Talk:2019 Alberta general election

message: The tone of this does not read like an encyclopedia entry. It almost feels promotional, or editorialized news coverage. 68.149.248.216 (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the editorialized news coverage description, but I don't think the section is particularly biased.  There are obvious ways to spin the election more positively for any of the participants. --Llewdor (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a similar issue with it when it was being created, though as Llewdor said, it isn't particularly biased. I'll do some editing tonight on one edit for easy reversal if the changes aren't to people's liking. If they are or we find the original in compliance, we'll remove the neutrality warning. Jebussez (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

text: In an attempt to clean up the promotional or editorialized nature in this section I removed all the stuff talking about records etc - which can be spun to make events seem more significant than they are. A summary of results is not the place to include breaking of arbitrary records like "most number of votes in a province outside of Ontario and Quebec". This is what lends to it's editorial nature. If someone wants to include this fluff, why not have a section near the end about this? I also removed references to editorials about projections of Alberta turning into a two party system, and fixed up the tense which was previously bouncing between past present and future - trying to keep everything in past tense, as the event has already occurred. I hope these changes meets everyone's approval. 68.149.248.216 (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results Section 

message: At the moment, the article lists three Mainstreet Research polls in the 'opinion polls' section. This claims to be "a list of scientific opinion polls of published voter intentions." I dispute this. For example, the poll from November 2, 2015, was a poll about the budget, not about people's intentions to vote in the 30th Alberta general election. Am I mistaken here? I may very well be. --Yamla (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It asks both questions, many polls ask multiple questions. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! I see it does. The scribd bit at the bottom of the mainstreetresearch page wasn't loading for me. Now that it is, I see the numbers are indeed properly cited. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I would say include it. Unlike the CBC's Poll Tracker, the purpose of this page isn't to try to forecast the election result, but simply to list the polls that are made publicly available. At the end of the day, if EKOS's numbers are way off from the actual election result, it will simply look bad on them, but there's otherwise no harm in listing their poll here. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion Polls 

message: The new polls table uses a date format which doesn't sort.  The federal elections polls lists use the last date of polling instead of a range; I suggest this list should as well. --Llewdor (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it. --Llewdor (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polls Table 

message: I cannot distinguish between some of the colours, is there anyway we can change them? Admittedly I'm colour blind, but normally it's not an issue. Just the blue for the PC's and Alberta party look identical to me. ( SailingOn (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion Poll Graph Colouring  

message: For the record, it should be noted that the vote intention number (37.8%) given in the press release portion of the 19 March Mainstreet poll appears to be a typo. In the figures and tables of the supplied detailed report, the number is 37.1%. It can be deduced that 37.8% is the error and not the other way around because: (a) 37.1% added to all the other "decided and leaning" numbers comes to precisely 100.0%, whereas with 37.8% the total comes to 100.7%; and (b) the statement in the press release that 37.8% represents +9.3% compared to the previous Mainstreet poll (27.8%) doesn't add up, whereas 27.8% + 9.3% does = 37.1%. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in NDP support in press release of 19 March Mainstreet poll 

message: Looks like there are many (very many!) references in this article to Dave Berta's blog. This blog is self-published and seems to fail WP:UGC. Is there a reason these references should remain? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: David Cournoyer (with whom I am casually acquainted) is widely considered an expert on Alberta politics—here's a clip of him appearing as an expert panelist on the subject on a local TV station, for example; see here for a wide variety of other reliable sources that cite him as an expert.  That being the case, I think he fits within WP:SPS as "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  Besides that, the nature of the information that his blog is being used to source—in virtually all cases, simply what persons have announced their candidacies in the election, and/or been nominated by the registered political parties—is non-contentious information without a lot of dangerous shades of grey. Steve Smith (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Cournoyer's blog is probably a valid source. But - I've replaced the candidates list with one that draws on the official Elections Alberta data, making the individual blog citations unnecessary. Madg2011 (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dave Berta's Blog 

message: I'm fairly inexperienced at editing Wikipedia but I have a few minor questions/comments about the reporting of the overall results in the infobox and overall results table.
1) I think it would make sense to be consistent about how we are reporting the change in support for the UCP between 2015 and 2019. I don't know if we should report the +2.79pp or leave it as N/A but I think we should be consistent. Earl Andrew made an argument for using the +2.79pp based on the 2004 Canadian federal election page and 88.215.17.228 was neutral (see above). Jebussez made the same argument in their comment when they added the +2.81pp on April 21 (corrected by me today to +2.79pp).
Currently the "Last election" section in the infobox says "Pre-creation", and the +2.79pp since 2015 is in the infobox but was removed yesterday from the overall results table. What do people think about reporting the +2.79pp everywhere if we're doing it in one place? Also, as in 2004 Canadian federal election, if we're reporting the +2.79pp should we also change the "Last election" section in the infobox to say "30 seats, 52.02%" instead of "Pre-creation"? (Or 31 seats if we include the disclaimed seat). And then in the results table should we put N/A beside the change in popular vote for the PCs and Wildrose, instead of -27.78 and -24.22?
2) Convention on previous Alberta general election pages seems to be to reporting all percentages and pps to 2 decimal places (54.80%). I notice that it is currently only reported to 1 in the infobox (e.g., 54.8%). Personally I don't think the 2nd decimal place is needed but I think it would be nice to be consistent in the infobox - either 1 or 2 decimal places for everything. Thoughts?
3) Would it be okay if I added another graphic and table that were on the 2015 Alberta election page? I was thinking of the graphic showing the seat totals and the arrow for where a majority is, and the table showing % of votes and % of seats. For the latter, would it make sense to include the same parties as are in the infobox? (For now, UCP/NDP/Alberta Party)
Thanks -- Arstoien (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, we should absolutely emulate what we did for the 2004 federal election, and we should be using 2 decimal places, as that's what we normally do with election results. And go ahead and be bold by adding any relevant graphics you think should be on the page. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting of overall results 

message: I'm not sure if I understand this POV tag here. What is the reason for this dispute? Jarble (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. Steve Smith (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV dispute 

message: Conservative won in 18 districts in Central region, not 19.
Conservatives won in 12 districts in South region not 11.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.194.17 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: results by region has errors