Talk:2004 Alberta general election

Untitled
any polls?

== I don't have any. I'm wondering if the stuff about redistribution should be moved to its own page. Once the election starts in serious, there will be a lot of content that people will want to add, and a lot of people will come here to read about the election. This redistribution stuff will be a little too detailed for most people. Comments?Kevintoronto 22:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've now done this. I hope no-one objects. Kevintoronto 16:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course not - thanks for your help, Kevin.Rupertslander 00:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Final results
I changed the reference to seats elected by the Liberals from 17/16 to 16, and the Tories from 61/62 to 62.

I think it's not really accurate to say the Liberals were elected in Edmonton Castle Downs, only to have the election 'changed.' There was only one vote. People didn't vote again and change their minds afterward. The recounts are part of the process, and when all was said and done, the Tories came out with more votes in that riding.

Louarab 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Riding Candidates
Some of the tables are listing the Alberta Alliance, some the Alberta Greens and some both. This should be consistent. Alliance is more entitled IMHO as they have a seat in the legislature and are higher in the polls. However, perhaps both of their candidates should be listed in other as I don't think there is room for 5 parties + an other and an incumbent column. Thoughts? -- Jord 21:52, 6 Nov 2004

I'd really like to avoid favouring any parties - all should have balanced representation. Perhaps we need to reorient the candidate tables so that the parties are listed vertically, and the ridings horizontally. It might require a few more tables, but would keep things clear (similar to the "Regional Breakdown" table at the bottom of the page). GrantNeufeld 00:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've noted from the Elections Alberta candidates site that the PCs, Alliance and NDP are running candidates in every seat, while the Liberals are in 82/83. The Greens are running in 49 and the So Creds in 42.  It seems to me that we should remove the Greens from the column is half of their spots are blank and it would make the other columns wider and more readable.  If there are no objections, I'll do this within the next day or so.  -- Jord 02:07 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The "other" column is already pretty awkward as it is. I'm reorienting the tables to match the Results and Regional Breakdown tables - that should make things clearer. GrantNeufeld 15:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't really think that this is the solution, what is currently in use is the standard across all Canadian election sites! -- Jord 23:45 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is in the process of being fixed. Please be patient. (see first two regions) Earl Andrew 00:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had modified the candidate tables to take out the dead links for any candidates who did not have pages, to discourage people from making the same mistake I did (creating a separate article for a candidate who was not significant enough to warrant a separate page). Earl Andrew reverted those changes because "many of the candidates do deserve articles, and especially the incumbents!". I'd like to suggest that the many candidates who have not been previously elected (and who otherwise do not merit a separate article) should have their dead links removed. GrantNeufeld 00:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Greens will be bumped out of the 5th slot if the Social Credit Party fields more candidates. Earl Andrew 01:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Independents - umm... it is very difficult to read blue text on a navy blue background. Maybe this could be changed to the bgcolor=gainsboro that is used for indepedents in the federal elections pages so that it would be easier to read. Any objections? Kevintoronto 10:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see any navy blue. Looks like light grey to me. Earl Andrew 20:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've changed the colour from "lightgray" to "lightgrey", which changes the colour I see from navy blue to, well, light gra/ey. I wonder if others had this problem.Kevintoronto 14:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I had the same problem and made the same change to the second results table (regional). -- Jord 16:50 15 Nov 2004 UTC

I've reoriented the first candidates table - Northern Alberta. Before going to all the work of reorienting the rest of the tables, are there any problems with this new format? GrantNeufeld 15:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, first it's not consistent between the regions on the basis of which parties are shown, and secondly you have divided the region up in two which does not go well with me. Earl Andrew 22:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Earl, not only does it require splitting regions (probably in three when you get to the cities) but the method we have in use here is the standard used across Canadian election articles. -- Jord 23:47 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Candidate Table format
I am pasting the table that Grant had changed to here...

Northern Alberta
... this table has some pros and cons.

PROS: It allows us to include the Green and So Cred parties which are contesting ~ half of the ridings.

CONS: It causes us to spilt regions into 2 or more tables; it is of a different format used in other provincial and federal election articles in Canada.

Thoughts on which we should use and, if we keep the current model, how we accomodate the Green and So Cred parties?

-- Jord 23:54 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * My view is that if a party has nominated candidates in 50% of the ridings with a maximum of five parties listed. (leaving a column for "other") I believe that would include the Greens in this case but not the Socreds. Earl Andrew 00:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The Greens have nominated candidates in 49/83 ridings (59.0%) whereas the So Creds have nominated in 42/83 ridings (50.6%). A difference of 7 out of 83 ridings seems to be a bit narrow for a cut off.  And, both break the 50% threshold you propose.  -- Jord 02:35 18 Nov 04 (UTC)


 * I wonder if another alternative might be eliminating the incumbent column and making incumbents italic? -- Jord 20:40 19 Nov 04 (UTC)


 * 7 may not be much, but it's enough. When I was making the 1979 tables (which are far from complete) there was a smaller number seperation the Rhino Party and the Union Populaire (within Quebec) but I picked the top 5 parties anyways which was the Union Populaire- and not the rhinos (even though the rhinos had a higher popular vote). Earl Andrew 22:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the Rhinos is a rather different story though -- they were running as a joke. You are talking about two serious parties here:  the Greens which seem to be running fifth in opinion polls and the So Creds who governed the province for 36 years.  Mind you the So Creds are a far cry from their glory of those days, they did garner 7% of the popular vote as recently at 1997.  I think you have to either include both the Greens and the So Creds or neither.  I favour neither, however I think choosing one over the other is a mistake. -- Jord 23:08 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I am strongly against the use of both of them. I'd rather just the greens, but it's no loss to me if they didn't have their own column. Earl Andrew 23:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well whereas it seems to be just the two of thus discussing this it looks like we're trapped in deadlock. Where the tables are already as you describe, we may as well leave it as is.  However, I feel that leaving the Greens there at the expense of the So Creds threatens the neutrality of the article. -- Jord 23:48 19 Nov 04 (UTC)

Results as they come in
I am planning to mark down the winners as they're declared tonight, obviously vote totals will have to wait until tomorrow-ish when 100% are in. Just wanted to chime in and let you know I'll be editting regularly for the evening. If there is anyone else planning to do the same, maybe you could peep up to and we could collaborate rather than two (or more) ending up trying to edit the same thing at the same time. -- Jord 03:00 23 Nov 04 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Earl Andrew.. we split the work up and had the thing updated nearly live! -- Jord 07:33 23 Nov 04 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alberta general election, 2004. 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/20040912015346/http://www.separationalberta.com/ to http://www.separationalberta.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051211143622/http://www.electionsalberta.ab.ca/welcome.html to http://www.electionsalberta.ab.ca/welcome.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)