Talk:2007 Ontario general election

message: Can somebody explain to me why my contribution was reverted as being of "bad faith" by Nat?
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontario_general_election%2C_2007&diff=155127801&oldid=155116595
Maybe I'm just new to this whole wikipedia thing, but I read over the page on "good faith" edits and Nat's decision puzzled me (especially considering that the 'good faith' page even had specific sections on dealing with new wikipedians, which I am).
Is adding a site with polling trends and a meta-analysis of seat projections for the Ontario election bad faith?  Can somebody please explain to me what exactly is 'bad faith' about what I did?
The contribution was not causing "deliberate disruption just to prove a point."
The contribution was not "playing games with policies."
And the contribution -- adding the only site with a meta-analysis of the Ontario general election that I'm aware of -- is most certainly not intended as vandalism.
Nat seems to think that including the information in the analysis does more harm than good to the article than having it does.
Can I get some feedback from people as to what they think and/or how to go about reverting this change?
Ottawastudent 04:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was nothing that indicated your edits were done in bad faith. The only problem with your edit was the addition of a website that basically gave the same information as one or two of those site already listed. That is why I had your edits reverted. It is my personal opinion that we already have too many external links on this page. Please see WP:NOT#LINK. Regards, nattang 04:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  Please point me to which of the other external links that have a meta-analysis of seat projections or please point me to the other external links which have 6 month polling trend graphs with rolling averages.Ottawastudent 04:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a blog (assumably yours) with a few numbers in it. Whoop-dee-doo. If your blog was as comprehensive as say, Democraticspace, it would be valuable. However, yours is more blog (and very opinionated at that). I'm dont think calling the NDP "cowards" is NPOV at all.-- Earl Andrew - talk 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay so first the agurment was that the edit was in bad faith -- something I'm still waiting to hear an apology on.  Then it was that Nat, the Tory, felt that 8 is too many external links which is ridiculous since other comparable articles, such as the one on the 40th Canadian federal election has 21 external links and that election date isn't even set yet.  Now I'm being told that the external link was not NPOV.  What wasn't neutral about what I linked to?  What was baissed about it?  It includes every poll (including one that nodice forgot), it treats all parties equally.  It is not written from a partisan perspective.  Did I link to a post that called the NDP "cowards"?  If Earl Andrew is opposed to linking to this resource just because somewhere else on that site (somewhere not linked to), in the completely different political opinions section of that site, there is criticism going on which is critical of the NDP, then, I have to ask, who's really being of bad faith here?  I don't see what's different between Paulitics and Greg Morrow's Democraticspace.com.  Greg's Democraticspace has a section which is unbaissed -- it's the section which was linked to on this article.  But Greg also has very progressive opinions on a variety of issues and he discusses them regularly.  So Earl, what's REALLY your gripe with the external link?  The link's purpose is not to rival Democraticspace, that would be silly.  The link was inserted because it was the only meta-analysis on the internet of the seat projections for this election and that, I believe, is significant and worth including.  So, and let's be fair here Earl, either including the only meta-analysis of the entire election helps the article, or it's harmful to provide that information.  It was not in bad faith.  It was not compromising the article by making too many links, and the page linked to was just as NPOV as the portion of Greg's Democraticspace which was linked to. Ottawastudent 15:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Distinguish stats from analysis; foreground POV of analysis to retain NPOV.  Stats should not be removed because they’re not “as comprehensive as say, Democraticspace.”  This is strange reasoning for two reasons:  Firstly, the stats provided by the source in question are objective, even if the analysis of them isn’t (that’s the nature of analysis — some people just foreground their ideology while others don’t).  Secondly, democraticSPACE, while very comprehensive, is far from objective or even democratic for that matter.  Case in point:  There have been four recent threads on democraticSPACE about funding religious schools in Ontario with over 70 comments between them.  The position of democraticSPACE has been to support the Liberal status quo on the issue while dismissing the U.N. Commissions that have found Ontario’s education system in violation of human rights.  democraticSPACE is favouring statistics from The Fraser Institute (one of the most neo-conservative think-tanks out there) instead of the U.N. findings.  No one should have a problem with democraticSPACE taking this position and using stats from The Fraser Institute, but since the majority of responses have been critical the website has been censoring and pulling down some of the most critical comments that cite different positions and different stats.  As of the time of this posting, two of these threads have been shut off to further comments.  I write this as a cautionary note to those who dismiss stats from alternative sources in the name of “objectivity” or “democracy.” Censorship in the name of whatever bogus reason — whether on Wikipedia, democraticSPACE, or elsewhere — should not be tolerated.  The stats in question here should not be removed for the reasons given thus far.  Providing analysis, too, is also fine so long as it is made clear that it is coming from a particular perspective.  NPOV is *not* about negating POV (an impossible task), it is about fairly weighing significant POVs.  G(A)IA 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Since it looks as though nobody has any further objections or constructive criticism to having this information included, I'm going to re-introduce the external link into the article.Ottawastudent 01:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. I don't really care what the other articles have or don't have. The point is, there are way to many "forcaster"/blog sites already listed. And also, the site that you added is basically a regurgitation of the information already posted on the other websites. The way we do things here is by consensus, and there is clearly no consensus to add the external link. Therefore, I am removing the external link as there is no consensus to add Ottawastudent's external link and per policy. nattang 00:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Nat, the way we do things is that you have to give a logical reason for why something should or shouldn't be included, you can't just state it without backing that up merely because you happen to have decided on your own that you don't like the site.  Now, you first claimed that the edit was in bad faith.  When challenged with this contention, you then changed your tune and said that there are too many links -- which I demonstrated to be demonstrably false since the Canadian 40th General Election page has 300% more external links than this page does and that election isn't even under way yet.  Moreover, your claim that the article has too many links is also laughable because there was a new 'forecaster/blog' site linked to earlier today and you hypocritically had no objections at all to that one.  You just decided that you didn't like the site that I included.  So, how can we take your actions seriously when it's clear that you don't actually believe what you yourself argued previously.  So if you're going to hold the opinion that this article has too many links, then you're going to have to explain why this article should be different from all others, since objectively, this article DOESN'T have too many links.  You can't merely assert it as if you're the god of what gets on Wikipedia.  You then write that there is no useful information on the linked site.  I have already asked you to back up this contention, and you ignored me and merely reverted my edit without responding in good faith to my request.  When you actually answer my questions in good faith and explain why including this site harms the article, then I would say it's reasonable to remove it.  Until that time, you're merely engaging in an immature pissing contest which I have no interest in participating in.Ottawastudent 01:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:External links, which states that one should never add a link to one's own page, and also that links to blogs are to generally be avoided. - SimonP 15:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SimonP - Well, clearly we don't have a serious problem with linking to blogs since the article links to Greg Morrow's blog.  However, that said, I was not aware that it was considered bad form to link to one's own site.  So, given that realization -- and as it is a valid argument against me re-introducing the link (as opposed to Nat's arguments above) -- I will not attempt to re-introduce the external link due to possible conflicts of interest on my part.  As an aside, however, I do believe that the only meta-analysis and the only universal swing projection are useful tools, so I do believe some other wikipedia user ought to consider its inclusion on its merits, but I will not personally attempt to re-introduce it.Ottawastudent 19:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was bad faith about my edit? 

message: I have assessed this as a B Class, given its detail and organization, although it really needs some more cleanup and prose. I have assessed this as low importance, as it is a highly specialized topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Whos adding the candidate numbers for those parties? they haven't nominated anyone yet according to there websites and if they have tell me where to get the info because nobody is putting the parties candidates in the list by region. 70.54.2.165 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the Freedom Party is currently running 2 candidates. I doubt that the CoR will run any candiadates, seeing as their candidate numbers have been dwindling since 1990. Morgan695 02:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Freedom and COR parties

message: I know who the damn Green candidate for leeds-grenville is, the GPO just hasn't updated the page yet. Jeanie Warnock will even be at my house tomorrow where we'll start collecting signatures for the returning officer. 
74.14.146.93 00:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then put that in your edit summary, don't just randomly add uncited information (as you've done often in the past). Morgan695 00:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:CIVIL - one should always take a polite tone in Wikipedia discussions. Knowing "what the hell you're talking about" is not enough to post information on Wikipedia (especially if such information has only been posted in a local newspaper, and not the GPO official website), you must cite a link in an edit summary. Thank you. Morgan695 01:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "don't just randomly add uncited information (as you've done often in the past)." was very uncivil, not everything needs citation, especially not clear facts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.56.254 (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Support or experience with a party does not give you superiority over all articles and topics related to it. WP:CITE states that one must cite "material challenged or likely to be challenged", such a candidate who has only been referenced in a local newspaper with a limited audience.  Morgan695 02:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have not once 'challenged' the validity of your edit. I removed the candidate's name because there was no citation on the GPO offical website, which tends to have preference over local newspapers. Furthermore, the fact that I do not live in your riding does not make your edits superior to mine. You are free to edit the article on my riding as you see fit - Wikipedia is 'the free encyclopedia', after all. Morgan695 02:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if a candidate has not yet collected the 25 signature needed to officially run as a candidate in Ontario, then he/she is still not officially on the ballot and therefore cannot be placed on this list. Until Elections Ontario has officially recognize the candidate or his/her name is on his/her party's website, he/she should remain off this list until that happens. nattang 07:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP is an enclycopedia and not a blog roll.  Entries should have sources and are very strict when it come to  Biographies of living persons.  The candidate may have even told you they are going to be a candidate, but until it official and verified, then you can't put it on the page for Ontario general election, 2007.  You may want to place the information on the candidate's page, but only if it is a major incident.  Just summarizing the candidate's plan for a year before the election would be Undue Weight --Statsone 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now you have a source.  I still think it would be better to wait until she has actually files her application as it would be official at that time. --Statsone 17:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LEEDS-GRENVILLE GREENS

message: http://www.elections.on.ca/en-CA/CandidatesAndParties/Candidates/CandidateContactInfo.htm Nickjbor 07:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good resoruce for info on candidates

message: When placing an entry please sign them by placing 4 ~ at the end of your entry.  Your user name and a time and time stamp will be added automaticcaly.
Also, when responding to another entry, use as many : (colon's) as needed to indent.  This make it easier to read comments. --Statsone 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits and format

message: How should withdrawals be indicated?   --  Zanimum 16:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the candidate is no longer a candidate, his/her name should be removed from our list. nattang 17:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, because I know with municipal elections, some withdraw too late to be removed from the ballot.  --  Zanimum 17:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are on Election Ontario's list, then they haven't withdrawn officially.  Electors can still vote for them, so leave them on the list, but I would suggest asterisking the candidate stating not campaigning.  If they actually withdrew, before September 18th at 2;00 p.m., then Nat's suggestin makes the most sense.--Abebenjoe 17:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawals? 

message: I'm adding all the ind's listed here http://www.elections.on.ca/en-CA/CandidatesAndParties/Candidates/CandidateContactInfo.htm 74.13.125.185 07:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independents 

message: self explained Political junky 19:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I added the colours for the CoR and Reform, and judging by the Republican Party's website, I'd guess lavender grey (#BDBBD7). Special Needs has no website, so it'll be hard to find it's colour. Morgan695 20:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I made one for the Republicans. Morgan695 20:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need some help with the colours for the smaller parties running candidates

message: Now that we have a completed list from Elections Ontario, we should split the article and make the Candidates List its own article.  My suggestion is to link to the page from this article.  The Ontario general election, 2007 is now 85KB, so it is rather big by Wiki standards.  Comments? --Abebenjoe 08:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now 94kb. I've decided to be bold and remove the 'Candidates' section from the main page. Morgan695 02:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Then change the Quebec page.  At over 35K, the Candidates page on its own is large, so keeping it in this article, unnecessarily makes this article too large.  The size of the this article, even without the candidates section, suggests even more segmentation into seperate articles is likely.--Abebenjoe 03:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current way is the standard for all new election articles in Canada. --Cloveious 00:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split article, move candidates to own page

message: As far as I know theres only Danish (there leader) running, so why does it say 2?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.147.119 (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John Rubino in Trinity-Spadina is the second. Morgan695 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: whos the second special needs party candidate

message: :Image:NONDP.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NONDP.PNG

message: Someone has reverted this edit to a previous version:
(cur) (last)  21:18, 4 October 2007 70.178.56.254 (Talk) (62,178 bytes) (undo) 
Elections are about the future, and choice.  This article should not be used as a propaganda tool to frame the debate.  A list of the leaders in parties that offer a candidate in every riding is just as relevant to the 2007 Election as leaders from past elections.
This topic is not about the current government, but about October 10th's Election.
I will be restoring my edit.
Further, the candidates were presented in alphabetical order, again, to present the topic in a more neutral manner.
::Changed "Other parties" to "All registered parties of Ontario" the former label was dismissive.  Wikipedia should be neutral on the presentation of these facts. Wageslave 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will be re-ordering All registered parties of Ontario to be alphabetical shortly.  Wageslave 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur. 70.178.56.254 15:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaders and "other parties" 

message: Based on the information so far, which party could be predicted to form the next government, based on the number of seat it will attain and the number of seats the other provincial parties will also attain? Please answer ASAP the elections are tomorrow in my area and I want to know if I'm voting for the majority
--• Storkian • 23:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) This talkpage is for discussion of the article, not the election itself, and 2) you should vote for the party who you feel best represents you, not based on who you believe will form the government. Morgan695 02:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prediction? 

message: There is urgent need to collaborate on the Ontario election coverage article (also see, Results of 2005 British Columbia, Canada General Election) on Wikinews. Any help is appreciated from editors on Wikipedia. FellowWikipedian 17:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ontario elections collaboration on Wikinews 

message: I can't do this because I am a new user but if somebody could add a section about voter turnout (52.8% http://www3.elections.on.ca/internetapp/realtimehome.aspx?lang=en&channel_id={923146e7-4d81-42a8-99f0-e61f5ab50387}&lang=en)
and compare it to previous years- important given the dissatisfaction with the central issues of the campaign  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.249.202 (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a brief section per your request. It could probably be expanded a bit with properly documented analysis of the reasons for such a low turnout, but of course it's not Wikipedia's business to speculate — if we want to analyze this, we can only do so by directly quoting and citing verifiable media discourse on the topic. Bearcat 00:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voter turnout 

message: Just some statistical information as possible leads.
Reference.
CBC ELECTION RESULTS
 
The CBC headline reads, "McGuinty Wins Massive Majority", however of the 8.4 million eligible voters only 52.6 % or 4.4 million  voters cast a vote,  of these  42.6% or  790,810 cast a  vote for a Liberal Candidate,  and of these 23,566 cast a vote directly for Premier McGuinty, (50.04% of the votes in his riding) as all other ridings cannot vote for the party leader.   
 
This leaves 47.4% of the eligible voters not voting,  57.4% of those that voted or 2,525,600 voters, a majority of voters,  who did not vote for a Liberal Candidate in the province, and even in Mr. McGuinty's riding, 49.96% of  voters in his riding did not vote for him.
 
The move to change the electoral system, to represent minority parties failed to pass by over 63% because the changes would give more power to non-elected party members, however if we look at the details of the current system  there are other ways to make changes to a system that empowers a minority, in many cases one individual, who we call  a Premier over the Majority.
 
Seems that more logical electoral reforms include the use of run-off elections (used by parties to elect the party leader),  an opportunity for voting seperately for a Premier, and giving our elected representatives 'free votes' on every vote, by eliminating the dictatorial power to the Premier, as is the case in most Municipal councils and the position of the Mayor, who gets one equal vote on all votes.
 
If my numbers are correct of all eligible voters, 8.4 million, only 23,566 voted for the Premier, and that is .2 %; now that is not a system that can state that "a majority" of the vote supporting Mr. McGuinty, and in fact 57.81 % of all voters did not vote liberal in the province; odd what a parliamentary system can do to a free vote.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarjbsquitti (talk • contribs) 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just some statistical information as possible leads. 

message: It would be a great idea if someone could find the victory speach of Mr. McGuinty for future reference.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti  :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  McGuinty's victory speach. 

message: Target seats need to be updated desperatly, they follow 2003 results.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.24.182 (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the idea. Target seats are the ridings that each party came within 15% of winning in the last election. Morgan695 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Target Seats 

message: The numbers don't add up on the results chart, we're about 8,000 votes over the vote count.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Political junky (talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the results are unoffical and therefore inaccurate. Actual results will be released within the coming weeks. Morgan695 02:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: :Image:Ondpsmall.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ondpsmall.png

message: :Image:Ontlibsmall.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ontlibsmall.png

message: Can somebody explain to me why we need :Image:Ontario elections 2007.png and :Image:Ontario2007.PNG? Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: :Image:Pcposmall2.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pcposmall2.png

message: The image :Image:GPO logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      Image:Ontarioliberallogo.PNG
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:GPO logo.jpg

message: It has been generally accepted to only use the infobox to outline the details of the parties that held seats before or after the election. 117Avenue (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, in that case I propose that an exception be made in this particular case, because anyone who watched the campaign would agree that the Greens were a notable presence in it, and every polling company included the party in its polls. It is historically unheard of in Ontario politics for any party that did not win a seat to get 8% of the vote, as almost always such parties get below 1%. The only other case that comes close is Family Coalition from 1987-1995, which reached a high-water mark of 2.7%. Since this is an article about the election campaign, I think it would be proper for the infobox to mention it. Otherwise, the casual reader is left asking where all the votes went, since the changes in popular vote in the infobox don't add up by 5%. Esn (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Why was the Green Party of Canada included in the 2008 debate, and not the 2011? Because they had a sitting MP. Was the Green Party of Ontario included in the 2007 debate? 117Avenue (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but they were a significant presence in it. They were widely covered in election coverage. Ross Perot won 8% of the vote in the 1996 US presidential election, carried no states, yet is still mentioned in the infobox because he was an unusually successful 3rd-party candidate and (like here), without the inclusion of those votes in the infobox, the casual reader is left wondering where the extra percentages went. Esn (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox inclusion 

message: I removed the Green Party from the infobox. They did not win any seats in this election. They have never won a seat in any Ontario election and under the current system are unlikely to ever win a seat. While they did garner marginal popular support, I do not believe this warrants inclusion as a '4th party' in the description of this election. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is old, so please ignore my previous comments. The current consensus is to include parties garnering over 5% of the popular vote. It was looking like the Green party would be included in the 2014 election, with the polls over 5%, but with only 4.8% they were removed. 117Avenue (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, there isn't a standing consensus of Wikiproject Canada that a party should be included in the infobox if it gets at least five per cent of the popular vote but wins no seats; the editors of this article may have established a variant consensus among themselves for this article in isolation, but there's no established consensus that it's the "standard" for Canadian elections across the board. So no, this article doesn't get to make up its own special rule for itself different from the rules that apply to other provincial or federal elections — there's a discussion at WP:CANTALK to review and reaffirm what the consensus should be, but it's unresolved as of today and nobody has shown evidence that the existing consensus permits inclusion in the infobox on a popular vote threshhold even for a party with no actual representation in the applicable legislature. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Party a legitimate fourth party?