Talk:2007 Ontario general election/Archive 1

message: It's looking to me like the next election will give Howard Hampton the keys to the Premier's office at this point...
:Would be nice, but he's still third in the polls. Earl Andrew 17:40, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NDP fate 

message: Is anyone aware of the reason that Don Valley West was considered a Downtown Toronto riding on the page for the 2003 provincial election and is filed under suburban Toronto for this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.96.151.229 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been moved back. Thanks for brining this to my attention. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Where is it listed as a downtown riding? if you drive or walk through the neibourhoods that consist of DVW it is clearly not part of downtown toronto. -- Nat.tang 02:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really Downtown, more than it is in central Toronto. Most of DVW is in the old city of Toronto. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: here's a map of the riding and you'll see a majority of the riding is in north york and not in old toronto: map of DVW (PDF) -- Nat.tang 16:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of it is though, and that's what counts. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Or we change "Downtown Toronto" to "Central Toronto" or "Old Toronto". I'd like to have things even, and 13 in a region is too many. Another option is dividing the city in three, but that hasn't been the standard. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like your suggestion of Old Toronto, though you will find that ridings like Davenport, St. Pauls and York South–Weston cross-over old municipal boundaries, notably the city of York and North York. So Central Toronto makes the most sense since, if my memory serves me well, many of these ridings are in as many as three former municipal jurisdictions. YSW is mostly in the old city of York, with some of it in Toronto, and some of it in North York.  St. Pauls is mostly in Toronto, though sections of it are in York and North York.  Davenport's population is almost evenly split between York and Toronto, though I think slightly more people live in the former Toronto section of the riding.  As I said earlier, it's arbitrary on how you want to slot these ridings, because they no longer follow the old municipal borders, or in the case of  Scarborough East-Pickering current municipal boundaries are ignored. So going with Central Toronto seems to be the most agnostic and factual, if such a term can exist in this context. Abebenjoe 09:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we can divide the ridings by how Toronto city council divides the wards. there are north, south, east, west. so for example, Etobicoke - West, Scarbrough (excluding pickering-scarborough east, because even the media in the past federal elections have excluded it from their toronto election result maps) - West , North York (including ridings who have a majority of their boundaries within former North York) - North, and old toronto, york and east york - South -- Nat.tang 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dah, now why didn't I think of this? Nat.tang's proposal makes even more sense, so even though Ward 13, Parkdale–High Park is in the West district and Etobicoke York Community Council, it is 70% in the old city of Toronto, with a section of its north west perimeter in the old city of York.  So that, together with Ward 14, which is in the south district and part of the Toronto and East York Community Council, would make Parkdale-High Park in the South District.  York South–Weston would be in the West District since both of its wards are there and are part of the  Etobicoke York Community Council.  Davenport, which like PHP has a ward in South and West district, would still be in South, although this is a fudge factor, so it might be a trade-off between Davenport in the South, and PHP in the West, if the numbers are becoming too large for the South district (that was how it was orignally set-up in 2003, but Sylvia Watson, then the councillor for Ward 14, made a deal with Ward 17 councillor Cesar Palacio to have their wards switch community councils and service districts).  Don Valley West, following these rules would be in the North district, since its Wards 25 and 26 belong to the North district and North York Community Council.  I think this makes by far the most sense yet. Abebenjoe 01:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: York West is another split riding.  Ward 7 is in Etobicoke York Community Council, and Ward 8 is part of North York Community Council. Again, this allows for a 'fudge' factor that would allow it to go to the district that needs another riding to even things out.Abebenjoe 03:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I added it, worts and all. If someone can clean up the coding a bit, that would be great. Abebenjoe 03:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Genius --Nat.tang 13:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clean --Nat.tang 14:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don Valley West placement 

message: Works for me, as they are between five and 12 ridings each. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it, worts and all. If someone can clean up the coding a bit, that would be great. Abebenjoe 03:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Genius --Nat.tang 13:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clean --Nat.tang 14:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Toronto infobox comments

message: You know what will be interesting...if the Ontario legislature was in a minority position...kinda like the recent Québec elections... --Nat.tang 13:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You know what will be interesting... 

message: :Image:Gposmall.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use rationale is that the logo is being used to demonstrate a Canadian political party's logo and name in an article about them.  There is no other reasonable way to demonstrate this.  Since the quality of the image is low, there will be little to no economic fall-out from this use.  As well, the chance of legal action to be incurred by the usage of this image is on the very low end of the probability scale.--Abebenjoe 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Gposmall.png

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 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 04:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use rationale is that the logo is being used to demonstrate a Canadian political party's logo and name in an article about them.  There is no other reasonable way to demonstrate this.  Since the quality of the image is low, there will be little to no economic fall-out from this use.  As well, the chance of legal action to be incurred by the usage of this image is on the very low end of the probability scale.--Abebenjoe 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NONDP.PNG

message: The Léger Marketing polls for 2006 were removed, because I could not find proof of their existence.  Does someone have those polls available for public viewing, if they do exist?  If the polls can be validated, then obviously they should be put back in the article.  The only poll I could find, that took place in 2006 from Léger, was dated April 11, but the link was broken on their website, and contained no numbers.  Not particularly useful. --Abebenjoe 18:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Léger Marketing Ontario polls: need confirmation 

message: Just so you know, 'Chris Robertson' is linked to the wrong article, pointing to the Australian squash player rather than the Canadian politician. I will leave it up to someone more 'wiki-wise' than me to determine whether to remove the link, or to start a new, proper page for Robertson (seeing as he is a candidate in a major election, and an internationally-renowned speaker -> http://www.chrisrobertson.com/). Caydel 19:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad links to articles about candidates 

message: I find the article's navigability to be poor.  With all the candidates front-loaded, it makes it harder to find other information.  My suggestion is to put  the list of current candidates at the bottom of the article, just before the See also, and Reference sections.  I would keep the order the same otherwise.--Abebenjoe 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. nattang 02:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranging the sections 

message: Could we add a section for their candidates as they have at least 59 listed on the article page and are clearly in a position (by number of candidates) to challenge any major party for power. nattang 01:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, seeing as they're currently only running 8 more candidates than they did in the last election. I also don't know why you'd say that they're in a position to challenge a main party for power, seeing as they most often place last or second-to-last. Morgan695 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Too late, already done. I feel if a party nominates candidates in more than 50% of the ridings, they should be included, which they have done this time, and not last time. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Coalition Party 

message: I've noticed that people have begun to make pages for unelected candiadates - including pages such as, (but by no means limited to), Ki Kit Li, Kathryn Holloway, Paul Miller and John David Ford. In the past, un-elected candidates have recieved blurbs on the pages listed under "Candidates by party", and if they are elected, are given their own pages. Should we delete these pages now, or wait until after the election and delete anyone who lost? Morgan695 00:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say delete them if they lose, but keep them for now. nattang 03:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-elected candidates