Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada/Archive 2

message: As the inventer of the now named multiple moderate, I have to say well it has some dissadvantages ie: being a lot more confusing to edit, and it might not look so great in lower resolutions ie: 800x600. I have found it easily handles the table of contents problem, and you can add pretty much all the main data you need to, especially in lengthy riding history articles, as well as keeping the page length down.
I just wonder, will I still be able to use the multiple moderate table even if single complex becomes the decided standard? Would the Alberta provincial pages be converted? --Cloveious 05:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple moderate

message: Starting yet another sub-tangent ...
I'd like to ask for feedback from other contributors on the best method to determine the figures used for election expenses.  
At the federal level, the figures currently in usage are those taken from "Total election expenses subject to limit" (entry 4).  This is probably a fair approach, although more comprehensive totals could possibly be taken from "Total expenses, transfers and other cash outflows" (entry 5c) - depending on whether this information is deemed most appropriate for comparisons.
In Ontario, at the provincial level, there is an added difficulty.  The candidate return forms contain separate entries for "Total campaign period expenses" (which covers (i) expenses subject to limitation, and (ii) excluded expenses) for and "Total Candidate's Campaign Expenses Subject to Limitation" (which covers (i) the candidate's expenses subject to limitation, and (ii) "from CR-3" -- which is to say, from the constituency association's expense report).
The discrepancies between these two entries are often considerable.  Consider Tony Clement's returns from the 1999 election, for instance:
*Total campaign period expenses: $10,344.33
*Total Candidate's Campaign Expenses Subject to Limitation: $71,283.13 (over $65,000 of which was from CR-3).
Is there a consensus that the latter figure should be used, in accordance with federal-level entries?  CJCurrie 00:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Election expenses

message: *For one thing, a breakdown of electoral results per major communities and identifiable rural regions within it - I'm about to launch into Coast Chilcotin, a defunct riding in BC, and will try to break things down by the various towns in the largely-wilderness region, and because the non-town electoral/poll districts (generally) correspond to identifiable areas it's possible to do such a breakdown; possibly not so relevant in provinces where the geography isn't quite so dominant in defining local identities.Skookum1 05:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion moved from main page

message: Here is a review of the main current templates in use - it is proposed that CanElec3, CanElec5 and possibly CanElec6 be deprecated in favour of other templates:
*   - keep, but try to move to the more detailed  or  when feasible
*   - keep
*   - deprecate in favour of  - there are currently no ridings using this template, and we should standardise the percentage columns - 
*   - keep (does not have Expenditures as  does, but expense info is likely unobtainable for older elections)
*   - deprecate in favour of  - again, set up consistent percentage columns - only 14 ridings use this
*   - would be inclined to deprecate, but need some consensus. Only 14 ridings use this template; it adds a Residence column, but had the effect of splitting 5-digit vote counts over 2 lines in Sault Ste. Marie (electoral district) - Residence may be better left for the candidate pages.
**That's remedied by replacing the space with a comma or removing it altogether. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CanElec templates consolidation