User talk:117Avenue/Archives/2011.2
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ottawa Citizen & 2011 Endorsements
Hi, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011
I have not added the Ottawa Citizen endorsement again but would appreciate if you could take a look at my comments and possibly reconsider. (I am new to Wikipedia and unsure about the proper procedure for resolving these kinds of issues.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.95.196 (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Françoise Boivin
Once a person has actually been elected to Parliament for a given party and is being added to that party's "MPs" category, the person comes out of any earlier "candidates" categories at the same time — those categories are meant for people who ran for the party but did not ever actually hold the office they ran for. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- They are still candidates in that election, it is a true statement. If it is what you are saying, the categories would be empty, because people who only run and don't win, aren't notable to have articles. 117Avenue (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let me clarify a bit...people who are already notable enough for other things to have articles anyway, and also run and don't win in an election. The problem with applying candidate categories to people who have actually turned one or more of their candidacies into election victories is that it turns into category bloat — for example, Herb Gray would have to be filed in every single candidate category between 1962 and 2000. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see much point in having the categories then, if not everyone who can be described as such, gets added. 117Avenue (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Truthfully, neither do I. But at some point, somebody who wasn't me decided that we needed to have separate categories for each individual election. I'd quite happily support throwing them all in the garbage can, to be honest, but it would be more work than I personally care to take on. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see much point in having the categories then, if not everyone who can be described as such, gets added. 117Avenue (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let me clarify a bit...people who are already notable enough for other things to have articles anyway, and also run and don't win in an election. The problem with applying candidate categories to people who have actually turned one or more of their candidacies into election victories is that it turns into category bloat — for example, Herb Gray would have to be filed in every single candidate category between 1962 and 2000. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
G8 Kananaskis
Do you intend to have a section on the G8 at both Kananaskis Country and Kananaskis Improvement District? I don't mind the latter so long as it also remains at the former. A Google search yields 4,540 results for G8 summit "Kananaskis Country", whereas a search for G8 summit "Kananaskis Improvement District" yields 156 results. Hwy43 (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Technically it took place in both, so I think it should be mentioned in both, I just couldn't decide on removing anything. When I disambiguated Kananaskis, I directed anything related to the G8 summit to the improvement district, because that is the administration district. 117Avenue (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Unexplained change at Canada Elections
There were a couple of very close races in some of the electoral districts, in the Canadian federal election, 2011. One example is Bramalea--Gore--Malton where a Conservative won by a most narrow margin of 271 votes over an NDP candidate. This might have been the riding that caused the change you are talking about, from 166 to 167 for Conservatives, and from 103 to 102 for NDP. This riding may have still been too close to call until Tuesday morning. --Skol fir (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware of the recounts, I have seen it on the talk, and the article. However, the editor did not provide an edit summary, nor attempt to edit the post election section to say a recount had been completed. Besides, a recount result would need to be referenced. 117Avenue (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Another close riding (not requiring a recount) was Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar: Conservative, Kelly Block -- 14,652; NDP-New Democratic Party, Nettie Wiebe -- 14,114. That may have been the one that was in doubt Monday evening, and could have gone back and forth before settling on a Conservative victory. --Skol fir (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This article :: With majority, Harper pledges to build 'great future' :: showed preliminary results early in the morning after the election:
- Conservatives: 166 ridings (143)
- NDP: 102 ridings (36)
- Liberals: 35 (77)
- Bloc Quebecois: 4 (47)
- Green: 1
From this it looks as if the Conservatives actually took a seat away from the Libs, not the NDP. My guess is that ridings were changing in outcome for some time after the polls had closed. This is not surprising for 308 ridings, with some very close battles. --Skol fir (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- This edit -- Revision as of 10:25, 6 May 2011 was probably based on the person viewing some video from the evening of the election, or looking at an old article from May 3, showing the results as he thought they were. That editor (207.96.146.102) has already been warned once on his Talk Page that he does not use edit summaries. I think this was one of those mindless edits that you just throw up your hands and say, "Huh?" --Skol fir (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- On more reading, I have come to the conclusion that the riding of Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup is creating this desire on the part of some editors to call a steal by the NDP from the Conservatives. That is what is causing the numbers to change, but I believe it is premature to predict the outcome before the results of the recounts have been confirmed. All current tables by Elections Canada from Preliminary Results show 58 - NDP; 6 - Cons for Quebec. Until that changes, we have to leave the numbers alone. I had to revert another such edit changing the totals, just today. --Skol fir (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- The template Template:Canadian federal election, 2011/qc-e already shows that the NDP has taken this riding. That was changed in this edit by User:Valmi -- Revision as of 14:40, 4 May 2011 (based on "Results Validated by the Returning Officer" at Elections Canada on May 3). You might want to ask him what he thinks he is doing. --Skol fir (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- On more reading, I have come to the conclusion that the riding of Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup is creating this desire on the part of some editors to call a steal by the NDP from the Conservatives. That is what is causing the numbers to change, but I believe it is premature to predict the outcome before the results of the recounts have been confirmed. All current tables by Elections Canada from Preliminary Results show 58 - NDP; 6 - Cons for Quebec. Until that changes, we have to leave the numbers alone. I had to revert another such edit changing the totals, just today. --Skol fir (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Bloc Québécois leadership election infoboxes
How did you get the full name to show the blue? It would only work with BQ with me. Kingjeff (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I had to create Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Bloc Québécois. I realized after though, that I could have just input BQ into the colour parameter, but I didn't revert, because I figured the Bloc Québécois redirect should exist anyways. 117Avenue (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
City Map (sorta) ready
commons:File:Edmonton City Road Map.svg
Here is the inital take on it, please let me know if there is anything missing or whatever it won't take too much work to change anythign be it colors, placement, missing or incorrect etc, please just let me know. Magu (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I sorry, but it looks somewhat amateurly made, I don't think it is going to be a valid replacement. 117Avenue (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Edmonton_City_Road_Map.svg compared to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edmonton_street_map.png ? I don't know why you would think that. There must be something missing or wrong? If so I can change it but I don't see how anything about the current rendition can compare to what I have made so far, anyways, instead of just putting it down how about some suggestions. Magu (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- The north arrow is unnecessary
- The city names are unnecessary
- The space between Edmonton and residential Sherwood Park is part of the Sherwood Park USA, see http://www.strathcona.ca/files/Files/at-COMC-Inside_Rural_Map.pdf
- Many roads end, where they should continue to the edge of the image
- Fort Saskatchewan is in the covered area, but the roads and river end before getting there
- Roads end within city, where they should connect
- Saskatchewan Drive should be drawn from Walterdale Hill to Connors Road
- 102 Avenue should be drawn from Groat Road to Jasper Avenue
- Stony Plain Road should be drawn from 102 Avenue to 104 Avenue
- 66 Street should be drawn from 118 Avenue to 195 Avenue
- 195 Avenue should be drawn from Highway 28 to Highway 15
- 167 Avenue should be drawn from 127 Street to Castle Downs Road
- 69 Avenue should be removed, and Callingwood Road be drawn from 199 Street to 170 Street
- Lessard Road should be drawn from Highway 216 to 178 Street
- Terwillegar Drive should be drawn from Ellerslie Road north
- Ellerslie Road should be drawn from Terwillegar Drive to 50 Street
- Highway 628 does not exist within city limits, an oval shield can be east of city limits
- 167 Avenue west and east no longer meet at the same point on Highway 15
- Highway 28A should be drawn from Highway 15 to top image edge
- Airport symbol is unnecessary
--117Avenue (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Leaders in infoboxes
You are operating under a misapprehension about leaders in infoboxes. In articles for forthcoming elections, they are meant to state who the leader of the party is, not a declaration of who will lead the party during the next election. It is done this way for articles across the world, including Canadian federal elections. There may be some differences from article to article on how to treat resigned and interim leaders, but nowhere except in the article you've changed is it considered improper to list a leader just because they haven't been elected recently. -Rrius (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are operating under a misapprehension about leaders in infoboxes. People come to articles of forthcoming elections with the intent to learn how that election will play out, and who will be the players. Assuming that the current leader of a party will lead said party to the next election, often proves wrong. Stelmach and Swann are perfect examples of the men we thought were going to be the contenders in the 28th Alberta general election, but have both stated they indend to resign before the election. Stating that a current leader will still be leader come election time is false encyclopaedic writing, and just wrong, in fact Wikipedia has a policy stating it must not collect unverifiable speculation, called Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 117Avenue (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's just wrong. I understand where you are coming from, but that is not how election infoboxes are handled or even understood in the pre-election period. This is just a particular hang up of yours that you have spread to a few Canadian provinces' election infoboxes. You have over and over failed to deal with the fact that in every single election everywhere else in the world, current leaders are listed. It is absolutely wrong for there to be one rule for some Canadian provinces and a different rule for the rest of the world even though there is absolutely no distinction to be drawn between them. I would still think you were wrong if you were trying to get the entire world to change, but you're not. In fact, you aren't even trying to get all of Canada to change. It appears that the only defining characteristic of where you are trying to impose this rule is where you can get away with it with little attention. No principled distinction can be drawn between the articles where you are insisting on your version and the rest of the world. I can understand blanks when we know a leader won't contest an election, but what you are doing yields the bizarre result that if a leader was recently chosen, you'll list them, but if they haven't been, they have to remain hidden. There is no principled basis for that distinction. Adrian Dix could die tomorrow, so it is just as speculative to say he is going to lead his party as it is to say that other party leaders who've shown no indication of stepping down are going to do so. -06:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Every single election everywhere? What about the European Parliament election, 2014 or the United States presidential election, 2012? Where is is written that listed leaders are the current leader? It doesn't make sense to mention a current leader in a future election. The rule is applied everywhere in Canada, if the election is over a year away, only leaders who have said they intend to contest the next election are listed. That is my compromise, I leave elections scheduled for this year alone, as well as the candidates intending to run. Also, other stuff exists, that doesn't mean they do it correctly. This correction has to start somewhere, so I have begun it in Canada. 117Avenue (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Is it really necessary to say parliamentary election? Fine, every single parliamentary election. It may not make sense to you to list the current leader in an infobox, but it has made sense to virtually every editor who has touched an election infobox in parliamentary elections since there have been election infoboxes. The rule is not applied everywhere in Canada, including federal elections and a few of the provinces. It is ridiculous and unfair to force editors to find a statement from a leader saying he or she intends to fight the next election because they almost never do unless somehow people start questioning whether they intend to step down. In any event, the infobox provides information about the party, including who leads it. Providing that information for some parties and not others puts Wikipedia in an uncomfortable position and deprives readers of information for no better reason than you are afraid we are trying to say they absolutely will be the leader come the election itself. You reading too much into what listing a leader in an infobox means, and so try to enforce your strange position without paying any attention to what goes on at articles that are actually equivalent to them. -Rrius (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Every single election everywhere? What about the European Parliament election, 2014 or the United States presidential election, 2012? Where is is written that listed leaders are the current leader? It doesn't make sense to mention a current leader in a future election. The rule is applied everywhere in Canada, if the election is over a year away, only leaders who have said they intend to contest the next election are listed. That is my compromise, I leave elections scheduled for this year alone, as well as the candidates intending to run. Also, other stuff exists, that doesn't mean they do it correctly. This correction has to start somewhere, so I have begun it in Canada. 117Avenue (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's just wrong. I understand where you are coming from, but that is not how election infoboxes are handled or even understood in the pre-election period. This is just a particular hang up of yours that you have spread to a few Canadian provinces' election infoboxes. You have over and over failed to deal with the fact that in every single election everywhere else in the world, current leaders are listed. It is absolutely wrong for there to be one rule for some Canadian provinces and a different rule for the rest of the world even though there is absolutely no distinction to be drawn between them. I would still think you were wrong if you were trying to get the entire world to change, but you're not. In fact, you aren't even trying to get all of Canada to change. It appears that the only defining characteristic of where you are trying to impose this rule is where you can get away with it with little attention. No principled distinction can be drawn between the articles where you are insisting on your version and the rest of the world. I can understand blanks when we know a leader won't contest an election, but what you are doing yields the bizarre result that if a leader was recently chosen, you'll list them, but if they haven't been, they have to remain hidden. There is no principled basis for that distinction. Adrian Dix could die tomorrow, so it is just as speculative to say he is going to lead his party as it is to say that other party leaders who've shown no indication of stepping down are going to do so. -06:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Looking back on WT:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 12#Party leaders for future elections, it looks like others agree with you. Guess I'm not going to win this one. 117Avenue (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've just gone through and restored the leaders on the assumption that this meant the discussion was over and you no longer objected (even though you still disagree). If I am wrong, go ahead and revert me. -Rrius (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Fred: The Movie
Hi, please stop your slow motion edit war on Fred: The Movie and work on a consensus on the article's talk page. This is the 7th or 8th time this contested information has been added or removed in the last couple weeks. I honestly could care less what the result of suitable discussion is, but simply hope you and the IPs will discuss first before this gets noticed as a 3rr violation. Let me know if I can help foster a conversation on the matter. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can't open a discussion because they are IP hoping. 117Avenue (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- If the IPs can edit the article, they can surely edit Talk:Fred: The Movie as well. Start the conversation there. —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Sure you can... there are other editors who involve themselves with the article. If the anons choose not to participate, that is up to them. If you form a consensus, then get someone else (so there's no implication of continued slo-mo edit warring) to make the change and re-insert the content. Then, if the IPs remove again, ask for someone else to restore and request a semi-protect based on IP hoppers going against consensus when they've already been invited to be a part of it. I am willing to assist with whichever parts of that you and the other editors may need help with. I've also left the same msg (as above) on the most repeatedly used IPs of the person(s) removing the content. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 21:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- "A section has been sitting there..." how about a bit of a clearer section started by you? That section doesnt explain much of what's going on. Then, to avoid canvassing, you can go through the history list, and pick contributors, and leave a simple non-canvassy msg on their talk pages such as "Your opinion on a matter of content for Fred: The Movie would be appreciated on it's talk page". Just ensure you're not picking by any perceived preference they may have. The times I've had to do that, I've simply started at most recent edit and worked my way down, dropping anyone who stopped in only for vandal reverts (ie: included all content contributors) and skipped none. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 21:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a drive-by suggestion, but here's a thought: rather than talking about the timeline of the movie vs. the videos, it may be easier to get consensus for a section on significant changes from the videos. That also helps pull it back to real-world analysis instead of talking about it in-universe. —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- "A section has been sitting there..." how about a bit of a clearer section started by you? That section doesnt explain much of what's going on. Then, to avoid canvassing, you can go through the history list, and pick contributors, and leave a simple non-canvassy msg on their talk pages such as "Your opinion on a matter of content for Fred: The Movie would be appreciated on it's talk page". Just ensure you're not picking by any perceived preference they may have. The times I've had to do that, I've simply started at most recent edit and worked my way down, dropping anyone who stopped in only for vandal reverts (ie: included all content contributors) and skipped none. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 21:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Sure you can... there are other editors who involve themselves with the article. If the anons choose not to participate, that is up to them. If you form a consensus, then get someone else (so there's no implication of continued slo-mo edit warring) to make the change and re-insert the content. Then, if the IPs remove again, ask for someone else to restore and request a semi-protect based on IP hoppers going against consensus when they've already been invited to be a part of it. I am willing to assist with whichever parts of that you and the other editors may need help with. I've also left the same msg (as above) on the most repeatedly used IPs of the person(s) removing the content. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 21:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Note: I should have made one more point (thanks C.Fred for reminding me). Depending on activity of the editors, I limit the number of requests for comments to something between 5 and 10... Also, while I probably could form an opinion on this matter, I'll refrain from doing or posting such, in the event an uninvolved party is needed to act on the consensus arrived at. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 21:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have added another comment to the article talk page to generate conversation. But I think that, because most editors removed the section without an edit summary, no one is going to be that interested in talking, and silent consensus will again be to include the explanation. 117Avenue (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sadly, WP:SILENCE doesn't quite mean that. Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). IP/anon or not, "voiced disagreement" has taken place, thus precluding this being a silent consensus. Hence my suggestion to send out 5 or 10 talk page notes to other editors who've shown an interest in contributing to the article. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
external link removal
Hi,
I don't understand why you removed the Category from the entries for several parties. In those cases, they are the only link between the category and a candidate-by-candidate set of results for those parties. There are no separate articles for (e.g.) "United Party candidates, 2011 Canadian federal election", or for FPNP, Western Block, etc. The way I set it up, at the category page, all the parties have a link, either to the specific page listing candidates, or to the party's main article which alone lists those candidates. GBC (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- These articles on the parties, it is incorrect to categorize them under a candidate for a federal election. You could, however, create the redirects, like Rhinoceros Party candidates, 2011 Canadian federal election. 117Avenue (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Highway 17
Just don't worry about trying to fix that. The only way you'll get that infobox fixed is when SK gets its shield graphics created. The trick of superimposing text over a blank just makes everything messy, and even the Indian editors are starting to switch to dedicated graphics sets. Imzadi 1979 → 05:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I still haven't learned the new infobox, Alberta used to have it's own subtemplate that I could have made work. 117Avenue (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- The way we do it in the states is to ignore the type/route number options and code the name directly and insert the marker graphics (using the subtemplates) at the top. Then at the bottom, insert the system links under
|system=and the browser subtemplates under|browse=. Then we'd define the country/type if needed to get the right colors only. I had to define the province though to get the rural municipalities to show up because that location type is hard coded only for AB, SK and MB. That's why I did what I did. If you leave the SK shield out of the AB part, then when the SK shield graphics are uploaded, and the shield subtemplates are updated... the SK shield will fix itself, which is why I did what I did on the talk page. Your method will require someone to remember to remove your additions and insert my coding when the SK shields are made. Imzadi 1979 → 05:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)- Anyways, I have reverted your subtemplate change and fixed the article. Now, it is future-proofed for the day that Svgalbertian finally gets the SK shield graphics created and uploaded. Imzadi 1979 → 05:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- The way we do it in the states is to ignore the type/route number options and code the name directly and insert the marker graphics (using the subtemplates) at the top. Then at the bottom, insert the system links under
Candidates page
Hello. I see that you reverted my additions to a candidates page. May I ask why? My addition to the "candidate notes" section was succinct and uncontroversial, and I do not see why a "candidate electoral history" table in the footnotes should be problematic. CJCurrie (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- It appears you are pushing a political agenda, giving undue weight to a single candidate. No other candidate list has that much information on a single candidate. If a person meets the notability criteria their bio and election history is available on those pages. 117Avenue (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- That wasn't at all my intention. I've written "short entries" like this on a number of candidates for various parties in the past (see Communist Party of Canada (Marxist–Leninist) candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election as an example). It just happens that Chouinard is the first CPC-ML candidate that I've written such a "short entry" on for this election, but there's no political agenda being pushed (I don't support the party) and it's my intention to add information on other candidates later. This approach is consistent with the approach on other candidate list pages for the 2011 election, btw (which itself was the result of considerable discussion). I hope my comments (here and on the candidate page itself) haven't come off as churlish; I'm not accusing you of bad faith editing, I was just surprised that you'd delete a fairly detailed section without an explanation. CJCurrie (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, other stuff exists, that doesn't mean we should keep doing it wrong. An article on the 2011 election, should only be about the 2011 election, a candidate's performance in past elections is irrelevant. And I didn't comment in the edit summary, because the rollback function doesn't give that option. 117Avenue (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hello again. I should start by apologizing for getting this conversation off on the wrong foot; I didn't express myself as well as I could have, earlier today. I understand your point, though I still disagree with your rollback decision.
- Candidate list pages have been around since 2005, and the current structure (with tables that can be re-organized) was only introduced fairly recently. I created several "electoral record" tables for the old versions of these pages before 2009, without anyone raising a concern. More recently, I've taken part in discussions as to whether/how they should be integrated into the new model.
- My initial approach was to create "Additional information" add-ons (I believe some of these can still be seen on New Democratic Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election, for instance), but I've been advised that this creates a formatting problem. Shifting the information to the references section was my solution.
- My view is that electoral record tables add something of value to these pages and are consistent with the approach favoured by professional news outlets such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (e.g., here). If you disagree, I think the best approach would be to discuss this on the Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, as I'm certain that others will have an opinion on this. CJCurrie (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is alright to mention that a candidate has run for office in the past, in their short summary. But the excessive detail, including the exact numbers, for some candidates are, like I said, undue weight. And frankly, unnecessary for explaining the current election. 117Avenue (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, other stuff exists, that doesn't mean we should keep doing it wrong. An article on the 2011 election, should only be about the 2011 election, a candidate's performance in past elections is irrelevant. And I didn't comment in the edit summary, because the rollback function doesn't give that option. 117Avenue (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- That wasn't at all my intention. I've written "short entries" like this on a number of candidates for various parties in the past (see Communist Party of Canada (Marxist–Leninist) candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election as an example). It just happens that Chouinard is the first CPC-ML candidate that I've written such a "short entry" on for this election, but there's no political agenda being pushed (I don't support the party) and it's my intention to add information on other candidates later. This approach is consistent with the approach on other candidate list pages for the 2011 election, btw (which itself was the result of considerable discussion). I hope my comments (here and on the candidate page itself) haven't come off as churlish; I'm not accusing you of bad faith editing, I was just surprised that you'd delete a fairly detailed section without an explanation. CJCurrie (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
According to the Libertarian website, Katrina Chowne is the leader. If you need to reply, please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- All information should be verifiable. If what you say is true, you shouldn't have any trouble referencing it. Elections Canada still recognizes Dennis Young as the party leader. 117Avenue (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I see it now, right above the board of directors, face-palm. 117Avenue (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I understand paperwork with Elections Canada can take time. But you're doing a great job keeping an eye out! Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
User:204.237.12.81
Hey 117,
I just once again reverted the SP notice removal on this talk page, but at this point I think we need to actually get something done here. What's the background? If we're assuming it's a sock shouldn't we get this up at WP:SPI and deal with it? Noformation Talk 08:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- I did reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Éric Gagnier on 5 July, and no action was taken. But I see he was blocked three hours before you posted this comment. 117Avenue (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The past
I'm not sure I agree with this change at the Calgary Stampede article. What value does the date just past offer, except that this year's Stampede has ended? The attendance field implies that by showing the 2011 attendance. Also, why list the 2011 date, though it is passed, and not 2010? 2000? 1912? IMNSHO, that field should always look forward. The date of the next event is far more useful. Regards, Resolute 01:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Because those with the 2011 event in mind are still visiting the article, and I would think they would still like to see the 2011 date in the infobox. This traffic should subdue in a couple of weeks, the date can be changed then. 117Avenue (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Can't say I'm convinced, but fair enough. :) Cheers, Resolute 01:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I know I didn't explain that the best, but I feel that the infobox shouldn't be used for the future date so soon. Infobox Holiday usually displays the past year, and the next year (for example Family Day (Canada), Thanksgiving (Canada)). 117Avenue (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Can't say I'm convinced, but fair enough. :) Cheers, Resolute 01:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Women in Canadian politics
Danielle Smith shouldn't be removed from the list of women party leaders in Women in Canadian politics on the basis that she doesn't personally have a seat in the legislative assembly; the relevant distinction for that list is that the party has MLAs in the assembly, not whether the leader is one of them or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, that should be reworded, as to not confuse others. Regarding your other edit, do you have a source saying Nycole Turmel is the interim Leader of the Opposition? All I'm hearing is interim party leader. 117Avenue (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Vivian Barbot, the parliamentary website is just referring to who's leading the party caucus inside the house; if you check the party's website, it indicates that Mme Barbot is still the leader of the party organization. Think Jack Layton before the 2004 election, or Elizabeth May before the 2011 one; they can be party leaders without being sitting MPs. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- That claim is now unreferenced. From my understanding of CJCurrie's explanation at Talk:Bloc Québécois#Party leader versus party president versus parliamentary leader and Talk:Louis Plamondon#Party leader versus party president versus parliamentary leader, the BQ works differently than other parties, possibly because of the language barrier. The party leader (Duceppe from March 15, 1997 to May 2, 2011) acts as both the party president, and the party parliamentary leader. When Duceppe left this position, Barbot was named interim party president, Plamondon was named acting party parliamentary leader, and the party leader title was left vacant. 117Avenue (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Nycole Turmel
There's sources saying she's 68 as well, including the Globe and Mail, Reuters, Winnipeg Free Press...: [1] Connormah (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason why her former political affiliations aren't listed in the infobox, like they are for other politicians? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, I've only been monitoring the page for vandalism, I haven't really wrote for the article. 117Avenue (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I found it odd, but thought it may have had to do with vandalism. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Where is there any source saying she was born in 1942? PARLINFO says 1943, and the supposed sources for Sept 1, 1942, only say she is 68. They may know for a fact that her birthday was earlier in the year or they may just be subtracting 1943 from 2011. The CBC saying she was 67 as of Jul 30 could mean they actually know her birthday had not passed as of that date, it could mean they looked at file information from the election earlier this year saying she was 67 and carried it forward, or it could mean they did their sums wrong. In any event, there is no evidence whatever for the proposition she was born on Sept 1, 1942. The only affirmative statement of her birthdate is PARLINFO, and each of the other sources can be reconciled with it. -Rrius (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Toronto Sun reference you removed says it, as well as the Edition Beauce source that Wilfred Day added. Saying that the CBC or The Globe and Mail is not a reliable source, or doesn't know how to do math, is quite a claim. 117Avenue (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Let me take those in turn. I admit I missed the date put a couple of spaces below the actual article in the Sun. Can't imagine how I missed that. There is no Edition Beauce source listed in the article. I never said the CBC is not a reliable source (you completely made that up) or that it did it math wrong. As to the latter, what I said was that it was one of three options that could reconcile its use of 67 with a birth year of 1943. I never commented on the Globe and Mail at all; I merely removed it because it was being used to support a proposition that it doesn't actually support. As a result, I've once again removed it as a supporting ref for the September 1, 1942 claim. -Rrius (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I imagine PARLINFO should be updated at a later date to show a complete birthdate, listing both seems okay for now. Connormah (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has gone beyond a couple of comments, I'm moving it to the article's talk. 117Avenue (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I was looking for your thoughts on this article. A user has added numbers to each district, they've numbered them in alphabetical order even though the districts are broken up into regions. Their reasoning is that "Elections N&L uses these numbers in some of their data tables that list the districts in alphabetic order. I find it helpful to have the district numbers when I'm referencing these tables." I wasn't sure if numbering like this should remain or if the numbers should be deleted to be consistent with other election articles. Thoughts? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- He did the same thing to Manitoba, it was reverted because it isn't done anywhere else. 117Avenue (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- It just made the whole thing a mess. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Acting or not
I didn't think it appropriate to bring this up at Talk:Jack Layton, so I'll just mention it here: That source I pointed to in my edit summary states: "If the leader of the party designated as the Official Opposition holds a seat as a Member of the House, he or she automatically becomes Leader of the Opposition. If that party leader does not have a seat in the House, the caucus of the Official Opposition may designate another of its members to act as Opposition Leader." Since Turmel was chosen by the NDP caucus (unanimously), and Layton no longer holds a seat in the Commons, that makes Turmel the Leader of the Opposition.
I raised this at Talk:Canada a few days ago. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- This source lists people who were interim leaders of their party, as acting Leaders of the Opposition, we just won't know how Parliament sees her until the page is updated. 117Avenue (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I found that list extremely confusing; after trying to research those who're listed as acting, I couldn't find enough information to clarify why they're listed as such. Regardless, I see that Turmel isn't on there at all. Though I'd say the parliamentary procedure manual does tell us how parliament sees her, if we're to ignore it and go only by your link, which tells us nothing about Turmel, why did you restore "acting" beside her name in the Layton article infobox? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- As a compromise with you, I would have said the position is vacant. 117Avenue (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, yes, that might be acceptable. However, I see this same matter popping up on a number of talk pages now. Should this go somewhere more central to be hashed out; WP:CANADA? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- As a compromise with you, I would have said the position is vacant. 117Avenue (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I found that list extremely confusing; after trying to research those who're listed as acting, I couldn't find enough information to clarify why they're listed as such. Regardless, I see that Turmel isn't on there at all. Though I'd say the parliamentary procedure manual does tell us how parliament sees her, if we're to ignore it and go only by your link, which tells us nothing about Turmel, why did you restore "acting" beside her name in the Layton article infobox? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Assessments
I removed the assessments from Jack Harris (politician) and Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador leadership election, May 2011 so they could be re-assessed because both are not stubs but you undid that for some reason. Why? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Then change them to start class, why move it from categorized to uncategorized? 117Avenue (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Because I wasn't sure of their class. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)