Talk:1909 Alberta general election

Untitled
I have changed the MLAs elected table to conform with the standard format for elections tables. This makes it easy to change the colour associated with a party and avoids having text against a coloured background, which is contrary to Wikipedia style. Ground Zero 18:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Merge
I had previously merged 2nd Alberta Legislative Assembly into this article. That merge was reverted. As the merge is now effectively disputed, I leave it up to the community to come to a consensus. While there may be a technically correct point that a general election and a legislative assembly are two different things, the articles themselves are pretty much redundant redundant as they are almost identical. If there is to be a separate article for the general assembly, it ought not replicate this article. I would expect such an article to be about the 2nd legislative assembly to be about what legislation was debated, what notable things happened, etc. Agent 86 21:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Eventually the articles on the Legislative Assemblies will get there, it's been tough slogging through in my limited time to get the 700 some odd Alberta MLA stubs done, as well as riding profiles up to date and other Alberta politics related infrastructure. --Cloveious 06:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not an issue of them getting done. It's an issue that both sets of articles are pretty much the same thing. Agent 86 06:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No they are not, The Canadian federal election, 1867 is not the same as the 1st Canadian Parliament. Elections and Legislatures are connected yes, but the same, no. When the articles are moved beyond stub form Elections and Legislative Assemblies will diverge. --Cloveious 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These are separate-but-related articles, and there's no need for a merger.  CJCurrie 00:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not miss my point. I know the difference between an election and a legislature. I agree that Canadian federal election, 1867 and 1st Canadian Parliament are different articles. However, when I first came across the articles in question, they were almost (but not quite) identical. If they can be revised so as to be distinct articles, I have no qualms about them not being merged. I would even suggest that if that happens, then the "merge" template can be removed. However, a month has gone by and nothing has changed, so I'm not going to be the one to remove the tag.
 * (Please don't take that as a challenge to meet some arbitrary deadline to get things done, I know these things take time. My only point is to say why I'm not the one to remove the tag.). Agent 86 22:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not missing your point, I just think it's a hasty decision to put merge tags up. My vision for the Legislature series of articles is to eventually have each one present a summary of the record of administration between periods of the writ, that means a branch off point to major legislation, scandles and debates or other events that may have occurred in that legislature. The reason why they look similar right now, is because the tables for the elected members were copied from the general elections rather then re-inventing the wheel. --Cloveious 09:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I am wrong, but I do believe you missed my point. On the Canadian wikipedians' notice board, you summarized the issue as "Are elections and legislatures the same same and should they be merged." My issue is not that elections and legislatures are the same thing, my issue is that both articles are pretty much carbon copies of each other. I really don't object to there being separate articles if they are consistent with the purported subject matter of their title, but please be fair in characterizing the issue when soliciting comments. Agent 86 08:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree per CJCurrie. Ardenn  00:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not merge per Cloveious. --Usgnus 21:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)