This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Would now be an appropriate time to add the Nominated Candidates section? With the PCs in full nomination mode and the other parties having nominated many candidates already it only makes sense to add this section. MarkFizz ( talk) 23:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It's probably time to start adding a Controversies section. There have been several so far. A bribery allegation ( Bhardwaj) and nomination irregularities O'Neill/Choucair), along with "Deletegate". Though I must say, I think that latter probably doesn't raise to the level of notability. -- Yamla ( talk) 15:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if the 1Question polls should be posted. It does not seem like the media are covering these polls and they are being done by a company - or a person - who has a clear agenda. I do not see why they are being posted. Newfoundlander&Labradorian ( talk) 21:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, if we have no reliable secondary sources, Wikipedia defines that as non-notable and we don't include it at all. And you have every right to present data to the public. But you do not have the right to use Wikipedia to further that aim when that falls afoul of Wikipedia's policies. I should note that even /r/Canada is pointing to 1ABVote as holding a significant bias, so calling it "unbiased scientific data" is rather optimistic. Finally, the fact that the polling data was unreliable in 2012 (or left the field too early to catch the late shift) doesn't make the media unreliable as we define it. Our purpose is to summarize what secondary sources say, not add our own editorial judgment. Reso lute 23:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Due to an anonymous editor's promise to continue violating WP:3RR, I have semi-protected the main article for the next 72 hours. If consensus is reached before that time elapses, I see no harm in someone else lifting the protection. -- Yamla ( talk) 19:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Alberta general election, 2015 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the media endorsement section, under Progressive Conservative, you should add Calgary Herald Reference: http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-our-choice-prentice-deserves-another-mandate
72.143.235.244 ( talk) 18:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
CBC earlier reported the PC had 72 seats going in, and in his concession speech, Brian Jean claimed they retained the '3 incumbents' the Wildrose had. Can we get some sort of confirmation as to the discrepancy between those claims and the 70/5 numbers shown here? 162.157.65.13 ( talk) 04:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Could the editor who created the map please revise the colour scheme? For one, the teal-like (or sea green) colour that is supposed to indicate a weak tilt for the PCs actually look like the party colours of the Alberta Party. Also the lighter 'orange' that for the NDP (such as in Calgary) actually looks more like Liberal red. It makes reading this map very difficult. Colipon+( Talk) 14:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Alberta general election, 2015. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Alberta general election, 2015. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://resultsnew.elections.ab.ca/orResultsPGE.cfmWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Would now be an appropriate time to add the Nominated Candidates section? With the PCs in full nomination mode and the other parties having nominated many candidates already it only makes sense to add this section. MarkFizz ( talk) 23:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It's probably time to start adding a Controversies section. There have been several so far. A bribery allegation ( Bhardwaj) and nomination irregularities O'Neill/Choucair), along with "Deletegate". Though I must say, I think that latter probably doesn't raise to the level of notability. -- Yamla ( talk) 15:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if the 1Question polls should be posted. It does not seem like the media are covering these polls and they are being done by a company - or a person - who has a clear agenda. I do not see why they are being posted. Newfoundlander&Labradorian ( talk) 21:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, if we have no reliable secondary sources, Wikipedia defines that as non-notable and we don't include it at all. And you have every right to present data to the public. But you do not have the right to use Wikipedia to further that aim when that falls afoul of Wikipedia's policies. I should note that even /r/Canada is pointing to 1ABVote as holding a significant bias, so calling it "unbiased scientific data" is rather optimistic. Finally, the fact that the polling data was unreliable in 2012 (or left the field too early to catch the late shift) doesn't make the media unreliable as we define it. Our purpose is to summarize what secondary sources say, not add our own editorial judgment. Reso lute 23:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Due to an anonymous editor's promise to continue violating WP:3RR, I have semi-protected the main article for the next 72 hours. If consensus is reached before that time elapses, I see no harm in someone else lifting the protection. -- Yamla ( talk) 19:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Alberta general election, 2015 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the media endorsement section, under Progressive Conservative, you should add Calgary Herald Reference: http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-our-choice-prentice-deserves-another-mandate
72.143.235.244 ( talk) 18:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
CBC earlier reported the PC had 72 seats going in, and in his concession speech, Brian Jean claimed they retained the '3 incumbents' the Wildrose had. Can we get some sort of confirmation as to the discrepancy between those claims and the 70/5 numbers shown here? 162.157.65.13 ( talk) 04:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Could the editor who created the map please revise the colour scheme? For one, the teal-like (or sea green) colour that is supposed to indicate a weak tilt for the PCs actually look like the party colours of the Alberta Party. Also the lighter 'orange' that for the NDP (such as in Calgary) actually looks more like Liberal red. It makes reading this map very difficult. Colipon+( Talk) 14:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Alberta general election, 2015. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Alberta general election, 2015. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://resultsnew.elections.ab.ca/orResultsPGE.cfmWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)