Talk:2011 Manitoba general election/Archive 1

Grammar
Alternate vs. Alternative: Both words can be use adjectives and come from the Latin word alter, meaning "other."

Alternate means "set up or following by turns, one after the other" or "a substitute or second" or "every other in a series." The adverb form is alternately.
 * Example: The captains alternately chose players for their respective teams. (Following by turns)

Alternative refers to or implies a choice between two things. As a noun, it refers to the other choice. The adverb form is alternatively.
 * Example: If the flight is grounded, our alternative is to travel by train. (The other choice)

Less vs. fewer: see Fewer vs. less.

A leadership "race" sounds like we're talking about runners or horses. It isn't a race to the finish line; it is an election where a group of voters makes an informed (we hope) decision after considering the issues and the weaknesses and strengths of the candidates. Ground Zero | t 12:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of future tense for events expected or planned
Someone -- User talk:117Avenue -- was adding far-fetched nonsense to the first sentence regarding the expected date of the election. It might be useful for that person to look at the definition of the auxiliary verb "will" and see that it can mean:
 * will --aux.v. Past tense would (wd)
 * 2. Used to indicate likelihood or certainty: You will regret this.
 * 5. Used to indicate intention: I will too if I feel like it.
 * 8. Used to indicate probability or expectation: That will be the messenger ringing.
 * (source -- American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company)

However, for those who know only one meaning of the word "will," I changed the wording to "scheduled." That should be clear to everyone, including those with a limited grasp of English. --Skol fir (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that 117 can be a little animated in terms of his editing. That being said I think scheduled reads a lot better. Regardless this election has been set already as the parties are preparing for the October 4th election as can be found on . Krazytea ( talk ) 20:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The only interactions I have had with 117Avenue, have left me doubting his/her sincerity. "Frivolous" would be a better adjective. He/she seems to have a penchant for making a mockery of articles, but that is only my limited observation so far. He might be a joker, but that does not excuse putting drivel into articles. --Skol fir (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing I added was nonsense. I was actually following the example of the Next Ontario general election, and practicing a Wikipedia policy. We know that if there is a motion of no confidence or an early dissolution of parliament, an election can come earlier than scheduled, it just happened in the federal government. Also, there is an exemption in the Canadian constitution, that if our country were to go to war, elections can be suspended. WP:CRYSTAL is a policy that isn't enforced enough. 117Avenue (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A motion of no-confidence cannot be passed in Manitoba because of the majority NDP government, it would take a schism of the NDP in order for a no confidence to pass which is incredibly unlikely. In addition to that, a few more reasons it will not be held in spring are because of the aforementioned federal election, and because by convention the only time elections are held are in spring and fall when registered voters are most likely to show up at the polls. Generally speaking since the affirmation of liberal world politics since WWII, democratic states like Canada are unlikely to be pulled into some drastic war (barring alien invasion or Russia of course). If you were in the province and spoke to members of all three parties (as I have) then you would know that they are all preparing for the October 4th election nor does anyone intend to do otherwise. Thus I would conclude that it is beyond unlikely that the government would somehow reschedule the established date of the election. Krazytea ( talk ) 21:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I should add that in fairness were the election to be more than three years away the statement could be plausible but the fact is the election is now well into the planning and preparation stage. This is the reason why it it should be moved into the scheduled framing. Krazytea ( talk ) 21:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware of what is taking place, and I don't know of any time that a majority government has fallen to non-confidence. I want you to be aware of Wikipedia's policies, and that we do not say events will take place, because there is always some extraneous event that no one may be able to think of, however unlikely (like alien invasion, or the end of the world). I have no problem with saying that something is scheduled to occur. 117Avenue (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I for one am glad that is settled. Krazytea ( talk ) 06:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Why can't I sort by Date of Polling?
The table listing Manitoba_general_election,_2011 cannot be sorted by date? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it has been since September 19. 117Avenue (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Election summary "results"
I move to support the addition of the election summary box. The information in this box is relative to the article and does not pertain solely to results. Krazytea ( talk ) 06:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't totally understand why Rrius has taken it upon himself to remove these tables. I thought (like the leaders in the infobox) it was practice to list the current state of the jurisdiction. 117Avenue (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Riding numbers and incumbency
Just opening up this discussion before I revert but I disagree with adding the riding numbers stating their alphabetical placing. Also I am not sure about the incumbency additions, seeing as a person now has to campaign in a renamed and reterritorialized riding they are now campaigning in parts of a riding that they are not an incumbent in a lost some of the incumbency value. Even though they retain parts of the riding they are not by definition the riding's incumbent. Especially based on the fact the riding is new. However I will put this up for discussion, will revert or leave it if the numbers add up one way or the other. Krazytea ( talk ) 04:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have removed the numbers if it were an easy edit, but they were done at the same time as other edits. No other article lists the numbers. 117Avenue (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For the district numbers, I was using the model of New Brunswick general election, 2010 and earlier elections in NB. When I work with the riding information, I find it helpful to have the riding number at hand, and I thought others would find it helpful, too.  For the incumbency, I agree that redistribution makes it challenging to assign candidate and party incumbency.  Candidates often choose to campaign in new districts where they still have recognition--their incumbency still retains some value.  On balance, I thought it more helpful for readers looking at a specific riding to see that a given candidate was a sitting MLA.  For party incumbency, there's no sure way to get the numbers to add up, which is why I left it alone--perhaps a mistake.  Perhaps the least contentious way to note party incumbency is to re-distribute the results from 2007, poll by poll, to the new boundaries, but the numbers still wouldn't necessarily add up to standings at dissolution. Tunborough (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think obvious differences between N.B. and Manitoba riding numbers is that the MB numbers dictate their alphabetical placing while the N.B. numbers illustrate something else entirely. In most of the new ridings there is information on those distinctive wiki pages as to what parts of the riding where located prior to redistribution 2008. I have no qualms with notations being made there in a history section. However, to say that a specific person is an incumbent in the boxes is not entirely true. Secondly the boxes are there to provide a quick bite of information in 2-3 words not any elongated explanation. That explanation can be found on the wiki pages history section. Those are my two cents anyways and unless there are others who feel differently I do not think it is quite the time to stray away from this. Krazytea ( talk ) 05:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ridings in wrong categories? For example, Swan River is in "North" but its actually a Southwest Riding. And - the incumbent solution is as simple as showing NAME (Old Riding) - as it sits now, the information is not horribly useful and requires a person to do a lot work when they just want a simple answer - like who of these people was elected last election. 206.45.96.237 (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature
Elections Manitoba calls them "electoral districts", not "ridings". Should we not follow suit? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Target Seat Section
FI have removed this section, it is arbitrary in that whoever made it decided that any riding that has was won with less than a 15% difference between the 1st and 2nd party is therefore a "target" for that 2nd party. First of all, if you win a riding by a 10-15% margin that is actually quite large and wouldn't be considered a "swing riding" at all. Secondly, swing ridings are usually calculated in the absolute numbers of votes, so if the riding was won by say 'less than a 1000 votes' last election, it could be "targeted" by the other party. But percentages don't effectively communicate this information. Thirdly, the list does not make take into account that many races are in fact 3 way races and many ridings may be "targeted" by more than 1 party. Lastly, the list does not point to any sources which say these ridings are specifically being targeted by the parties in question, and hence are Original Research. Please do not re-create these types of lists on future election pages. Vietminh (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed per discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ontario_general_election,_2011#Target_Seat_Section Vietminh (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)