This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Alsion Redford appears as being Premier of Alberta for 1 day on the chart. That looks pretty bad when you realize that she was only sworn in yesterday. Wouldn't it be best to somehow indicate which premiers are current? CüRlyTüRkey Talk Contribs 12:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
We should acknowledge Hilda Watson somehow: she led the Yukon PCs to victory in '78 -- although she didn't get to be premier of the Yukon, because she lost her own riding. DS ( talk) 13:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Under Leadership History, all this list seems to do is fawn over the fact that these women are first, second, third, etc. which is really not much of a feat given the age of the country. The fact that so many of the first ministers on this list botched their mandates deserves equal mention, or at the very least, a mention of the circumstances of the end of their terms, not just the fact they got elected and they happen to be a certain gender. That would be a much more balanced presentation. Otherwise, the term "history" needs to be changed. For example
117Avenue, I see you don't mind being wrong, if it means a better article is written. I think you might consider this. You reverted an edit citing "inexplicable formatting". You're not suggesting that you prefer inexplicable formatting, are you?
We have the current version left aligned with wrapping verses the former version right aligned without wrapping. Which of these is the inexplicable one?
With wrapping we see some dates on a single line, others on two and the rest of them on three. Left alignment put the year (arguably the most significant part of the date) in a different position for different cells. With all respect, this looks a bit of mess to me. Without wrapping we have all dates on a single line. When we add right alignment to this all the years in the column align together. This seems much neater and easier to comprehend to me (I'd actually prefer three-letter abbreviations for months so as to align days and months too).
So, I've given a shot at explaining the formatting with right alignment and without wrapping. I hope it doesn't seem so inexplicable any more. However, a preference for the opposite (left alignment with wrapping) does seem a bit inexplicable to me. Jimp 06:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Given that Canada only has ten provinces(and, yes, 3 territories) is the sentence: "Today, every Canadian jurisdiction has had at least one female premier except for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan." really appropriate? 40% - that's almost like saying every province except the ones that haven't... Jethro 82 ( talk) 15:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Alsion Redford appears as being Premier of Alberta for 1 day on the chart. That looks pretty bad when you realize that she was only sworn in yesterday. Wouldn't it be best to somehow indicate which premiers are current? CüRlyTüRkey Talk Contribs 12:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
We should acknowledge Hilda Watson somehow: she led the Yukon PCs to victory in '78 -- although she didn't get to be premier of the Yukon, because she lost her own riding. DS ( talk) 13:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Under Leadership History, all this list seems to do is fawn over the fact that these women are first, second, third, etc. which is really not much of a feat given the age of the country. The fact that so many of the first ministers on this list botched their mandates deserves equal mention, or at the very least, a mention of the circumstances of the end of their terms, not just the fact they got elected and they happen to be a certain gender. That would be a much more balanced presentation. Otherwise, the term "history" needs to be changed. For example
117Avenue, I see you don't mind being wrong, if it means a better article is written. I think you might consider this. You reverted an edit citing "inexplicable formatting". You're not suggesting that you prefer inexplicable formatting, are you?
We have the current version left aligned with wrapping verses the former version right aligned without wrapping. Which of these is the inexplicable one?
With wrapping we see some dates on a single line, others on two and the rest of them on three. Left alignment put the year (arguably the most significant part of the date) in a different position for different cells. With all respect, this looks a bit of mess to me. Without wrapping we have all dates on a single line. When we add right alignment to this all the years in the column align together. This seems much neater and easier to comprehend to me (I'd actually prefer three-letter abbreviations for months so as to align days and months too).
So, I've given a shot at explaining the formatting with right alignment and without wrapping. I hope it doesn't seem so inexplicable any more. However, a preference for the opposite (left alignment with wrapping) does seem a bit inexplicable to me. Jimp 06:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Given that Canada only has ten provinces(and, yes, 3 territories) is the sentence: "Today, every Canadian jurisdiction has had at least one female premier except for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan." really appropriate? 40% - that's almost like saying every province except the ones that haven't... Jethro 82 ( talk) 15:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)