Talk:Nanaimo—Alberni

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Canada: British Columbia / Electoral districts Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada.

Election percentages[edit]

Why are the percentages for valid votes all %100.00, when there are always some rejected votes? Jfing ers88 02:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
because "rejected" votes aren't "valid" votes.

Weird em dash in title[edit]

Yes, well at the MoS talk page they did warn people connected with these Canadian riding articles that unless an editors' note in caps is placed at the top of the article, others will come in periodically and move the title to a MoS-compliant form. It's happened how many times now? I do not believe WP should repeat this odd-ball punctuation just because some geek at some Canadian institute decided to do it. Tony (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The em dash is not weird. Every Canadian riding has use an em dash and so does Elections Canada. Elections Canada did use em dashes on every riding name officially. Steam5 (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is weird, and breaches WP's style guidelines. Do not remove posts at this talk page.

Please note that this discussion has been held before. The spelling with the em-dash is the proper name of a Canadian electoral district, as per the rule established by the only organization that has the legal authority to decide what the proper names of Canadian electoral districts are — and as such Wikipedia is bound by the proper name of the thing whether we think it should be the proper name or not. Whether the em-dash is "weird" or not, whether you agree with the reasoning behind Elections Canada's use of em-dashes or not, is entirely a moot point — like it or not, the name is what it is, which is what Elections Canada says it is, and no amount of whinging about it is going to magically change the proper name to something else instead.

Breaching WP's style guidelines is very much a secondary issue at best to the fact that using an en-dash instead would breach the far more binding and far more important naming policy. We can't arbitrarily decide to give a Canadian electoral district some alternative non-proper name any more than we could decide that we don't like ordinal numbers in titles and therefore will rename California's 2nd congressional district to "Aloysius Marvin Jackson McGillicuddy-Humpstein" instead. The name is what it is what it is what it is what it is, and it's not up to anyone here to decide that a style guide trumps "some geek at some Canadian institute" — especially not when that description betrays such a profound misunderstanding of what Elections Canada's role is in the first place.

They're not some "random institute" that makes arbitrary pronouncements about things that don't actually have anything to do with them; they're an official government agency whose job it is to maintain and run the basic operational infrastructure of Canadian federal elections. The name of an electoral district is whatever they say the name is, whether you agree with their naming conventions or not, because they're the only people who have the fundamental authority to decide what the name is going to be in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so if they choose to use some symbol in their naming that we don't have, or that is not easily accessible, that's fine too? Concerning your post: we don't use spaced em dashes on WP, as you have done. You have the choice: spaced en or unspaced em. Tony (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It's even remotely germane to this discussion to digress into whether another editor's use of dashes in a comment on a talk page is consistent with article style or not? Really? Bearcat (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commented only because there seems to be a thing about em dashes around these topics, whether they are used in standard, accepted ways or not. No, in this case. Tony (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very weird every time I see it. And some of the Canada Parliament docs online, like this one, do it with both hyphen and double hyphen. I wonder what the origin of the em dash is. Probably they had Microsoft Word helping to interpret their double hyphens, or something weird like that. I know of no other plausible explanation for this weird punctuation. Dicklyon (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The em dash is uncommon in books, suggesting that it is not recoginized, not official, or not consistent with the editorial style of various publishers. Both hyphen and en dash seems to be more common, as here. One that does use the em dash puts spaces around it! That's further evidence for lack of officialness or any typographical attention to this weirdness of the Canadians. Dicklyon (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nanaimo—Alberni. 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/20060929195238/http://www.elections.ca/eccandidates/district.asp?ran=2008.092&objectType=district&action=provinces&ul=1&ElectionID=191 to http://www.elections.ca/eccandidates/district.asp?ran=2008.092&objectType=district&action=provinces&ul=1&ElectionID=191

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]