![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
any polls?
== I don't have any. I'm wondering if the stuff about redistribution should be moved to its own page. Once the election starts in serious, there will be a lot of content that people will want to add, and a lot of people will come here to read about the election. This redistribution stuff will be a little too detailed for most people. Comments? Kevintoronto 22:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've now done this. I hope no-one objects. Kevintoronto 16:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Of course not - thanks for your help, Kevin. Rupertslander 00:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I changed the reference to seats elected by the Liberals from 17/16 to 16, and the Tories from 61/62 to 62.
I think it's not really accurate to say the Liberals were elected in Edmonton Castle Downs, only to have the election 'changed.' There was only one vote. People didn't vote again and change their minds afterward. The recounts are part of the process, and when all was said and done, the Tories came out with more votes in that riding.
Louarab 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Some of the tables are listing the Alberta Alliance, some the Alberta Greens and some both. This should be consistent. Alliance is more entitled IMHO as they have a seat in the legislature and are higher in the polls. However, perhaps both of their candidates should be listed in other as I don't think there is room for 5 parties + an other and an incumbent column. Thoughts? -- Jord 21:52, 6 Nov 2004
I'd really like to avoid favouring any parties - all should have balanced representation. Perhaps we need to reorient the candidate tables so that the parties are listed vertically, and the ridings horizontally. It might require a few more tables, but would keep things clear (similar to the "Regional Breakdown" table at the bottom of the page). GrantNeufeld 00:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is in the process of being fixed. Please be patient. (see first two regions) Earl Andrew 00:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I had modified the candidate tables to take out the dead links for any candidates who did not have pages, to discourage people from making the same mistake I did (creating a separate article for a candidate who was not significant enough to warrant a separate page). Earl Andrew reverted those changes because "many of the candidates do deserve articles, and especially the incumbents!". I'd like to suggest that the many candidates who have not been previously elected (and who otherwise do not merit a separate article) should have their dead links removed. GrantNeufeld 00:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Greens will be bumped out of the 5th slot if the Social Credit Party fields more candidates. Earl Andrew 01:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Independents - umm... it is very difficult to read blue text on a navy blue background. Maybe this could be changed to the bgcolor=gainsboro that is used for indepedents in the federal elections pages so that it would be easier to read. Any objections? Kevintoronto 10:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've reoriented the first candidates table - Northern Alberta. Before going to all the work of reorienting the rest of the tables, are there any problems with this new format? GrantNeufeld 15:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am pasting the table that Grant had changed to here...
... this table has some pros and cons.
PROS: It allows us to include the Green and So Cred parties which are contesting ~ half of the ridings.
CONS: It causes us to spilt regions into 2 or more tables; it is of a different format used in other provincial and federal election articles in Canada.
Thoughts on which we should use and, if we keep the current model, how we accomodate the Green and So Cred parties?
-- Jord 23:54 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am planning to mark down the winners as they're declared tonight, obviously vote totals will have to wait until tomorrow-ish when 100% are in. Just wanted to chime in and let you know I'll be editting regularly for the evening. If there is anyone else planning to do the same, maybe you could peep up to and we could collaborate rather than two (or more) ending up trying to edit the same thing at the same time. -- Jord 03:00 23 Nov 04 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alberta general election, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
any polls?
== I don't have any. I'm wondering if the stuff about redistribution should be moved to its own page. Once the election starts in serious, there will be a lot of content that people will want to add, and a lot of people will come here to read about the election. This redistribution stuff will be a little too detailed for most people. Comments? Kevintoronto 22:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've now done this. I hope no-one objects. Kevintoronto 16:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Of course not - thanks for your help, Kevin. Rupertslander 00:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I changed the reference to seats elected by the Liberals from 17/16 to 16, and the Tories from 61/62 to 62.
I think it's not really accurate to say the Liberals were elected in Edmonton Castle Downs, only to have the election 'changed.' There was only one vote. People didn't vote again and change their minds afterward. The recounts are part of the process, and when all was said and done, the Tories came out with more votes in that riding.
Louarab 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Some of the tables are listing the Alberta Alliance, some the Alberta Greens and some both. This should be consistent. Alliance is more entitled IMHO as they have a seat in the legislature and are higher in the polls. However, perhaps both of their candidates should be listed in other as I don't think there is room for 5 parties + an other and an incumbent column. Thoughts? -- Jord 21:52, 6 Nov 2004
I'd really like to avoid favouring any parties - all should have balanced representation. Perhaps we need to reorient the candidate tables so that the parties are listed vertically, and the ridings horizontally. It might require a few more tables, but would keep things clear (similar to the "Regional Breakdown" table at the bottom of the page). GrantNeufeld 00:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is in the process of being fixed. Please be patient. (see first two regions) Earl Andrew 00:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I had modified the candidate tables to take out the dead links for any candidates who did not have pages, to discourage people from making the same mistake I did (creating a separate article for a candidate who was not significant enough to warrant a separate page). Earl Andrew reverted those changes because "many of the candidates do deserve articles, and especially the incumbents!". I'd like to suggest that the many candidates who have not been previously elected (and who otherwise do not merit a separate article) should have their dead links removed. GrantNeufeld 00:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Greens will be bumped out of the 5th slot if the Social Credit Party fields more candidates. Earl Andrew 01:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Independents - umm... it is very difficult to read blue text on a navy blue background. Maybe this could be changed to the bgcolor=gainsboro that is used for indepedents in the federal elections pages so that it would be easier to read. Any objections? Kevintoronto 10:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've reoriented the first candidates table - Northern Alberta. Before going to all the work of reorienting the rest of the tables, are there any problems with this new format? GrantNeufeld 15:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am pasting the table that Grant had changed to here...
... this table has some pros and cons.
PROS: It allows us to include the Green and So Cred parties which are contesting ~ half of the ridings.
CONS: It causes us to spilt regions into 2 or more tables; it is of a different format used in other provincial and federal election articles in Canada.
Thoughts on which we should use and, if we keep the current model, how we accomodate the Green and So Cred parties?
-- Jord 23:54 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am planning to mark down the winners as they're declared tonight, obviously vote totals will have to wait until tomorrow-ish when 100% are in. Just wanted to chime in and let you know I'll be editting regularly for the evening. If there is anyone else planning to do the same, maybe you could peep up to and we could collaborate rather than two (or more) ending up trying to edit the same thing at the same time. -- Jord 03:00 23 Nov 04 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alberta general election, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)