Talk:Saskatchewan Progress Party

Provincial leader, federal deputy leader Ralph Goodale

I have made edits to this article making reference to Ralph Goodale as the provincial leader and the federal deputy leader of the Liberals. 117Avenue has however kept making the reverts to reference Goodale with his stint as the Federal Finance Minister. The fact that Goodale later became the Federal Finance Minister is only of relevance if the subject at hand has something to with the state of the national economy. Goodale’s stint as Federal Finance Minister is irrelevant because the part of the article that makes reference to him is about the Sask Liberals’ performance at an election which saw Goodale being elected the sole member of the provincial legislature. What makes Goodale’s election as the sole Liberal member is the fact that he was also the party leader. Of all the Liberal candidates at that election the chances of the leader being elected the sole member of the parliament is perhaps astronomical and yet it still happened. The fact that Goodale was the leader of the Sask Liberals in the 1980s is perhaps what influence Federal leader Michael Ignatieff to appoint Goodale as his deputy in 2008. This demonstrates that leadership is an issue and Goodale should be respected for being a party leader and a party deputy leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.167.151 (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edits dod not appear to be encyclopaedic, as it broke, and removed links. 117Avenue (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet you are now accepting my edit about Goodale. To be frank I don't think you even read my edits prior to making the reverts otherwise you would have understand the edit was about leadership not about his tenure as Federal Finance Minister. In fact you did not seem to even read my comments on the reasons for the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.167.151 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Colour

Which color do we want to use?   Yellow,   Blue (used in the banner and the first color you see on their website) or   Red (used in the text)?

We can/should wait of course but i already wanted to start a discussion here and we can restart the discussion at any point. Braganza (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that we should keep the current red. It is a part of the current branding (as said in the video), and it will bypass the chaos of the BC United colour change. Rushtheeditor (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I think red is the obvious choice. I've kept the Liberal pastel red/pink for use in election tables. 21:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

i would change the red shade tho, since the generic Liberal color is only used for parties calling themselves liberal Braganza (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Red appears to be minimized in the party logo. Yellow would represent a real break, and the Saskatchewan Party went over to green. Why not?Raellerby (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Who is the leader now

The article states that there was a leadership election held in November 2023. It is now December 2023 and I can't find anywhere on the party website or anywhere else on who has been elected the new leader. Also the executive page of the website does not list Jeff Walters as a member of the executive anymore and no current leader is listed among members of the executive. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, clearly nothing has been announced—it seems likely that the election did not in fact take place as planned and that the leadership is vacant. But as of right now, the most up-to-date info available is that the party intended to elect a new leader then. I personally think it would be best to leave the article there until more info becomes available. Other justin (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2024

Saskatchewan Progress Party → Saskatchewan Liberal Party – While the current name of the party is the Progress Party, it is not the most notable name this party had. Under its current name, the party has never had a single MLA and finished last in only election (2024) it ever ran in under its current name. A good precedent would be the Alberta Social Credit Party, its current name is the Pro-Life Alberta Political Association, but it is still known by its older, historic, more relevant name. Like the Alberta Socreds, the Saskatchewan Liberals were a prominent party under its historic name. They elected premiers and either led the government or led the opposition. An alternative proposal would be to WP:SPLIT the article into two articles: one for the Saskatchewan Liberal Party and one for the Saskatchewan Progress Party. This would be similar to how there are separate articles for the Yukon Progressive Conservative Party and the Yukon Party. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Support on the example of Alberta Social Credit Party, the era under the Liberal Party name is clearly the most relevant part of this party's history. I don't think a split is necessary given how irrelevant the party has been since the end of affiliation with the Federal Liberal Party. I imagine in a few years time a similar move will have to happen to BC United. Gazingo (talk)

Split into two articles, one on the historic Saskatchewan Liberal Party and one on the modern Progress Party. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This is what I would support in theory, but I don't think there's enough coverage to justify an article for the Progress Party alone, most of the citations in the Progress Party section are mostly about the renaming itself. Gazingo (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, for the time being. I think this will ultimately be the move if the party's fortunes never recover, but for now I don't know how you get around the fact that the party exists and is the Progress Party. A split doesn't make sense because it is very much the same entity as it was prior to the name change, and I don't think that the Alberta SoCreds are in fact a good precedent given that the Pro-Life Association was effectively a hostile takeover; it in no way resembles the old party. I think it's likely at this rate that the Progress Party will eventually fold, at which time I would support this move (and I agree that this will likely happen with BC United at some point too). Until then, I don't personally think it makes sense. Other justin (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The thing is that the Progress Party's ideology is vastly different from the historic ideology of the Sask Liberals. The Sask Liberals were a centrist to centre-right party historically, the new party's platform is clearly centre-left with phrases such as "Reform and Restore Faith in Social Democracy" in their 2024 campaign platform [1], something unthinkable to the last Liberal premier, Ross Thatcher, who was very much right-wing. On paper it may be the same entity, however, the current party bares no resemblance to the Liberal Party before the rename. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't buy that. The party's ideology (as happens with most political parties) has varied a lot over its history, as documented in the article. It was a traditionally liberal party in its most influential period, and became a free enterprise party in response to the rise of the CCF. In the 1990s, the party was clearly in a factional ideological dispute, and the most right-wing elements left to help create the Sask Party. But the remaining party held the balance of power after the next election. All that to say, I think it's more complicated than you suggest. I still don't know how you get around the fact that this is an existing party; I just think this proposal is coming too soon. For me, for now, it makes the most sense to keep it as one article, and I think it has to be called Progress Party because that's currently the party's name. I think the article still makes it very clear that this is only a small party of a larger history. Other justin (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Split into two articles. The new name to today, and the previously named Liberal party under a seperate article. The new party is notable enough as a provincial party for a standalone article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. A split seems best. Masterhatch (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Support as per WP:NAMECHANGES, specifically we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language ... written after the name change, which is true for this situation. Such sources are extensively using the new name, regardless of how well know the legacy name may be. This is all said while considering WP:OFFICIALNAMES which also specifically sites the NAMECHANGE policy. I think if this was the case of an abandoned party (ie no long active) then per WP:OFFICIALNAMES we'd tend to prefer the most COMMONNAME broadly constructed, instead of narrowly (e.g. post name change). TiggerJay (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to seek clarification, you wrote 'support' but the policies you cite appear to oppose moving the article back to Liberal and support keeping it as Progress, given that the party is still active. Am I reading this right that you are in fact opposed to the proposed move? Other justin (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada, WikiProject Politics/Political parties, WikiProject Saskatchewan, and Canadian Wikipedians' notice board have been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• relisting comment: currently there is no clear consensus. I have relisted the discussion, so that a clear consensus supporting or opposing the move, and/or split can be achieved. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as it is still not defunct, so the convention at WP:NAMECHANGES applies.It is still the same party as before, and RSs overwhelmingly use the new name after the name change. If it folds, we can look at it more holistically. Size also does not justify the split. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Other justin; the Saskatchewan Progress Party may be a minor party, but I don't think we can (or should) ignore that it is a currently active party, and that readers might be coming here to learn about it. I think a reader who types in "Saskatchewan Progress Party" only to land on "Saskatchewan Liberal Party" is going to be confused — and while that confusion will be cleared up just in the lead, we can also avoid it entirely. (In comparison, I think that readers who are aware of the Sask Liberals, a party that hasn't held power in a half-century and hasn't even held seats for a quarter-century, probably knows a couple things about politics and will be less taken aback.) Also, even with an article name change, surely we would still be using the current logo — calling it the "Saskatchewan Progress Party" — in the infobox, which creates an apparent inconsistency and again invites confusion. Sticking to the current name is just so much simpler. As for a split, I don't see any reason for that when there just isn't anything to split at this time; they've had the name for two years and have yet to see any electoral success. See also Talk:BC United, where there was a consensus against a split there for that exact reason. — Kawnhr (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  If this party after its rename has zero notability that there is no enough material to for a separate article, then why should the article be named after the current name? The BC United scenario was quite different; BC United was our province's Official Opposition, and had the second most seats in the provincial legislature at that time of that discussion in 2023. Only coverage the Progress party has after the name change is just the run-of-mill election coverage, covering the niche, fringe extra-parliamentary parties. The current Progress Party is also very different from the historical Liberal Party ideology-wise as well. I also disagree that people aware of the Sask Liberals would recognize the Progress Party, just like how most people who've heard of the Alberta Socreds wouldn't recognize that the Alberta Social Credit Party is now the Pro-Life Alberta Political Association. I would say the situation is the opposite, people who look up at the "Saskatchewan Liberal Party" land up on a "Saskatchewan Progress Party" that they're never heard before. If we look at the pages that link to the article (Special:WhatLinksHere/Saskatchewan Progress Party), all the vast majority of the links are meant for the Liberal Party. Even the most the ones that appear to be more the Progress Party, appear so due to the Template:Canadian party colour having a piped link linking the Progress Party for the Sask Liberals. The logo situation is also quite easy to resolve, just use one of the old Liberal Party logos. You don't see the logo of the Pro-Life Alberta in the main infobox for the Alberta Socreds. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support split or move. The most notable topic here is the historic party, and that article should reflect the common name during its period of electoral success. A secondary objective is to cover the current minor party with a name more immediately recognizable in the context of current politics. A split is therefore the best option, but failing a split, support the move. Another example of a split delineated by a name change is Conservative Party of Canada (1867–1942)/Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. There are articles for Buffalo Party of Saskatchewan and Saskatchewan United Party, which are both only a few years old without any elected MLAs, so a standalone article on the Saskatchewan Progress Party would not be out of place.--Trystan (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)