Talk:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of the Political parties and politicians in Canada WikiProject, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Politics in Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
[edit] Party name
Does anyone know if the CCF called itself the "Cooperative Commonwealth Federation" or the "Co-operative Commonwealth Federation"? Our articles all seem to use the former, but I wonder if that is not a case of presentism. Kevintoronto 17:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This CCF pamphlet shows the name as ""Co-operative Commonwealth Federation". Further evidence one way or t'other would help. Ground Zero 16:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Finally, I have further evidence. Here is a series of document published before and during the 1944 Sask election, which was the first won by the CCF:
In all cases, the party's name is the "Co-operative Commonwealth Federation", and not the "Cooperative Commonwealth Federation". So if no-one objects, I will move this article in a couple of weeks when I return from vacation. Ground Zero 13:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Continuity
I'm wondering if there should not be a difference in the CCF colour compared to the NDP? The PC's and the New Cons are different because they were different parties. Anyone who knows something about history know that the CCF and the NDP are different (not just a name change)
ex
| Party | Party Leader | # of candidates | Seats | Popular Vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Previous | After | % Change | # | % | Change | |||
| New Democratic |
|
000 | 000 | 000 | 000 | 000 | 000 | 000 |
| Cooperative Commonwealth |
|
000 | 000 | 000 | 000 | 000 | 000 | 000 |
- I am inclined to agree with the anonymous editor on this. The CCF was disbanded and a "New Party" was created in co-operatoin with the Canadian Labour Congress, so the New Party should be treated as being different from the CCF, just as the new Conservative Party of Canada is not a continuation of the PC Party, but a merger with the Canadian Alliance. The NDP, on the other hand, is just a re-naming of the New Party, so there should be no change in colour between those two, although since the New Party never ran in a general election, the point is moot. The change in name of the Conservative Party of Canada (historical) to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was just a renaming, so no change in colour is required at that point. Kevintoronto 16:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)\
Actually the "New Party" was never really a party but a collection of clubs, associations, etc. There was one person who was elected under the New Party banner, however this was more of a test to see how the people would react to the coalition off CCF'ers and organized labour.
- Fair enough. On the issue of changing the colour, there are two points you should consider:
- I've just noticed that the colour that you're proposing is already in use for Socialist candidates in various elections, including the 1935 election that you just changed.
- Making changes randomly to articles that appear in a series like this one is not a good idea. This is how articles get out of sinc. The CCF ran candidates in numerous federal and provincial elections. If you just change one or two, your changes will be reverted soon enough when people realize that there is an inconsistency.
I urge you to choose a new colour, post it here for comments, and then if you get others to agree, make all of the changes in one go. It would be a good idea to move this discussion over to Talk:Canadian federal election results since 1867 where there is already a discussion underway about party colours. Regards, Kevintoronto 20:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My changes to the 1935 election were just a test. I would be more than happy to change all federal and provincial election. The socialist party is something that could probably be left alone (it was a marginal party) The party is on the left and could basically be left alone similarly labour, farmer-labour, Independent labour party, ect, or it could be changed to gray, like the UFA.
- Okay. But why not choose a colour for either the CCF or the Socialist Party that is different so that the continuity of the Socialist Party is maintained, rather than adding it to the heap of grey parties? The trouble is, I don't actually know how to go about finding different colours, so I'm not much help in that regard. Kevintoronto 22:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
what im saying, is that the socialist party in 1935 had one candidate that recieved 200 votes. Can you really call that a party? Does it deserve its own colour? How about the colour "moccasin"?
- In 1935, yes, it was minor, but in other elections, it had more candidates, and in at least one BC election, Socialists won.
- "moccasin" would work, though, for either the Socialist Party or for CCF. It is currently used for the Confederations of Regions Party from 1984 on, but I don't think that's a big deal. That might be an argument for using moccasin for the Socialist Party and using #EEDDAA for the CCF. Kevintoronto 22:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK so. We have moccasin for Socialists, and EEDDAA for the CCF. Should I get started?
- Fine by me. Others may object, though. It's up to you. Kevintoronto 22:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] See also list
Today's edits are, to put it as politely as I can, not consistent with Wikipedia style. It is not clear what the numbers mean, and it looks a mess. Perhaps the anonymous editor could take a run at making this look less jumbled and confusing, and more consistent with the appearance of other articles. Biographical information, including what elections they ran in and whether they won or lost, belongs in the articles, and not in this list. Ground Zero | t 19:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
