Talk:Senate of Canada

Seating plan by province

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Senate of Canada - Seating Plan By Province

So, I've updated the image you can see here, but haven't posted it yet, since I'm not sure if it should be a new file or if I should just update that image. What do you think Arctic.gnome,GoodDay,Kawnhr, Dmehus? I'm asking you since you edit these pages frequently. To give you an idea the updated version looks like this : https://gyazo.com/12144e82c6fd9ab5ae951ad5c92dfb1a. It's an SVG like usual and don't worry about the table near the top, I'll do it before posting the image. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm content with whatever ya'll decided. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, That seems fine, thanks, Mikkel. Only suggestion: add Vacant to identify the white box (will need to use a different font colour; I suggest black) Doug Mehus T·C 15:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, yeah I hadn't finished writing that. So, I should just update the image then, not make a new one? MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, Yeah, I think so, but rename it to the same filename on the Commons so we can track revision history, commons:File:Senate of Canada - Seating Plan By Province.svg. Doug Mehus T·C 15:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, I'm done, but it seems I made have made a mistake somewhere. I corrected AB, since I had a mistake there, but I'm currently trying to find where my other mistake is. MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seemed I just miscounted. MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

So, I'm having a problem, I'm not exactly sure how I update the current image to the new one. This is what the final version looks like : https://gyazo.com/c0cba0b4e1232bc418e70a421cd875d7. Do you know how GoodDay,Dmehus? MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

So, I've updated the file, but at times it shows the old version and sometimes it doesn't. I originally thought this was a mistake and reverted but it seems I only have the problem on the current browser that I used. It's fine now, it was just a bug. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, Thanks. I noticed the number of seats are in a serif font, but I think they should be a sans serif font to match the adjacent text? Similarly, they should be the same size and/or bolding.

Arctic.gnome, can you, or alternatively, {{help me}}, can someone, look into what we're doing wrong, why the Senate of Canada article isn't displaying the correct version when we click on the thumbnail? Doug Mehus T·C 18:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, for the font for the numbers, I simply used the original one. By the way, for the problem, it seems to only happen on Firefox, on all the other web browsers it shows the correct image. I have no clue what causes it. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, Hrm, Google Chrome isn't showing as correct for me? I do think that a sans serif font would be better for the numbers, if you think so as well. Doug Mehus T·C 18:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, maybe it's a cache and cookies thing? Try deleting them. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

As for the #'s font, I honestly have no preference tbh. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, I just tried again, but nope, it's still showing the version without the PSG/CSG senators (clicking on the one in this talkpage, since the file name is the same). Also, this old version has the numbers in bold and sans serif, so I think we should use that. Doug Mehus T·C 18:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, I'm confused as to what's causing this. Sometimes I refresh and it gives the right version and other times it doesn't. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, I made the font match the party text, so I'm going to update the pic now. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, also, the picture thing just sorted itself out without me doing anything. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, Nope; not resolved for me in Google Chrome. Have used Ctrl + Refresh to force refresh multiple times. Still showing Liberal Party in the count; no PSG or CSG. I've reactivated help me request. Doug Mehus T·C 23:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, I would follow Huon's advice since it may be a bug. MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Since the issue, likely a cache issue, resolved itself, I have turned off the help request. Huon (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Huon, It's not resolved, though. Going to reactivate it.

Note to Closer: Please don't remove the tag, but rather close it. Doug Mehus T·C 23:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

You have two options at this point. Either you believe that this is some sort of cache issue on your end. Or you believe it's a weird bug that affects some people (including you) but not others (including me). In the former case there's nothing we can do here. In the latter case, see WP:Bug reports and feature requests on how to report this supposed bug. In neiher case is there anything other editors can do to help. Huon (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Huon, Can you show me a screenshot of what the thumbnail looks like for you, when you enlarge the screenshot, but not when you see it on the Commons? Note, too, that when I load this URL, I still see the old version. I have a feeling we're not updating something. Doug Mehus T·C 01:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how a screenshot of the expected behaviour would help. I see the new version (ie PSG and CSG, no Liberal Party) as thumbnail, and if by "enlarge the screenshot" you mean File:Senate of Canada - Seating Plan By Province.svg, then I see the new version there, too, just as I see the new version at commons:File:Senate of Canada - Seating Plan By Province.svg. Huon (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion for the mass changes by Cornellier which were reverted by MikkelJSmith2

I'm creating this discussion following MikkelJSmith2's reversion of the series of good-faith and constructive edits by Cornellier. Most of the edits, I would say, were good copyediting, but some detail that Cornellier removed, I think, should've merited a discussion. So, in general, I do think we should welcome most of Cornellier's edits, but some of the larger scale content removals do merit a discussion.

So, let's discuss...

Thanks,
--Doug Mehus T·C 18:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment Per this, I have undone MikkelJSmith2's good-faith reversion because (a) Cornellier did start a discussion back in October 2018, to which no one replied and to which could be taken as implied consensus and (b) because most of Cornellier's edits are likely to be accepted and, thus, it's easier to revert a select few edits than to redo all of the other good copyediting they did. I do think Cornellier could've been more specific on what needed editing; thus, one can not take that earlier discussion as carte blanche to take the proverbial "weed wacker" to the article.

 Question: So, let's discuss, which of Cornellier's edits should we undo (if any)?

Note: Please feel free to ping recent editors to this talkpage discussion using {{ping}}.

-- Doug Mehus T·C 18:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, yeah, sorry about that, I'm fine with most edits, I just wanted us to have a recent discussion, since the original was from 2018. That's why I reverted. I should have been more clear about that. Thanks for what you did afterwards. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, Thank you, and normally, I'd agree with reverting the edits, but in this case, it really is easier to add back in the content we felt shouldn't have been removed. I'll try and take a look this weekend. Doug Mehus T·C 19:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I will hold back on any more revisions for now pending any further discussion. Please let me know the specifics. --Cornellier (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Veto versus rejection?

This article mentions that legislation passed in the Commons hasn't been vetoed since 1939, it then goes on to say that the Senate has rejected numerous bills. What's the difference between a veto and a rejection? Sounds a bit confusing and could maybe use clarification. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this is very confusing. Goes to the core about how powerful the Senate actually is. --El Chivo 3 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Senate symbol/coat of arms?

Hey can someone add Canadian senate coat of arms the parliament of Canada article has their coat of arms and the House of Commons article has their coat of arms senate of Canada senate is the only one that doesn’t. 142.113.194.22 (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Seating Update

I have mocked up an update to the provincial counts and groupings within the Senate and was looking for feedback before I edit the page. Kwkintegrator (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SenatorsByProvince_Canada_Aug25.svg Kwkintegrator (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)