Talk:List of current senators of Canada/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about List of current senators of Canada. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
misleading
This is kind of misleading, in that it's a list of current Senators, correct? Is there a plan to add articles about past Senators? -- Zoe —Preceding undated comment added 11 May 2003
Retirement
How about adding party affiliations? Not all Senators belong to the same party as the PM who appointed them.
Top 10 senators set to retire:
- Laurier L. LaPierre, Nov 21 2004
- Yves Morin, Nov 28 2004
- Herbert O. Sparrow, Jan 4 2005
- John Lynch-Staunton, Jun 19 2005
- Viola Léger, Jun 29 2005
- Isobel Finnerty, Jul 15 2005
- James F. Kelleher, Oct 2 2005, Con.(Mulroney)
- Landon Pearson, Nov 16 2005, Lib. (Chretien)
- C. William Doody, Feb 26 2006, PC (Clark)
- John M. Buchanan, Apr 22 2006, Con. (Mulroney)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl Andrew (talk • contribs) 07:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Marisa Ferretti Barth, Apr 28 2006, Lib. (Chretien)
- Madeleine Plamondon, Sept 21 2006, Lib. (Chretien)
- Shirley Maheu, Oct 7 2006, Lib. (Chretien)
- Jack Austin, March 2, 2007, Lib. (Trudeau)
- J. Michael Forrestall, September 23, 2007, Con. (Mulroney)
- D. Ross Fitzpatrick, February 4, 2008, Lib (Chretien)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Formeruser-81 (talk • contribs) 15 January 2005
Seniority?
Is "seniority" really the most effective way to organize this list? Shouldn't it be in either alphabetical order or grouped by caucus? Bearcat
- I agree completely. I think it should be done in alphabetical order according to family name.--handisnak 06:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retirement of Senators
How about in future we not remove Senators from this list until they have in fact retired. Senator Ferretti Barth did not retire until today (April 28), but she was removed yesterday despite the fact she was still a sitting Senator until midnight last night. PoliSciMaster
Re: Review request
It's good, I just noticed a few things you might want to change. Hope they're helpful:
- If you are going to mention the Parliament of the United Kingdom, you might as well mention the Senate's similarity to the House of Lords while sharing the name of the American House.
- I'm not sure about that one, it might be a little too much detail for the page.
- You mention what the Senate can't do, but you should say something about what it does; at least a one-line mention of "sober second thought".
- Done.
- You mention Alberta and Saskatchewan doing senate elections, but I think that New Brunswick will hold them during the next round of municipal elections, so you should look into that.
- I've taken a look, but haven't found anything yet. I'll keep looking.
- Remind the reader that Harper only appointing two Senators is significant. You could simply add the word "only".
- Done. Do you think I should mention Fortier? I've been debating with myself, and I think it makes sense because the lead mentions that he appointed two, but the list only has one, so readers might wonder what happened to the other.
- That would probably save a few people some confusion, yeah.
- Done.
- That would probably save a few people some confusion, yeah.
- Done. Do you think I should mention Fortier? I've been debating with myself, and I think it makes sense because the lead mentions that he appointed two, but the list only has one, so readers might wonder what happened to the other.
- You might have people at a FLC saying this this list will be in constant flux, but it changes rarely enough that it shouldn't be a problem.
- True, but there is precedent for similar lists that are also in flux, such as FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, List of surviving veterans of World War I and List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment.
- Now the big one: I think the table should somehow make it clear that divisions only have legal meaning in Quebec, although I'm not sure how to show that without screwing up the layout.
- Neither am I. It is mentioned in the lead, maybe add a note right above the table too?
- That could work, or a footnote from the header of the column. I think that there are a lot of people who only look at the title and the table, so I like noting things that can be interpreted wrong.
- Neither am I. It is mentioned in the lead, maybe add a note right above the table too?
--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for taking a look. I'll address the rest of your concerns tomorrow. Thanks again, Scorpion0422
Harper appointments
I have noticed that someone has been attempting to update this list to reflect the new appointments, yet someone else keeps reverting these changes and referring to a separate list for the 2008 appointments, ostensibly because these appointments have not been approved by the Governor General. This is quite simply false. All 18 appointments are official, and they are now reflected on the Parliamentary website, both in the overall standings, and in the list of current senators and their biographies. The 18 should be incorporated into the main list.PoliSciMaster (talk)
- Okay, good. The reason I was waiting before was because when I first added the section, there was nothing at the official site. -- Scorpion0422
- Done. -- Scorpion0422
Senators removed from the website
Patrick Brazeau, Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis and Leo Housakos have been removed from the list of Senators at the Senate website. Does anyone know if there is a reason for this, or is it just a glitch? -- Scorpion0422
- Brazeau and Housakos are now back up. Given that the date appointment has now changed to January 2, 2009 for most of them, and January 8, 2009 for Brazeau and Housakos, it sounds like there was a delay in the issuance of the Summonses. Given that it was the Quebec senators held to last, they may just be making sure that the property qualifications are sorted out before issuing the last summons.PoliSciMaster (talk)
Appointment date
Last year, as those who follow this page remember, the Senate's website listed the 18 new senators with a "nomination" date of December 22, 2008. We followed that date here. Later, the Senate changed the dates to January 2, 2009, for 15, January 8 for two, and January 14 for one. At this appointment, the Senate did the same thing. I for one see no reason to be bitten twice. As far as we know, the only significance of August 27, 2009, is that that is the date the PM publicly announced the appointments. Each and every other senator listed has a date of appointment in this article reflecting the date of his or her summons, not the date the appointment was announced. As such, there is no reason, as an IP editor insists on doing, to use the August 27th date. A note that the appointment is pending sufficient until we have confirmation of the actual appointment date. -Rrius (talk)
- The accusation of original research is flummery. The last bit of reliable information we have is that on August 27, PM Harper announced the decision to appoint the nine new senators. The Senate website has proven in the past that the date it lists for newly appointed senators is not necessarily correct. As I said above, they said last time that the date of appointment was December 22, 2008, (the day Mr. Harper announced the 18 appointments). In reality, none of those senators was appointed on December 22, and the dates were later changed to reflect the summonses. It may be that the Senate site wouldn't work properly if no date were included, so the staffers input the only date they have. It could also be that the staff want to put some date on their site, so use the only one they have. Whatever the case, our standards are different. Since the site is not reliable on this point, we can't use it. Period. That it is the only source does not excuse that it is a bad on this issue. Not having any reliable evidence that the summonses have issued and of the date of each of those summonses, we have no basis for saying what the correct date of appointment is. Until that time, the best information we have is that the appointments are pending. -Rrius (talk)
- Do you have any source for your claim that the latest appointments are pending other than your experience? Do you have an article, book, website or other reliable source that backs up your claim? If not, you are engaging in a classic case of original research. Your claims may be correct, but if all you have to back them up are your personal observations then we can't use that as a basis to state that appointments that the Parliament of Canada websites affirm as being in place are merely "pending". If the Parliament of Canada website changes the start of term dates at some point then we can change them here but until then, and in the absence of a published source then the chart should stand as it is. 65.95.118.13 (talk)
- Appointments occur with the issuance of a summons. We have no source saying any of the summonses have issued. What we do have are press accounts that the Prime Minister is appointing nine new senators. The announcement is the last thing we actually know. If one of those nine were to die before receiving a summons, he or she would never have been a senator. If Mr. Harper were to change his mind with respect to one of them before the summons issued, he or she would never have been a senator. By saying these people were appointed on August 27, we are claiming facts we don't know to be true. If you don't like the word "pending", an em dash would work just as well. -Rrius (talk)
- Appointments occur with the issuance of a summons. We have no source saying any of the summonses have issued. What we do have are press accounts that the Prime Minister is appointing nine new senators. The announcement is the last thing we actually know. If one of those nine were to die before receiving a summons, he or she would never have been a senator. If Mr. Harper were to change his mind with respect to one of them before the summons issued, he or she would never have been a senator. By saying these people were appointed on August 27, we are claiming facts we don't know to be true. If you don't like the word "pending", an em dash would work just as well. -Rrius (talk)
- Do you have any source for your claim that the latest appointments are pending other than your experience? Do you have an article, book, website or other reliable source that backs up your claim? If not, you are engaging in a classic case of original research. Your claims may be correct, but if all you have to back them up are your personal observations then we can't use that as a basis to state that appointments that the Parliament of Canada websites affirm as being in place are merely "pending". If the Parliament of Canada website changes the start of term dates at some point then we can change them here but until then, and in the absence of a published source then the chart should stand as it is. 65.95.118.13 (talk)
- "We have no source saying any of the summonses have issued"
- We have no source saying they have not been issued. What we do have is the Parliament of Canada website which states on one chart that the nominations occured on Aug 27 and on another that their Senatorial terms began on August 27th. The implication from that is that the summons' were issued on that date. You have no source that says otherwise - only your speculation. 65.95.118.13 (talk)
- " It may be that the Senate site wouldn't work properly if no date were included,"
- More speculation - the site does not have the retirement dates for most of the new Senators listed yet works just fine. 65.95.118.13 (talk)
Sophistry. Last thing first. Yes, that is speculation, but I never intended to put in the article. Rather it is a possible explanation of why the Senate staffers do what they do. Which brings us to the other point. We don't list things in Wikipedia based on "we don't know it didn't happen". We do know that From December 22, 2008, to approximately January 16, 2009, the Senate website listed "December 22, 2008" as the date of appointment for the 18 senators Harper announced he would appoint on that date. We know that from approximately January 16, 2009, on, the site has listed January 2 for 15 of them, January 8 for 2, and January 14 for 1. We know those dates are the dates on their summonses. We know that on August 27, 2009, the PM announced nine more senators. We know that on August 27, 2009, the Senate website put up the nine announced new senators with the date "August 27, 2009". We know that the Senate site listed incorrect dates in December and January and appears to be doing the same now. We CANNOT know that August 27, 2009, is the date of appointment for the new senators because. Until we know a date, it is inappropriate to list one. In the interim, if "pending" offends, simply leaving the space blank or using punctuation (such as an em dash or a few asterisks) would also do the job. -Rrius (talk)
Put on the article - New nomination - 29 january 2010
I demand some help for to put on the table the 5 new senators named by Stephen Harper. I change the number of senator inside the Senate of Canada article.--Fredoues (talk)
- There were seven appointments announced January 6, and they are already listed. The numbers are already correct at Senate of Canada, so please don't change it. -Rrius (talk)
Vernon White
According to the Canada Gazette,[1] Vern White has already been summoned. The media reports said his appointment was effective February 20, but the normal practice when a new senator wants to take up a seat after a delay is to simply give the summons at a later date rather than to make the summons effective at a later date on its own terms. So it seems more likely to me that the summons was issued on Jan 6 in the normal way, but White is choosing to wait until Feb 20 to show up to take the oath. I'm putting him in the main list with a ref to the Gazette for the Jan 6 date, and I'll make the appropriate changes elsewhere. If it turns out the Gazette is just wrong, I'll take responsibility for fixing things up. -Rrius (talk)
- The Party Standings in the Senate still list a vacancy in Ontario, [2], and while White is included in the list of current Senators, his date of appointment is listed as February 20. [3].PoliSciMaster (talk)
- The latter point is no longer true. I'm going to contact a Senate official to get the skinny from their perspective, but for the moment, the Gazette is the best source we have. It also has the virtue of fitting with the press release the PM's office put out on Jan. 6, which said he had "today announced" his appointment of six people (including White) to the Senate and announced his intention to appoint Dagenais.[4] Were he delaying the paperwork, it is far more likely he would have lumped White in with Dagenais. An early story also said he had appointed but would turn up to be sworn in after he finished his term with the police. There is no definitive proof one way or the other, but the best available evidence points to a January 6 appointment. -Rrius (talk)
- The latter point is no longer true. I'm going to contact a Senate official to get the skinny from their perspective, but for the moment, the Gazette is the best source we have. It also has the virtue of fitting with the press release the PM's office put out on Jan. 6, which said he had "today announced" his appointment of six people (including White) to the Senate and announced his intention to appoint Dagenais.[4] Were he delaying the paperwork, it is far more likely he would have lumped White in with Dagenais. An early story also said he had appointed but would turn up to be sworn in after he finished his term with the police. There is no definitive proof one way or the other, but the best available evidence points to a January 6 appointment. -Rrius (talk)
Liberal senators' designation
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada#Liberal senators' designation. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs)
Suggestion for this list
As more "Independent" Senators are appointed, and many incumbent Senators (even those appointed by Conservative PMs) reclassify themselves as "independent", would it be helpful to colour the PM field red or blue and track standings of how many were appointed by PMs from each party? Eventually we'll get to a situation where it is very difficult to tell at a glance where the balance of power lies within the chamber (and on what future date it will shift). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.49.102 (talk)
I have made this change, and now thinking we should go one further and track standings by the party pf the PM that appointed each Senator.
--Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk)
Appointment Dates
According to the Canada Gazette, Senator Peter Harder was summoned "to the Senate of Canada, by letters patent under the Great Seal of Canada bearing date of March 23, 2016" Source: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2016/2016-04-09/html/notice-avis-eng.php#nb4
However, the date at the bottom of the notice was April 1, 2016.
Should we use the Gazette as the authoritative source for Senate Appointments?
Which date to use for his appointment? March 23 or April 1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.49.102 (talk)
- We should follow the official website [5] which gives 2016.03.23. TDL (talk)
The Canada Gazette just updated with the the appointment dates for the new Senators here: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2016/2016-04-16/html/notice-avis-eng.php#ne2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs)
From the Canada Gazette at http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2016/2016-04-16/html/notice-avis-eng.php#ne2 :
"His Excellency the Governor General has been pleased to summon to the Senate of Canada, by letters patent under the Great Seal of Canada bearing date of March 23, 2016:..." (List of 6 new Senators)
The Canada Gazette is the official newspaper of the Government of Canada. Publication in the Gazette is considered official notice to all Canadians.
Peter Harder's appointment is here: http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2016/2016-04-09/html/notice-avis-eng.php#nb4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs)
Merge with "List of current Senators of Canada by age"?
Can this list be merged with the "List of current Senators of Canada by age"? Much of the information is redundant between the 2 lists, and that one is not being updated as often (for example, the most recent appointments have not been added). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs)
Retirement dates
Sorting by retirements dates allows you to see which seats are going to open up this year, except that several senators have announced dates earlier than mandatory retirement date. I have retitled the column, and adjusted the one that I know about (Senator Wallace) adding relevant information to the notes column. Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wallace-retiring-1.3894845 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.75.166 (talk)
Colourization of PM Column
As more appointments are made to the "Independent Senators Group" and Senators join the "non-affiliated" group, it will be more and more difficult to see at a glance how the balance of power will be changing in the senate based on upcoming retirements. For this reason I have colourized the Prime Minister column to show the partisan affiliation of the PM that appointed recommended the appointment of each Senator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.152.52 (talk)
- Colourizing the box makes it difficult to read the text, particularly for colour blind people. Better to have a separate bar beside the box as is done with Senator affiliation. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk)
Harper appointments
Most, maybe not all, of the senators Harper appointed promised to resign after, I think it was it 8 years. I would like to see a list of those he appointed under this promise showing who has resigned and who has stayed beyond their promised retirement date.
KenWalker | Talk
Here are some sources: https://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/08/27/news/why-harper-corrupted-senate https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/two-conservative-senators-have-their-own-reform-plan-quit-before-mandatory-retirement-at-75 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/fortiers-senate-appointment-confirmed/article20409019/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-to-revive-senate-reform-plan/article4303014/ https://www.macleans.ca/politics/after-appointing-56-unelected-senators-stephen-harper-decides-hes-done/ https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2009/08/27/harper_appoints_9_to_senate.html https://www.hilltimes.com/2017/07/19/tory-term-limits-myth-say-senators-promise-never-made/114026 https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/12/13/john-wallace-senate_n_13615308.html https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wallace-retiring-1.3894845
Should the Progressive Senators Group be listed?
Now that Senator Downe left the PSG group, it lost official status.
According to the official Senate page available here: [6] the Senators of the former PSG are now non-affiliated.
I don't see a reason why we should list the PSG here at the moment. Maybe this group will achieve official status again in the future or not - who knows. But as it stands, the official source for Senate membership, namely their official website, lists the senators as non-affiliated and I think we should follow that convention and remove reference to the PSG. It can of course be mentioned in the opening paragraphs, but using the PSG in the actual list is not appropriate in my opinion.
However, before I go into an edit spree, I wanted to see what other people think of this. --DeCoolRuler (talk)
- There are ongoing conversations with Senators about joining the group. I'd give it about a week before concluding that they will not get back to 9. Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk)
- DeCoolRuler, I'm sort of indifferent. I initially favoured classing as non-affiliated, but emerging consensus at Talk:Progressive Senate Group since to favour listing their affiliation. When I said I'd like to add a footnote to each instance, there were no objections. Doug Mehus T·C
Merger proposal
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
Merge Proposal and / or Redirect.
Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of List of current senators of Canada by age into this talk page's article was:
I propose to merge List of current senators of Canada by age into List of current senators of Canada. I think that the content in the List of current senators of Canada by age list article can easily be explained in the context of the List of current senators of Canada list article, and the List of current senators of Canada article is of a reasonable size that the merging of List of current senators of Canada by age will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned.
Moreover, there are times when the less frequently updated List of current senators of Canada by age list article is not "in sync" with the List of current senators of Canada list article, which causes a mismatch in the accuracy of information.
The only columns List of current senators of Canada by age has that List of current senators of Canada does not are the Date of birth, Length of Senate term to date, and Days until retirement columns—all of which could be migrated to the merged wikitable; however, we may wish to discuss if one of those columns is mildly CRUFTy.
At the end of the day, it will be much more efficient only have to update one list article of current Canadian senators.
@MikkelJSmith2, Kawnhr, GoodDay, Bearcat, Arctic.gnome, and SMcCandlish: Friendly pings to fellow Canadian Wikipedians who regularly or occasionally edit related Senate of Canada articles or these two list articles.
- Procedural note: For those who have never participated in a merger discussion, typically, per WP:Merging, a straw poll-like survey is held with participants typically expressing Merge or Don't merge, with any comments they might have. Typically, each !vote is preceded by an asterisk and a space, and you are asked to put your !vote at the bottom of the survey below this proposal.Doug Mehus T·C
- Merge - This was previously proposed informally above back in 2016. Seems obvious only nobody wanted to do the work to get it done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.68.231.94 (talk)
- Thanks. I'm willing to help with the merger (probably in December) once this closes. Doug Mehus T·C
- Thanks. I'm willing to help with the merger (probably in December) once this closes. Doug Mehus T·C
- Merge - I had previously suggested this, and of course these articles should be merged. Strongly support.Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk)
- Canadianpoliticaljunkie, Thanks. Yeah, I noticed your discussion on the talk page that seemed to have languished. Thought it was a good proposal. Doug Mehus T·C
- Canadianpoliticaljunkie, Thanks. Yeah, I noticed your discussion on the talk page that seemed to have languished. Thought it was a good proposal. Doug Mehus T·C
- Merge - alright by me. GoodDay (talk)
- Merge. As you say, this is mostly trivial information and just creates another page that needs to be studiously maintained. I'm not sure any of the columns really need to be brought over, actually— "length of term" is already suggested by the existent date of appointment column, as is "current age" by mandatory retirement", while "days until retirement" is just a complicated repeat of mandatory retirement (does "2,729 days" mean anything to most people?)… can I just say delete? — Kawnhr (talk)
- Kawnhr, Yeah, I think we should still maybe keep "Current age by Mandatory Retirement" since the two list articles are listed in a Canadian senators by age category (for those that track suck minutiae, I guess!). Doug Mehus T·C
- Kawnhr, Yeah, I think we should still maybe keep "Current age by Mandatory Retirement" since the two list articles are listed in a Canadian senators by age category (for those that track suck minutiae, I guess!). Doug Mehus T·C
- I would just like to point out some of the ways that this article is used, for the purpose of merging and retaining useful information: By tracking data associated with mandatory retirement (and in a few cases, where Senators have stated an intention to retire on a certain date) a researcher is able to determine, for example, the number of Senators appointed on the advice of a specific Prime Minister that would remain as of a specific future date, such as the date of a likely future election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs)
- Canadianpoliticaljunkie, Yeah, I agree, there's a use for that data. It means a bit more calculation in terms of days to retirement, but it's useful. At the same time, having only one chart to update will be a huge time saver in itself, so it should not be overly problematic to update. So, in any event, I propose we merge all the columns, and then decide, via a separate discussion later, if there are any columns that my be redundant. Doug Mehus T·C
- Canadianpoliticaljunkie, Yeah, I agree, there's a use for that data. It means a bit more calculation in terms of days to retirement, but it's useful. At the same time, having only one chart to update will be a huge time saver in itself, so it should not be overly problematic to update. So, in any event, I propose we merge all the columns, and then decide, via a separate discussion later, if there are any columns that my be redundant. Doug Mehus T·C
- Merge - I don't really think I have to add anything beyond that, the arguments above are compelling. - MikkelJSmith (talk)
- Merge. How old they are relative to other politicians isn't a defining characteristic (it's a "trivial intersection" of details, in WP:CFD lingo), ergo not an encyclopedic list topic. PS: I'm not Canadian, though I did live there for a couple of years on a work visa. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼
- Comment - This merge proposal should be taking place on the other article. GoodDay (talk)
- GoodDay, No, per WP:Merging, it's supposed to take place on the destination article's talk page, which is this one. The other table will be merged into this one. Doug Mehus T·C
- Dmehus, is there a reason the merger hasn't happened. It appears that it was unanimous. I've never participated in a merger discussion before though. MikkelJSmith (talk)
- MikkelJSmith2, Merger proposals can be open for any length of time. I'm waiting until the semester is over and then I'm going to request closure from a non-involved editor. Doug Mehus T·C
- MikkelJSmith2, Merger proposals can be open for any length of time. I'm waiting until the semester is over and then I'm going to request closure from a non-involved editor. Doug Mehus T·C
- Dmehus, is there a reason the merger hasn't happened. It appears that it was unanimous. I've never participated in a merger discussion before though. MikkelJSmith (talk)
- GoodDay, No, per WP:Merging, it's supposed to take place on the destination article's talk page, which is this one. The other table will be merged into this one. Doug Mehus T·C
- Comment from closer: MERGE: and make resultant list sortable, "by age" then becomes a moot parameter. GenQuest "Talk to Me"
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.
Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
A copy of this template can be found here.
Updates still for List of current senators of Canada and Template:43rd Canada Senate standings change
Hi GoodDay, Kawnhr, or MikkelJSmith2,
I've updated most pages following Senator Day's retirement effective January 24, 2020; however, still to come are the "Appointment breakdown" chart at List of current senators of Canada, which seems kind of like a pain in the butt to reconcile by which Prime Minister appointed the Senator. If it only needs Joseph A. Day's number to be reflected, then it's pretty good.
As to Template:43rd Canada Senate standings change, I'm not that great with adding new column headers to wikitables. Is there an easier way? Rather than fudge it up, I'll leave it for you. ;)
Thanks,
--Doug Mehus T·C
- I'm content with what ever you come up with. PS - the prime minister doesn't appoint senators. He nominates them & the governor general (on behalf of the monarch) appoints them. GoodDay (talk)
- GoodDay, Yeah, sorry, was typing fast and not worrying about the idiosyncrasies of who appoints the senators. That's what I meant. Doug Mehus T·C
- Dmehus, I'll wait until tomorrow. I'll allow the Senator to have his last rodeo since he's technically retiring tomorrow. MikkelJSmith (talk)
- MikkelJSmith2, Okay, no problem. Yeah, I just thought I'd get a head start and update the other articles today, so less to do tomorrow. Doug Mehus T·C
- Dmehus, yeah, it's fine I see that the vacancies have been listed on some pages. Do you happen to know where they aren't listed so that I can verify it tomorrow? MikkelJSmith (talk)
- MikkelJSmith2, Just Template:43rd Canada Senate standings change, as far as I'm aware, and at the very bottom of List of current senators of Canada where it says "Appointment breakdown." Doug Mehus T·C
- MikkelJSmith2, Just Template:43rd Canada Senate standings change, as far as I'm aware, and at the very bottom of List of current senators of Canada where it says "Appointment breakdown." Doug Mehus T·C
- Dmehus, yeah, it's fine I see that the vacancies have been listed on some pages. Do you happen to know where they aren't listed so that I can verify it tomorrow? MikkelJSmith (talk)
- MikkelJSmith2, Okay, no problem. Yeah, I just thought I'd get a head start and update the other articles today, so less to do tomorrow. Doug Mehus T·C
- Dmehus, I'll wait until tomorrow. I'll allow the Senator to have his last rodeo since he's technically retiring tomorrow. MikkelJSmith (talk)
- GoodDay, Yeah, sorry, was typing fast and not worrying about the idiosyncrasies of who appoints the senators. That's what I meant. Doug Mehus T·C
Appointment breakdown needs to be fixed
I updated several tables regarding the resignation of Grant Mitchell and the switch of Patricia Bovey, but when I got to the appointment breakdown by prime minister I noticed that this table seems to not have been updated for a while since it says 100 total senators, but there currently are only 96. Would someone know how to easily fix the numbers without having to calculate from scratch? Maybe someone know when the last update of that table happened? --DeCoolRuler (talk)
@Kawnhr, Canadianpoliticaljunkie, GoodDay, MikkelJSmith2, and Chad The Goatman:
I have reverted the good-faith redirection by IP editor. Although the result was to merge, per the discussion in multiple area by and with all or most of you, we have collectively decided to pend implementation of the merge until April 2020 in order to fully discuss the columns we wish to preserve, per WP:NODEADLINES.
There are certain columns with respect to dates that we may wish to have survive the merge as they are being used by Canadian post-secondary institutions, per Canadianpoliticaljunkie and the IP editor on the destination talkpage.
GenQuest, is there a merger tag we can replace on the article's talkpage that illustrates that it is being merged and to consult the talkpage? For now, I'll add a wiki-comment at the top of the page.
Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C
- I'm content with you course of action. GoodDay (talk)
- GoodDay,
Thank you. Doug Mehus T·C
- GoodDay,
- Makes sense to me. — Kawnhr (talk)
- I don't think you needed my permission, and just letted get merged, as I have other things to do, outside of the Internet. Chad The Goatman (talk)
What is the current status/timeline of the merger? How can I help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs)
There should be portraits for every member here.
Simply, because it would be common sense. SmashingThreePlates (talk)
Updating Chart Formatting
Hi, I've been updating some of the chart formatting here, and happy to work collaboratively with folks on this. I'm not a wikipedia expert but I think we can clean it up a bit? Please let me know if I do anything bad. Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk)
Upcoming Retirements
I removed the section called "Upcoming Retirements" because this information is readily available in the main chart if you sort by retirement date. Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk)
- Understanding that we should have a discussion here before making this change, (with apologies to User:Wellington Bay), I'd like to recommend that we remove this section, as it unnecessarily adds to the length of the article, when the same information (and more) can easily be seen by sorting the list by "Mandatory Retirement Date".
- Is there any benefit to maintaining a separate list? Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk)
- From what I can tell, the list of upcoming retirements specifically listed the senators due to retire in the current session of parliament (presumably it stretches to 2026 because, constitutionally, a parliament can last a maximum of five years, even if the fixed-election dates mandates four). It's a quick indicator of how many appointments the incumbent PM could make. Whether that is worth keeping is a fair question, but that seems to be the reason it's split into its own section instead of left to the reader to discover in the tables. — Kawnhr (talk)
- It's also useful as it flags to editors when updates to the page need to be made (and those of the senators on question) due to imminent retirements. Also, as retirements are an ongoing feature of senate composition it merits a section. Wellington Bay (talk)
- It's also useful as it flags to editors when updates to the page need to be made (and those of the senators on question) due to imminent retirements. Also, as retirements are an ongoing feature of senate composition it merits a section. Wellington Bay (talk)
- From what I can tell, the list of upcoming retirements specifically listed the senators due to retire in the current session of parliament (presumably it stretches to 2026 because, constitutionally, a parliament can last a maximum of five years, even if the fixed-election dates mandates four). It's a quick indicator of how many appointments the incumbent PM could make. Whether that is worth keeping is a fair question, but that seems to be the reason it's split into its own section instead of left to the reader to discover in the tables. — Kawnhr (talk)
Proposal: Collapsing supplementary tables for readability
I’d like to suggest collapsing three sections of the page by default, just to tidy up the layout and improve readability for most users:
- Membership changes since the last election
- Standings changes since the last election
- Upcoming retirements
These sections present helpful information, but they’re all essentially different views of data that’s already visible in the main list. For example:
- The “Membership changes” and “Standings changes” tables are just historical breakdowns for readers who want a deeper dive. - The “Upcoming retirements” table only exists to help editors track when updates might be needed — the same retirement dates are already shown in the main list (with thanks to User:Wellington Bay for clarifying for me how this section is used).
None of these are critical for understanding the current Senate lineup, and hiding them by default could make the page cleaner without removing anything. I’d use {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}}, with clear labels so anyone can expand the sections easily.
This seems in line with WP:Manual of Style/Layout#Collapsible content, which advises against collapsing *essential* information — but that's not the case here.
Happy to hear any thoughts or concerns. If there’s no objection in the next little while, I’ll go ahead and make the change. Thanks! Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk)
Major table update and article cleanup (March 2025)
Just wanted to flag some major updates to this article that I’ve been working on. Most of the changes are aimed at cleaning up the structure, improving consistency, and making the page easier to read and maintain.
What changed
- Main table completely rebuilt – All 105 current senators are now represented, sorted correctly, with consistent formatting and layout. Colours and affiliations are aligned with the {{Canadian party colour}} template.
- Shortened long titles – Many of the titles in the "Titles" column were wrapping and causing the rows to expand vertically. I shortened them (e.g. "Deputy Representative of the Government in the Senate" → "Deputy Gov. Representative") while preserving clarity.
- Affiliations cleaned up – Abbreviated groups like ISG, CSG, and PSG now use `` for hover-tooltips instead of direct links. “Conservative” is spelled out for clarity. Non-affiliated stays as-is.
- Sticky headers, colspan, and layout fixes – Header sticks when you scroll. Colour bars now appear in their own cells using `colspan=2`, like the official Senate layout. Also fixed some duplicated row markers and width issues.
- Date format switched – The article now uses day-month-year (dmy) format, which is standard for Canadian topics. The tag at the top reflects this.
- Footnotes added to headers – The "Name" column now includes a proper citation for the source list, and the "Division" column explains Quebec’s special Senate division setup.
- Broken references cleaned up – The old MapleLeafWeb source was broken, so I replaced it with references to the Senate and Parliament’s own sites.
New collapsible sections
To help reduce visual clutter, I made three sections collapsible:
- Membership changes since the last election
- Standings changes since the last election
- Upcoming retirements
This keeps the focus on the current senator list but still keeps everything else easily accessible.
Retirement table updated
The "Upcoming retirements" section is now a full table instead of a bullet list. It includes all senators scheduled to retire before the next federal election (currently set for 28 April 2029), sorted by retirement date. It uses the same formatting as the main table for consistency.
Looking ahead
Still open to more improvements (maybe a provincial breakdown next?), but this should be a solid foundation.
Would love any feedback — if you like the new format, or if anything looks off or could be improved, feel free to jump in or leave a note here. Thanks! Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk)
Changed "Province / Division" column header to "Province or Territory (Senate Division)"
Hello, I've updated the column header in this template from "Province / Division" to "Province or Territory (Senate Division)".
The rationale for this change is to improve clarity and accessibility. The new header more accurately reflects the content of the column, which includes both provinces (sometimes with Senate divisions in parentheses) and territories. This change aims to be more inclusive and easier for all users, including those using screen readers, to understand the geographical information presented in the table.
Please let me know if there are any concerns or further suggestions. Thank you. Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk) Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk)