Talk:Pirate Party of Canada

Kevin Price

Until the Canadian Kevin Price gets his own page, editors should refrain from linking to Kevin Price. The currently referenced Price is a businessman in Texas, not a Canadian citizen. --ChannelSix (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Elections Canada

The source for being accepted by Elections Canada needs to be one that isn't the party's own website. See WP:V and WP:CITE. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Elections Canada lists them as being eligible to be registered. 24.84.50.181 (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC) [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.50.181 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

yes, eligible to register, but not registered as of yet. It's almost there though! Outback the koala (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User box

I created a user box for supporters. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made another one corresponding to the current branding guide and logo: {{User:Tradereddy/ppca}}
Tradereddy (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Potential COI edits

Please be aware that User:IntrigueBlue, a regular editor to this article, purports on his User Page to be Mikkel Paulson, which is the same name as this article identifies as being the leader of Pirate Party of Canada. Onthegogo (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:COI it is completely acceptable to edit an article you have a COI with as long as you do so in a npov manor. Looking at his edits it was quickly evident there wasn't remotely a pov edit among them. -DJSasso (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is helpful that you have clarified that point: Having a COI doesn't preclude a person from editing, it just means that you have to be extra careful to be neutral and rely on reliable sources. However, the COI tag on the article says that A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. That statement is accurate and therefore the COI tag should not be removed from this article. Onthegogo (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The tag is only a warning that a cleanup may need to be done to remove any POV that that editor may have added. Since atleast from what I have seen, and you are welcome to go through his edits as well, there is no POV, and thus no longer needs the cleanup tag. Cleanup tags aren't meant to stay on articles forever, they are only meant to be there until the issue is removed. -DJSasso (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

From my user page:

Please note: I am a member of the Pirate Party of Canada. While I will as always do my best to ensure that my edits remain impartial, please feel free to revert those that you feel violate that obligation, and inform me if you are concerned by the tone of my edits. Thank you.

I am careful to be open about my potential conflicts of interest, which is why I have avoided making any substantive edits to this article in particular. It's hardly a secret. If you have any particular concerns, I am quite happy to discuss them with you, as indicated above. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 07:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I should also mention that I have been very conservative in marking minor edits to this article. Many of my edits here would have been marked minor anywhere else, but I felt that they should be open to added scrutiny given the subject matter. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs)

Party structure out of date

The party approved a new constitution in December that (among other things) changed the party leadership structure. Source: http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/Constitution_2011-12-18 --Wilson (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
-More or less fixed now except for addition of political council table.Wilson (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pirate Party of Canada/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bobnorwal (talk · contribs) 03:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have decided to review this article for Good Article status. Unfortunately, I see a number of major problems right off the bat:

• The lead is too short and does not properly summarize the rest of the article.
• There are some problems with the article's prose, which reads too much like a series of dates and doesn't really flow.
• A big chunk of the references are just bare URLs, which is definitely not allowable for a GA.
• And, most importantly, far too many of those refs are first-party references connected with the topic. Worse, many of them are to the party's wiki.

I promise to take a closer look at this article tomorrow, but for now I think there's enough to start things rolling. If you have any questions at all, please fire away. Bobnorwal (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that a majority of the edits in the past month have been from party members, which adds COI to the list of issues. 117Avenue (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I can see that User:Wilson (cc), the nominator of this article, acknowledges party affiliation on his or her talk page. The other major contributor recently, Gladtidingsaregiven, does not give any indication one way or the other. Of course, conflict of interest does not instantly condemn the article - but it makes things more difficult, doesn't it? The article seems, from a general glance, to be fairly neutral in its point of view, but I'll have to take a closer look. Bobnorwal (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

As you can see, I believe this article has the most problems in sections 1 and 2 of the good article criteria - which may very well be the most important. In any case, I feel this article is going to need a lot of improvement in order to reach GA status, so I think I'm justified in failing it. I wish you the best with this article, and I am open to any comments, questions, or criticism from anyone. I especially welcome input from other editors not connected to this article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Like I said above, it is very choppy and reads more like a chronology than a cohesive article. And it is not always clear what is meant. What, for example, does "handful of Canadian supporters" mean? What's a handful and what do they support, exactly?

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The lead is too short and doesn't summarize the whole article, but the general structure of the article is decent. I don't see any major style issues.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   The bare link refs need to be properly formatted.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   And, as it is, this is article relies way too heavily on first-party sources. This is definitely not acceptable for a GA.

   C. No original research:

   It seems to stick close to the sources and not veer off.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Yes, this article seems to cover the major aspects of a what is a fairly new, fairly single-issue political party.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Considering the COI issues mentioned above, this article seems to be mostly sober in tone, with only one sentence of praise from a notable advocacy group, OpenMedia.ca. Including a more negative comment from the Green Party also shows neutral point of view.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Yes.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   I don't know too much about licensing, but both images in this article seem to be properly handled.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   It couldn't hurt to have more, but I think you hit the two basics: the party's logo and the party's current leader.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Bobnorwal (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

To Do List

-Add info to links
-Find and use non-party sources
-Improve the prose of the article
-Expand intro
-Possibly more images

--Wilson (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Too young?

I was just wondering, isn't the current Pirate Party leader too young to hold the office of Prime Minister in this country? As far as I am aware, there is a constitutional requirement that a Prime Minister must be at least 35 years old. Just wondering if this should be reflected in the article or not before I or someone else does so. And if the party did, somehow, win a federal election, would the leader have to appoint an older party member to act as Prime Minister? Does it necessarily have to be the party leader who becomes PM? 108.161.125.15 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not thinking of the US? Since PMs are choosen from the Commons and the Commons only requires the person running be 18 it would stand to reason he meets all requirements. I've taken quite a few political science courses and I have never heard of there being an age limit on the PM. Wilson (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I made a quick check of the Prime Minister of Canada wikipedia article under 'qualification and selection' and I should go a bit farther. Since there is no requirement for the PM to be in the House of Commons they could be any age. In a hypothetical example (that is too remote to include in the article) the youngest a Pirate PM could be is 14 as that is the youngest age that can become a member of the party. To answer your other question: the governor general can appoint whomever they please. It is convention that they be leader of the largest party in parliament. The Canadian constitution is fun like that. Wilson (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Lets not forget that the PM has to have a seat in the House of Commons as an MP as well. To run as an MP you need to be 18 years old which is the age of majority. Thus there's really no restriction on being a PM other than being able to run as an MP. BoomBoxMegaphone (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Canadian constitution doesn't mention a "prime minister", so it can't put restrictions on who can be prime minister. The U.S. Constitution sets a minimum age of 35 for the President. But Canada is not the United States. Don't add material to Wikipedia based on what you think you know - please only add what you can reference to reliable sources, so that you don't put mistakes like this one in the encyclopedia. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 02:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ummmm. Do you mean "But Canada is not the United States"? 117Avenue (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Oops. Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed now. Ground Zero | t 02:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Source?

Where is this person getting the party membership numbers from? There isn't any source being provided for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodo3 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)