Talk:2004 Canadian federal election

message: What this article really needs is poll results, poll results, poll results! Monthly poll results for the parties since the last election (showing the sharp decline in Alliance and Bloc support and modest rise in PC and NDP numbers), and poll results showing Martin's massive popularily (i.e. many more people say they'd vote for a Martin Liberal Party and one under Chretien again).
Someone may also want to add some more analysis regarding the effect of provincial politics (e.g. Liberals in Ontario and Quebec, PC's in Newfoundland, possible Alliance-ish government in Saskatchewan, etc. Being from Ontario (where I don't think this has much effect) I can't really comment on the other provinces.
Oh yeah, a breakdown of party policies would help as well (e.g. the NDP seems to have moved even further left, the Alliance and PC's look set to meet somewhere in between the two, etc.). -- stewacide 20:41, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The "Results" table requires horizontal scrolling to read, something undesirable.  Is there a reason for making the last column 141 percent?  Is there a good reason for specifying column widths at all?  Why not just let browsers use their own algorithms for determining column widths?--Indefatigable 16:06, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It fits my browser, but I am aware it doesnt fit them all, as the computer at my school has the same problem as you. Is there any way I can fix it? Also- I plan on putting another table to show the platforms of the parties. User:Earl Andrew 20:53, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that all it would take was removing the explicit widths, but after trying it, I found out it wasn't that simple.  Then it dawned on me that the problem is some very long riding names that contain no spaces.  Today's browsers aren't smart enough to break them into two lines after a hyphen or an en dash.  The only solution I can see is to put a  in the longest ones, but that cure may be worse than the disease.  I'll do some experiments.--Indefatigable 05:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of reducing everything to a table I think it would be better just to give a summary of each party's platform (when they are released). -- stewacide 05:15, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'll have to wait until they come out first- and we'll have to wait until the new party has a site. User:Earl Andrew 05:27, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table too wide 

message: Contributions by 66.185.84.80
Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Canadian_federal_election%2C_2004&diff=2707346&oldid=2700725
From his other contributions, appears to be a vandal. He did this same sort of edit to the Clarity Act article.
Beware of internal links that have an external link color (subtly different).  It breaks the "What links here" feature.
Internal link: Clarity Act
Faked link: Clarity Act
Note color difference.
----
I think there should be a a page exclusively listing Canada's electoral districts and another for census divisions. I haven't seen that yet. SD6-Agent 22:47, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtle anon vandalism by 66.185.84.80 

message: I like the graphic showing the house representation, and I think it may be a useful addition to other election pages.  I have a couple of questions.  First, is there a rule to how the seats are distributed?  I would like to give a fairly accurate representation of the actual seats in the house and who held them.  Second, how are new seats added?  What was the orientation of the seats in the previous Parliament (301 seats), or 1993 (295 seats)?  I added the image to Canadian federal election, 2000 but I don't know if I got it right. --Timc 13:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, I just added the image because I wanted to display the fact that we have sort of a tie in parliament. I wish the media would emphasize that more. :D Earl Andrew 19:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: On the subject, I am almost sure that the Westminster system, or at least the customs in Canada (and Quebec, from what I have witnessed and read), the members of the party in power are seated to the right of the speaker (the left of someone facing the speaker's chair) and (of this I am less sure; I am guessing from observations) the Official Opposition is seated the closest to the speaker on the "opposite" side (as it is conveniently called). If the amount of seats of the governing party is higher than the number of chairs to the right of said speaker, I ignore if there is a rule on where the other MP's of the party in power are placed, although I can testify that, in the parliament of the current National Assembly of Quebec, the extra liberals, in power, are in the back, the third party (ADQ) is to the back of the room also and the Official Opposition (PQ) is at the front of the room and to the left of the "Président de l'Assemblée" (the Speaker). I think it was the same from 1998-2003, and probably before that also. - Liberlogos 03:23, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that all that you are saying is indeed correct.  The Government should be on the Speaker's right and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on the left.  In fact, the diagram does indeed depict this.  What I am not sure about is the arrangement of the physical seats in the house.  Are they in rows and columns as in the diagram?  I didn't pay enough attention when I toured the House in the past, and I can't seem to find any overhead pictures of the house or similar diagrams. A reference would be nice. --Timc 03:19, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually in PEI and in Newfoundland and Labrador the government sits on the left of the speaker. And I have no idea what the seating arrangement in the House of Commons in terms of where the physical seats are is. I just saw from the picture on the Canadian House--Chealer 00:54, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC) of Commons page that there were 5 rows and the seats were in couplets. I drew my own conclusions from that, literally. Earl Andrew 03:26, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  House representation

message: Wouldn't it make sense that the parties that didn't exist at dissolution (CHP, PCP, libert.) have a blank box instead of a 0 in the before column in the Results--National box?  Telso 19:57, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone know where we can get exit poll data, or data from Eastern provinces, as it happens?  dave 21:45, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Parties not registered at dissolution

message: Just to say that this page looks really impressive. Well done to everyone! Secretlondon 02:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree. Bravo all. - Liberlogos 03:23, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Congrats

message: Are these tables really necessary?  The page is already bulky enough as it is.  Maybe they could be put in the results of the Canadian federal election, 2004? --Timc 23:34, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I think  we should thank Adam Carr for including this quite useful information. However, I also thought that it could be placed instead on a seperate page. Putting it in results of the Canadian federal election, 2004 might be an even better idea. - Liberlogos 03:23, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with moving too--Chealer 00:54, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
If I might offer an opinion, there is far too much difficult visual material in this article. I think the multi-coloured tables are really ugly and visually difficult for readers. The results could be displayed in a much simpler form. I also the "schematic map" is pretty worthless and should be dropped. Also, now that the elections are over, the article should be rewritten so that it reads retrospectively and not like an accumulation of news bulletins. Finally, the article's English is very odd in places - was it written in French and then computer-translated? Adam 06:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Province and Territory tables 

message: I propose creating a new article, Canadian federal election race, 2004 to take some of the content from this page.  The particular sections I am thinking of are Major Parties, Minor Parties, Campaign Slogans, Issues, and Recent Poll Numbers.  That should lighten up this page a bit.  I know I should just "be bold", but I think this might be a controversial edit and I would like some input from the others here.  Does anyone else have an opinion?  --Timc 12:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think this page is fine in length. With my plans of creating a new page for some maps, we we will end up having four pages on the election, with a page on the election race, that will give us five! FIVE PAGES! That's a bit much I think? But If I'm the only one that feels this way, then I  must bow down to democracy. Earl Andrew 16:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election Race 

message: The results are not the final ones (which is why there is often a mention of 99% of polls reporting).  Does anyone know where we can get the final results? Deleting Unnecessary Words 20:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Results 

message: I've replaced the results table with the one prepared by User:Jord as part of the discussion at Talk:Canadian federal election results since 1867. That discussion ran for a couple of months to develop a standard format for elections tables that would improve the legibility of the information. Putting a "colour box" at the beginning of the line ended up being the preferred option of those whose participated in the discussion because it allows us to use colours that better reflect the party's official colours while improving legibility. The table uses templates that will mean that a party's colours for all tables can be changed at the same time by changing the template, instead of by changing each individual table. 
Over time, all of the federal elections tables will be changed over to this format. Assistance would be greatly appreciated! The Ontario provincial elections from 1867-1943 aleady use this format.
I have also removed the "Minor Parties" table because this duplicated information that is in the table - party name, leader, number of candidates. I also edited the subsection on the Green Party because it was unencyclopedic and POV. Most of the information was speculation or shameless boosterism.
Kevintoronto 18:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Results table

message: Recently we've had the platforms of the CHP and the Communist Party added. I don't think that Wikipedia should be bound by "equal" time provisions for all parties. As an encyclopedia, it should give the most emphasis to those parties that attracted the interest of voters. The lack of appeal to voters of the CHP and the Communist Party in the 2004 election has been proven by the results. They were marginal forces, and an encyclopedia article can justly give them only passing mention. Their platforms can be fleshed out in gory detail in the parties' articles, but not here. Anyone agree with me on this? Ground Zero 19:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues

message: Wikipedia has a role as part of the media - it is referred to as a source of information.
The job of the media is to inform, to enable the electorate to make an informed decision.  If people choose to skim over information because they don't consider it relevant is a voter's decision.  A refusal to provide equitable information from all registered parties (and there are parties that have met the rigorous standards to be accepted) only serves the interests of entrenched parties.  I oppose the Communist Party, but I fully support their right to have their point of view represented on an equitable basis, because I believe people should be aware of that choice.  I also believe it is good to shake up the political establishment by ensuring minority parties can expose the shortcomings of the major parties that don't think "outside the box".  In the end, voters still have their choice at the ballot box.
GBC 05:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with GroundZero on this.  Wikipedia is not a conglomeration of facts.  The material here is chosen for its importance.  We regularaly set priorities and decide that some things are more important than others.  The minor parties played a negligible role in the election campaign and should thus have a negliglible role in this article.  To do otherwise, would paint a false picture of the event.  HistoryBA 14:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: very well, if insisted on.  I have therefore restored the information in a separate article, moved minor party opinions from the 2005/2006 election article to the same separate article, and installed links from the main election articles.  The minor party positions no longer "clutter" the main article, but if someone wants to know, there is a direct link to a page which has all elections for which minor party positions have been recently removed from Wikipedia. I encourage adding to that minor parties article. I hope this is an acceptable arrangement. GBC 06:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the job of the media?

message: What is your opinion on changing the + and - signs to  and  for more visual effect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kndimov (talk • contribs) 15:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is against the template documentation, and Wikipedia's goal to be assessable for blind users, who use text readers. 117Avenue (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, prefer the coloured arrows. The arrows do have the alt text "increase" and "decrease", and the images are in-line, so would screen readers just read those words in the place of the image? Either way, we would have to make this change across election articles rather than just in one, so this discussion would have to be moved.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I also do like the look of the triangles best - However visual appeal should never ever override our accessibility  guidelines. Our mission here is for "ALL" to have access to the information including the blind. Is there a way to find-out if the arrows are readable by its alt text or something?  Moxy (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out that the + and - signs are still on the table "National Results". Kndimov (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm not seeing it, but how does it violate MOS:ACCESS? It has the alternate text which is imo better than just "plus" (+), and where in the template documentation does it state this?--UnQuébécois (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the + and - signs to templates 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Canadian federal election, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20031223150014/http://www.elections.ca:80/gen/rep/37g/table3_e.html to http://www.elections.ca/gen/rep/37g/table3_e.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Canadian federal 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040618171737/http://www.ctv.ca:80/mini/election2004/ to http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2004/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified