This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Electoral districts Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 27 March 2023 by WanukeX. 207.35.15.27 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (IP is from Canadian House of Commons, edit link)

It seems that a new allocation is going to be proposed by the government, given the vote in the House of Commons today.[1] I recommend that we keep the current allocation in the table for now, and once the new proposal comes, we show both sets of numbers (as originally proposed by the Chief Electoral Officer, and then by the HOC). It is better for readers to understand the process, to see how the original allocations were recalculated, or changed into whatever actually comes to be.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the Chief Electoral Officer didn't "propose" anything, and we should refrain from using language to that effect on the article, a pro forma proclamation was just issued in accordance with Section 14(1) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.WanukeX (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, speaking loosely. We don't use the word proposed in the article, except to say that the government had not proposed alternate rules. If you disagree with the characterization please edit/improve it as needed. I think "as calculated" is what the legislation refers to. My point was that we should include this calculation, and whatever new number comes out of the amendments the government now looks likely to pass and the "recalculation" that would flow from that (which I do not believe is yet known). The fact that the government seems to be changing the rules mid-redistribution is important to highlight, is my point.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article did use the word proposed previously, I edited it out prior to making the post. WanukeX (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to be upfront and say I oppose including anything to do with Mayors and Councils objections or issues with this or that part of the maps. Nearly every local council in the country adopted some sort of motion objecting or commenting on this or that issue, and if we were to include all of them the article would turn into even more of a massive list than it already is. Some of the commissions even changed their maps between the initial proposal and the final report based on the objections, the Ontario Final Report is full of examples. Just keep it to the official objections to the final reports at PROC, there were 63 of them to the Ontario final report in 2012, and if we see anything like that again, and I expect we will, that's plenty enough without going diving into what every one of the hundreds to thousands of town council objections was. WanukeX (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FluffyCanada The use of the word "supported" is absolutely correct, in the referenced reports to the House of Commons it is explicitly stated that PROC "supports" certain objections,^[1][2][3][4] and in the disposition of objections by the Boundary Commissions, it is explicitly stated that PROC "Supported" certain objecitons.^[5] This is not me POVing about opinions on the objections, it is a fact explicitly stated in the referenced sources. WanukeX (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PROC does not vote on this report. The committee is mandated by the Elections Boundaries Readjustment Act to submit whatever objection is tabled in committee to the EBC. The term "supported" implies that the committee agrees with the recommendations being put forward in the objection which is simply untrue.

Every objection that is submitted to PROC is "supported" by the committee so it can be sent to the EBC. Readers unfamiliar the process will assume that "supported" means that the committee agrees with the recommendations proposed which is baseless.

The word "supported" should be replaced with the word "summitted" or something similar because it is more specific and less misleading to readers unfamiliar with the subject.

If you're so keen on keeping the term "supported" then the line should be changed to the following to reflect its accuracy: "As mandated by Elections Boundaries Readjustment Act, the Standing Committee supported the objection without a vote so it could be submitted to the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Nova Scotia." FluffyCanada (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> Every objection that is submitted to PROC is "supported" by the committee so it can be sent to the EBC. Readers unfamiliar the process will assume that "supported" means that the committee agrees with the recommendations proposed which is baseless

This isn't true, first off, EBRA has no language requiring PROC to "Support" an Objection for it to go back to the EBC, the language just says, "consider the matter of the objection and return the report to the Speaker together with a copy of the objection and of the minutes of proceedings of the committee with respect thereto" , not to mention, there were objections in 2012 where PROC explicitly didn't take a position on an objection or explicitly did not support them, on the Ontario Objections see PROC Explicitly not supporting Joe Oliver's objection, or making no recommendations with respect to the objection of Rick Dykstra. It is Not a procedural thing, and you need a reliable source to say it is. WanukeX (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this map at the top of the article. Seems like we should include it somewhere. At the top might not be the right spot though. Please modify as needed.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to have a map with the Territories in the main part, rather than as an inset? -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it is. I didn't make the map. I just noticed that it was already used in the 45th Canadian federal election article. The map maker is Alexander(UBG). You could ask them. I anticipate they might say that since the territories' maps never change, they don't need to be included in the map at all.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I know - but it looks weird. All Canadian electoral maps include the Territories, and there is so much white space on the map... -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the low quality of the map, it is the first that I have ever made and clearly I was over ambitious uploading it. I made the territories an inset because I designed the map to be used on a model of mine and so that kind of setup just worked better with the site layout. Ill be taking the map down. Alexander(UBG) (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be perfect, but it is much better than nothing.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]