Talk:Ontario New Democratic Party

Canada: Ontario / Politics High‑importance

	Canada portal 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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled

Just a suggestion ... how about a separate page for listing the party's historical MPPs? CJCurrie 22:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Done. User:Ground Zero (not signed in).

Split Article

I think that this article should be split into the CCF years, and the NDP. So I propose that this article only covers from 1961 onwards, while a seperate article covers the CCF.Abebenjoe 12:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NONDP.PNG

Image:NONDP.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NONDP.PNG

Image:NONDP.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seats

Why does it say in the info box that the NDP has 10 seats out of 308 in the House of Commons?? In the 2008 federal election, the NDP won 17 of Ontario's seats, but that of course was the New Democratic Party of Canada not the Ontario New Democratic Party. I know they're linked but they're not the same organization are they? Even if they are the seat tally is incorrect and should be changed I think.

MOS:FORLANG

I have reverted this inclusion and come to the talk page as per WP:BRD as I strongly suspect that this will be reverted by NotWillyWonka. MOS:FORLANG is not applicable here because " the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language" is being interpreted as licence to include the French translation. The article subject is predominantly discussed and reported upon in English. Just because we are in Canada does not mean we translate everything into French. NotWillyWonka has left a note on my talk page indicating that we should include the French because we are discussing Ontario, not Quebec which he alleges has a policy of suppressing English. This is irrelevant. --Daffydavid (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Quebec's language policies are not relevant to this discussion. I argue, though, that the Ontario NDP commonly uses its French name within the province (as do the other parties), so it would be appropriate to include here. I would not make this argument with respect to most other provinces. Ground Zero | t 22:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of Québec's language policy was not an argument for inclusion, or non inclusion. The mention was to show the contrast of the two government's handling, and the "majority language groups" general views on how usage of the the minority language differ, as they do regionally across the whole country. Ontario embraces bilingualism, where Québec suppresses it, FOR EXAMPLE: Ontario has both English and French official names for ministries, departments, agencies, political parties, etc, whereas Québec does not. There is no reason to include the French name for "mayor of Chilliwak", for example as there is no real ties to French. Ontario has a relative substantial francophone population, many francophone communities, and minimum francophone service requirements. This article is about a provincial (Ontario branch of national) political party, showing as MOS:FORLANG states: "the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language". Including the French name does not remove any factual information, is not incorrect, and is not controversial. Request for discussion were initiated by myself, WP:BRD says discuss before re-reverting. The IP user in question has refused on this article, and may other articles, to discuss. Almost all of their edits have been reverted by many users.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:BRD states be Bold, Revert, Discuss, but you seem to think that WP:3RR doesn't apply to you NotWillyWonka. Had either of the two parties (you or the IP) had reported the other you BOTH would have been given a block. It is edit warring and reverting even if you believe you are correct will get you a block. But, enough of that. My argument against inclusion of the French translation is that the way I interpret the section of MOS:FORLANG we have been discussing is that this is intended for article subjects that are predominantly mentioned in a foreign language not for including a alternative language in lesser usage. From MOS:FORLANG, "For example, an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country will typically include the local language equivalent". We are in an English speaking country so this manual of style doesn't apply here. A google search reveals well over 2 million results for the party name in English versus just over 100,000 for the French version. Based on this I argue that the NDP does not in fact use it's French name commonly. I am objecting based on policy not personal preference. I am fluently bilingual.--Daffydavid (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are in a bilingual country. For example, is just that an example, not the only only way to do things, or to interpret statements. I know that some in Québec have difficulty with the concept of a minimum and guidelines, and if it's not specifically spelled out then it's not so. The subject (ONDP) is closely associated with a non English language, French in this case. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Ontario New Democratic Party closely associated with French? 117Avenue (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being in a bilingual country has absolutely nothing to do with a Wikipedia policy. Hell, the NDP can't even be bothered to register a web page in their French name -- http://fr.ontariondp.ca All they did is added a French translation of an English website. We don't add alternative spellings in other articles because those countries or institutions have more than 1 official language. For instance the Wikipedia article on the United Nations uses only English but the Official languages of the United Nations are Arabic, English, French, Chinese, Russian and Spanish. I bet 117Avenue is still waiting for an answer to his question. --Daffydavid (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I totally forgot. 117Avenue (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daffydavid, thank you for providing a link to the ONDP's French language site. The fact that they provide an extensive French language site as a mirror of their English language site is strong evidence of the party being closely associated with the French language. The domain name is a triviality compared to the conrptent of the site. Ground Zero | t 00:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's funny. If the website was in French and then translated to English I would be in total agreement with you. But, since it's not your argument is not convincing.--Daffydavid (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odsp

It's time for disability people to get a pay increase everything is going up .Since Covid began we have bin left in the dark.It's time for change? 2607:FEA8:1CA1:4FB0:266:DEFF:FE0A:5D63 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]