I would also support splitting; it's really up to you and what other editors want. Doug Mehus T · C  23:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think we should have a list that includes all its historical members and another one with the members at dissolution. I think the latter is important, since according to the sources it seems they decided as a group to make the PSG. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't list seat counts in the House of Commons for defunct parties. Same thing should be done for the Senate, concerning defunct parties/groups. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , That's a good point. However, as a counter-point, we could include historical seat counts for House of Commons defunct parties, provided there's consensus here to do so. Not sure if this has been discussed in the past, but consensus can change over time, so what matters is the consensus of the present.
 * Even if we opt not to do that for the House Commons, we could still have a different practice for the Senate, at least in the medium-term, on the grounds that for the first time since Confederation, we have more than three parliamentary groups in the Senate.
 * I'm not married strongly to either idea, but just thought I'd pose these comments. Doug Mehus T · C  20:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would oppose adding the 'last seat count' for the defunct Senate parties & House of Commons parties. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Okay. Yes, I probably would as well, only because the House of Commons typically has a lot more parliamentary parties than the Senate, historically speaking. I'd say I slightly favour including the graphic illustration in the Senate, but perhaps as a compromise, we could remove it from the infobox and include that illustrative seat count as a right-aligned element within an applicable section of the article? Doug Mehus T · C  20:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We should treat the Liberal caucus, as we do defunct political parties. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I wasn't talking about the infobox but about the Membership section, which should have both (historical members + members at dissolution). It wasn't yet made when I replied to User:Kawnhr. I'm fine with not having the seats in the infobox. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we should treat the defunct group like a defunct political party. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , anyways, it's not like we need it, since we have membership at dissolution in the article. I know that's not the reason why we don't put it, but I just wanted to mention that. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I suspect would have no issue with us deviating from standard practice slightly since Wikipedia, notionally, has "no rules" and including a graphical representation of the seat count at dissolution within the "Membership" section. I have no problem with adhering to standard practice for the infobox, but I think we can shake things up in other areas of the article—especially if it helps readbility and accessibility. Doug Mehus  T · C  18:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Membership section & other areas outside the infobox, is cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I suspect would have no issue with us deviating from standard practice slightly since Wikipedia, notionally, has "no rules" and including a graphical representation of the seat count at dissolution within the "Membership" section. I have no problem with adhering to standard practice for the infobox, but I think we can shake things up in other areas of the article—especially if it helps readbility and accessibility. Doug Mehus  T · C  18:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Membership section & other areas outside the infobox, is cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 18
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 18. This CfD which affects the Senate Liberal Caucus category Doug Mehus T · C  16:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)