Template talk:Canadian federal political parties

January 2006
I suggest we have a separate row in the middle for parties receiving federal funding but not represented in the House of Commons. The Green Party receives over $1 million a year from the government and had 4.5% of the vote, and looks a bit silly with all the piddly little parties there near the bottom. If there's no objection I think I'll change the template in a day or two. Mithridates 00:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, one whole special row for one party, with a requisite header saying why they get to be in that row but not the one above or the one below? That's going a bit far for what amounts to an optical game.  If anything, it's going out of our way to placate the Greeny contingent, which seems to violate NPOV.  The Tom 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The template is easily too big already. Ading another row would be way too much. An alternative would be to order the other parties on the basis of their share of the popular vote. This would be similar in principle to the upper line on which the arties are ordered by number of seats. This would put the Green Party first in the second grouping. Ground Zero | t 02:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems like a fair solution. The Tom 03:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. There could be another solution to it, but still having the Green Party on the same row as the others misses out on the fact that they are federally-funded whereas the others are not. Their budget before the 2004 election was $75,000 or so, all from donations, and then suddenly it went up to about a million which is the difference between night and day. I'm not personally interested in seeing them positioned anywhere special (don't live in Canada anymore) but there should be something in the template indicating that it's somewhere in between the parties on the top and the never-mentioned rabble on the bottom. Mithridates 12:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Political Party Logos
I think we need to create a new license template for Canadian Political Party logos, to satisfy Wiki-Crats that political party logo's don't quite fit in the same vein as other copyrighted work. I personally think political party logo's and colors are key to Canadian's who look for party information online. I also think that Durin's reasoning for removal of the images, that logo's are required in the main name space only is not plausable when each political party can have dozens of articles related to them. I would be very much suprised if a political party would take formal legal action against wikipedia or complain, over the use of the party logo. --Cloveious 17:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't think it means much when they are taken out of something like userboxes, but templtes? It doesn't look at all good without the political party logos. Some people may not even know the formal names of the parties, just the very common logo. I think this is going just a little far. I also think it would be very strange for a political party to actually sue Wikipedia. Having their logo on a template would probably benefit them more then it would hurt them. -Royalguard11Talk 00:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You see the logos in the media all the time. So while I'm sure they are under copyright, I bet they don't care who uses them, so long as it's not defamatory. Ardenn  00:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly! So what can we posibly do to get this point across? I've already left a note on WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada to alert them to this. That explanation probably won't suit this user (he's also an admin). Is there anything we can do? -Royalguard11Talk 01:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We could come up with a logo template of our own to satisfy those folks. However, it is still only being used under the fair use doctrine. To do more, you'd almost have to get permission from the party or parties themselves. Ardenn  01:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not uncommon for people to say "They would never sue over this!", and use this as a justification for violating copyright on an image. We can not work in this manner. Presumptions about a copyright holder's intent is a treacherous path fraught with all sorts of problems. Instead, the stance we must take is that the copyright holder is interested in protecting their copyright unless we have documented evidence otherwise. As for it being too much to remove these from templates; the policy proscribes such use because we can not readily control where templates are used. They can be transcluded to userpages just as easily as they can be transcluded to articles. The use of copyrighted logos on one's userpage is in no way anything that can be defended under a fair use claim. Thus, fair use images are not allowed in templates. The purpose of navigational templates, such as this one, is not to look pretty. It is to provide navigational aids to relevant related articles. While providing visual aids is useful to this purpose, it is not sufficient reason to violate copyright nor is it an acceptable claim under fair use law. --Durin 13:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I have one solution to this. We could bypass the template and copy the code right onto the appropriate articles. I know it's kind of redundant, but that way we are not putting logo's into template space, and the "template" on each page would look a lot better. -Royalguard11Talk 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That gets around item #9 of WP:FUC, but not around item #8 of the same. Use of fair use images in that manner is a primarily decorative use, which is not permitted. Sorry. --Durin 16:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess the only thing we can do is grin and bear it then. If we can't do it, then we'll just accept it. -Royalguard11Talk 21:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Change layout according to standard
MOts party navigation templates have a similar layout. See User:Electionworld/Parties. I suggest to adopt this layout also for this template. Since there a separate election navigation templates, I suggest also to limit the template to parties. This would lead to the following layout: Electionworld Talk?  11:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Category:Political parties templatesCategory:Canadian politics and government navigational boxes
 * See WP:WAX. Aside from that, I like this one better as it's more vibrant, and allows for more than just the parties in it. GreenJoe 16:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I should note that thanks to the efforts of Morgan695, every province and territory except NWT and Nunavut (since they don't have any political parties) now all have templates that follow this one. We have a truly Canadian standard. GreenJoe 22:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer the version proposed by Electionworld. With the addition of Neorhino, I think it'll look much better and professional. Morgan695 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So to continue from mine and GreenJoe's talk pages, I believe that the proposed template should be implemented. From an ease of use standpoint, the new template is standardized with the other world politics templates and can show party names as a whole (i.e.: we can put 'Animal Alliance Environment Voters' instead of just 'AAEVP'). From an aesthetic perspective, with the addition of Neorhino.ca the margins have been messed up - the new template will fix this. In addition, past precedent at Template talk:USParty shows that the proposed template is best at showing a large number of parties for a unique political system (like Canada's). Morgan695 04:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also in support of the design above. --Cloveious 07:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer the Electionworld template, because it conveys more information in less physical space.


 * Someone has gone to a lot of work to make a clean, unique template. But what value does it add?  It adds the wikipedia "colour" for each party as a line above and below.  I'm not sure this conveys any extra information.  For one, the colour is not an official party colour, it is simply a "unique" colour for each party.  And with all the parties that come and go, it is difficult to maintain.


 * The template also contains a coloured maple leaf. To me this is redundant.  We know that the parties are Canadian, so the maple leaf doesn't convey any extra information.  And it is unclear to me whether the colour of the leaf is designed to match the latest offical logo of the party, or the wikipedia colour above.


 * Finally, the template requires a shortened name for each party ("AAEVP" vs. "Animal-Aliance Environment Voters", otherwise the table won't layout very well.
 * Jhayman 17:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, there is the "current template" (which has colour bars and maple leaf logos) and the "ElectionWorld" template (posted above) which looks similar to other countries' templates. I believe that Cloveious preferred the "ElectionWorld" template, even though my post looks like I am disagreeing with him/her. Jhayman 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The maple leaves are a replacement for the logos that were removed a while back. GreenJoe 18:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do the maple leaves serve any useful purpose? What colour should each maple leaf be?  If we removed the maple leaves, would the template be better, worse or about the same?  Jhayman 19:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The colour of the associated party, and sure they highlight the uniqueness of the party through colour. GreenJoe 20:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been ten days since this round of standardization discussion have begun, and a week since a message about this topic was left at the WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada talkpage. From what I can see (aside from GreenJoe's opinon that the current template looks better), no arguments have been presented aganist standardizaion. If GreenJoe is unable to provide a valid reason for keeping the current template, I think it's safe to say that there is a consensus to standardize the template. Morgan695 21:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Images
I re-introduced free images back into the article, but there isn't one yet for every party if someone wants to take the time to create more. GreenJoe 21:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it kind of... Big?
That thing takes up several pages!99.226.10.146 (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

delete the "Eligible to be registered" line?
Should we delete the "Eligible to be registered" line because it has nothing on it? 204.244.178.254 (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I dont think so, it comes up all the time, usually there is a party or two on that section but the last one, the Pirate Party, was quick in registering. Outback the koala (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've commented it out. As others have mentioned, the template is on the large side already, and there's no point in padding it unnecessarily. When another party becomes eligible (maybe the Online Party or, heaven forbid, the True North Party), the line can be re-added.
 * By the way, the United Party was actually eligible more recently than the Pirate Party. They made the list a couple of months after the Pirate Party and were registered in the same by-election, a few days later. — INTRIGUE B LUE (talk&#124;contribs) 02:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable former parties
So how do we define a notable former party? An issue of it has come up with regards to the Newfoundland and Labrador First Party, which IMHO wasn't that notable. My criteria would be:
 * 1) Do they merit an article? If not, they shouldn't be on the list.
 * 2) Were they included in the leader's debates at least once during their history?
 * 3) Do they have media coverage from outside their "home" province, and on more than one occasion? So for example, ABC Party starts up in PEI. They get some media for a week in Nov 1900. Was there any coverage after that, or was that it?

Other possible conditions to consider if they don't meet all of the above:
 * 1) Have they ever elected anyone or been appointed to the Senate?

I'd appreciate feedback on this. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the former notable parties where minor parties that did not get a seat in the federal debates, never won any seats, and never formed government to get Senate appointments. As for the NL First, I believe they should be on the list as they represent a political ideology just like any other minor party in Canada. Aaaccc (talk), 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't list every former party. There's too many. They all have ideologies. That doesn't make them notable. IMHO it barely makes them notable for having an article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should begin by restricting the list to parties that have been elected and narrow it down from there. I suggest including only:
 * Parties that have elected MPs since 1980 (3)
 * Parties that have formed government or official opposition since 1867 (too lazy to count)
 * I don't think any defunct parties that have never elected MP qualify as notable. — INTRIGUE B LUE (talk&#124;contribs) 01:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Blue, thats not large enough since there have been a good number of notable parties that have never been elected. I can think of the rhinos (historical) but there are more. Outback the koala (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's extremely subjective. Unless we come up with objective criteria to distinguish notable/non-notable parties, we're asking for a huge list and/or revert wars. — INTRIGUE B LUE (talk&#124;contribs) 01:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the historical parties should be removed from the template and left to the list? Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to do that, but like Blue said we need to gather some clear guidelines as to what we should include. How about the first list along with parties that have ceased to be active in the last say 20 years? Outback the koala (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest the following list. It includes all parties to be elected since 1980 and all parties to form government/opposition.
 * Alliance – 1x opp; present Conservative predecessor
 * Anti-Confederates – 1x elected; sat with Liberal opposition; historically significant
 * CCF – 7x elected; predecessor to NDP
 * Conservative (historical) – 8x gov't, 10x opposition; PC predecessor
 * PC – 6x gov't, 9x opp, 18x elected; predecessor to Alliance/Conservative/Progressive Canadian
 * Progressive – 4x elected; 2nd largest in 1921 but declined to sit as opposition; part of coalition in 1925 and subsequently embroiled in King-Byng Thing.
 * Reform – 1x opp; predecessor to Alliance
 * Social Credit – 7x elected; predecessor to NDP
 * — INTRIGUE B LUE (talk&#124;contribs) 09:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And leave out all the notable francophone parties? That is an not acceptable. The current list seems complete to me, it's a shame we are trying to alter it in this way. Perhaps it would easier to simply exclude parties not on the list currently, most of them never got out of the regional starting gate to begin with anyway.. Outback the koala (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, how would you define notable Francophone parties? I judged all of the parties on the same criteria (detailed above) in compiling the list, and those are the ones that met them. If you'd like to suggest different criteria, you're more than welcome to do so, but they should be universally applied to all parties. — INTRIGUE B LUE (talk&#124;contribs) 11:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How many federal francophone parties are there? Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At a brief glance I see the Ralliement créditiste, the Bloc populaire, and the Old Rhinos (started as francophone before expansion). For what reason should these be excluded? They did have a significant impact on the politics of the day. Outback the koala (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By my understanding, both the Ralliement crédiste and Bloc populaire were more significant as provincial parties than as federal, and the Old Rhinos are covered by Neorhino, which is currently listed. Perhaps adding a corresponding template for Quebec provincial parties would be a more appropriate solution. — INTRIGUE B LUE (talk&#124;contribs) 00:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since discussion has stalled with no apparent consensus, I'm willing to accept the list as-is. I don't see any significant omissions, and all of the parties listed are arguably notable. — INTRIGUE B LUE (talk&#124;contribs) 12:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. This wasn't going anywhere. Outback the koala (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think if you've got Communist and Marxist-Leninist, then it's reasonable to show the full range of such thinking in our national political history.
 * So, par exemple, there are Trotskyites: League for Socialist Action (Canada).
 * Didn't we also have a Socialist Party at one time?
 * Varlaam (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Parliament
Parties were being duplicated with sections for both the HOC and the Senate, so I eliminated the Senate section, and re-named the HOC section to Parliament. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the need for a change. 117Avenue (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And I don't see the need for repeating the parties in parliament in two sections instead of one. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The way it was before you changed it had the advantage of showing the composition of both chambers of parliament in a concise and practical way. I don't think repeating the parties represented in both chambers is such a disadvantage. — ABJIKLAM (t &middot; &#32;c) 02:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a navigation box, not a list. Both can be listed under Parliament. I even added in the PC. If you'd like, you can put in the total numbers each party has in both chambers, though we should probably add in any Independents as well. Keep the order as the order in the HOC. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Listing PC under Represented in Parliament, is incorrect. And why limit ourselves to the number in the parliament? 117Avenue (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not incorrect. They have a seat in the Senate, and were listed under the Senate section. I don't care if we put the numbers of seats each party has or not, it was a suggestion. I still oppose two sections. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Could someone please explain the dispute. I came here from the RfC noticeboard and cannot follow it.  TFD (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Came here and I agree with 117Ave, They should be separated out, regardless of the slight douplication of links (it's fairly minor, let it go). Party structure in the Senate is different than the lower house, this nav box can reflect that division. Outback the koala (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't think I mentioned this is done else where. 117Avenue (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but they have one template for all their assemblies, not just "federal" which might be an idea for us? Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could even be divided up like Template:GPC instead of the British one so there isn't so much to read at once, if it isn't applicable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. Would we consider simply having templates in this, the main template, or have all the info here in the one template? It could become complicated fast. Outback the koala (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest creating a new main template, perhaps Template:Canadian political parties, and basically keep them the way they are now, but all sections in the main template. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I decided to be bold, and created the new template. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This makes for a really long box. I'm not sure this change was wise. These links are somewhat unrelated. Would a reader finish reading about a defunct party in one province, want to navigate to a different party in a different province? This should have been discussed before making sweeping changes. 117Avenue (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They're all relevant, because a reader outside Canada might not know the provinces have seperate parties. That doesn't happen too many places. In the US, Australia and UK, most of the federal parties are either the only parties, or they're the top of the chain for affiliation. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A navbox that is titled "Provincial political parties in province", will tell the reader there are provincial politics. I actually think combining them into one list will cause the reader to assume incorrect affiliations. 117Avenue (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They're still broken down by province, but instead of several separate templates, we have one template. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting look at things, non-Canadian readers may not know, but the real question is do they care? Personally, I was completely unaware that Australia did not have a similar system in place, with different parties at the state level, and it seems odd to me that they do not. So if I were I non-Canadian reader I would most likely think our system is odd and want to investigate further. I think it's a good idea because of this. But it is so big, I agree, purhaps collapse the territories into one? Or maybe regional break down (West, Atlantic, Central...)?Outback the koala (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In the meantime I don't think Template:Canadian political parties should be used until we agree on how and where to use it. It may be out of place right now to use it in place of existing templates. Outback the koala (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * NWT and Nunavut have no parties, but we could do Federal + say 3 regional groupings, and under the regional groupings have the sections for those provinces. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The box is too long, and unusable. I think this is a case of WP:TCREEP. 117Avenue (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but if you wish to change it back, go ahead and go through all those articles and change the templates back. Took me about 2 - 3 hours to do it. Me-123567-Me (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is underhanded and wrong. We are supposed to build consensus and then act upon that, rather than place the onus of undoing your edits which were out of place on us, it should be you who goes and undos those edits. We were all giving input into the issue and "resolving" it your way alone is not cooperative. I urge you to rethink your stance. Outback the koala (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not, I was being bold. At the time that's the way the consensus was going. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And he's invalidates his own argument, thus we can combine the HOC and Senate sections into one. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind if you do decide to change it back, you're invalidating your own argument which you use the UK template as an example. Me-123567-Me (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

117Avenue - Keep in mind although you reverted the template, all those federal articles have the new template on them, not the federal one. I just said that. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You have steped outside the boundaries of BOLD. You should have created the template, for arguments sake, then garnered the consensus to use it. By going around to the hundreds of articles, you essentially deleted a template, without going through the proper procedures. I am well aware of how to revert the changes you have made, I just wanted you to say "go ahead and change it back". So that you don't see the edits as being against you. 117Avenue (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I did up the template, and then went ahead and put it on the applicable article's pages. Just be sure you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater if/when you do revert, some of those articles didn't have a template on them before and/or I made other changes as well. Not to make it harder to change back, but because they needed them. Honestly, I made the changes because I thought the template worked. I still do think it works, well. It achieved what was being set out to do, create a template like that of its UK counterpart. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominate them for TfD, see if others agree. 117Avenue (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also agree. Outback the koala (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Listing of Parties/Caucuses in the Senate
Earlier today I edited the template to change the way the parties and caucuses in the Senate section of the template were displayed, in this case putting all parliamentary groups equally rather than putting all three after a dash beside "Independent" and the total of those senators. User:Me-123567-Me reverted my change saying that those groups (Senate Liberal Caucus and Independent Senators Group) were not parties.

Given that the template has previously shown caucuses/members who have listed an affiliation that is not related to a current political party (such as the Independent Conservatives that occurred during Harper's term) on par with political parties, why can't we do the same for the current senators in the SLC and ISG? I understand they may not be political parties registered by Elections Canada but for all intents and purposes they are parties within the structures of Parliament. RA 0808 talkcontribs 04:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Let's not be so nit-picky with the distinction between parties and caucuses. Plus, the SLC and ISG were already included before, which means we've had non-parties in this template for a while now. Your change makes the template tidier. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they should be small cased under Independent? Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that putting them under independent makes the template look more confusing, and doesn't present an honest image of the arrangement of the Senate. Perhaps if we put a superscript cross beside both and at the bottom note that ISG and SLC are parliamentary groups not affiliated with a political party? Or something to that effect, at any rate. RA 0808  talkcontribs 22:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Better yet, the article Senate Liberal Caucus says the caucus is also referred to as "Senate Independent Liberal Caucus". Let's just use that name. It makes it clear the caucus calls itself Liberal but is officially independent of the Liberal Party. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't actually find a reliable source that uses "Senate Independent Liberal Caucus", only a few news articles from Postmedia that mention "the Senate's independent Liberal caucus". On the other hand the Library of Parliament makes reference to Terry Mercer as the chair of the "Senate Liberal Caucus". RA 0808  talkcontribs 20:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh alright, then we should use "Senate Liberal Caucus". I'm okay with using a footnote to indicate independent groups, but I don't think it's necessary. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already updated the article with the name. So should I make the change to the template as above, you think? RA 0808  talkcontribs 22:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I think it would be a good idea. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with the change to the template the way it is, and I'm prepared to start an RFC. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion above makes sense only in a parliamentary context. ISG and SLC aren't registered with Elections Canada as political parties and as such shouldn't be listed on an article called "Federal political parties in Canada." Either they should go or the title should change. Madg2011 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with changing the title of the navbox to "political parties and parliamentary groups" or something similar. It's better than the alternative to group all non Conservative senators as independents. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm all in favour of having an RFC. And there is some precedent: the only other parliamentary caucus unaffiliated with a party that has occurred in the Canadian Parliament (the Democratic Representative Caucus which split from the Canadian Alliance in 2001) is treated on equal footing with parties in other parts of Wikipedia (i.e. List of federal political parties in Canada, Template:Canadian Conservative Parties, List of Canadian politicians who have crossed the floor) despite never having been registered with Elections Canada. RA 0808  talkcontribs 16:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

CCF
If we're including all the currently represented groups/parties in the Commons, surely the sole MP who currently identifies as CCF should be included, too? Eilidhmax (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)