Talk:2011 Ontario general election/Archive 2

Target Seat Section
I 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. Vietminh (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually a party would try and target ridings they lost by 10%. I do agree with you though, parties could just as easily be targeting a riding they lost by 20% because there is no longer an incumbent there for instance. Newfoundlander&#38;Labradorian (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but our conclusions are Original Research without a source that identifies either that a party has "targeted" a riding, or some criteria that delineate a threshold for "targeting" a riding. I am confident in saying it would probably be difficult to find either such things, and as you point out, the reasons for targeting are highly circumstantial and not as easy as listing a percentage. Vietminh (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The title "Target Seats" may be a misnomer, perhaps a title along the lines of swing riding's? or close riding's? would be more appropriate.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The action was taken without consultation of other members, only opening up discussion about it after the fact. If you looked at previous articles 1 2, the convention has been to have this section in the article. While it is true that parties do not list their targeted ridings, the point remains that these close races will be looked at closely by not only the winning party, but the second place party. No party is going to come out and say they are targeting a specific riding, because it gives their opponents a chance to build resources against it. It is up to the punditry (Pundit's Guide etc.) to show which races are the close ones, so that readers know which ones to look at come election day. If you look at CBC news in the past couple days ( a reliable source, wouldn't you say?) they have given their "races to watch". Is that not also Original Research? Additionally, I don't understand. Wouldn't the 15% threshold be a clear criteria for "targeting"? Mostly, I'm upset that you made a large-scale deletion without being aware of previous conventions and arriving at consensus first.

Bkissin (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you are offended by the move I made, but I have opened up discussion here so I don't really see what the problem is. I am aware of the convention, but Wikipedia operates on policies not article conventions so that is a moot point. As it is, the section is unsourced (WP:CITE) whilst asserting the POV that the parties in question are "targeting" specific ridings, this is a false attribution (as surely as if we said "party x supports position y" and didn't provide any source to back up that claim). And since we have no source that says that any party is targeting any specific riding it is also original research (WP:NOR). Most importantly, the 15% threshold for inclusion is also original research, it is a number plucked out of nowhere and we have no source which defines a >15% threshold as either a swing riding or a targeted riding. It does not matter if you or I think it is a clear criteria, we need a source that says that such criteria is a) that or b) exists. Otherwise we don't know whether the article is presenting a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). If a section such as this is going to be included it needs a name that does not assert positions of the different political parties without sourcing, and it needs to have a threshold for inclusion that is determined by sources and not what we think "makes sense". Also, now that discussion is under way please do not revert the changes I made, 3 editors have expressed an opinion agreeing that the section has problems and needs to be changed. There is no consensus to revert while discussion is underway. Also given that the section is unsourced I am completely justified in deleting it, esp. when it is asserting a POV.
 * If sources cannot be found I would support restoration of the section if it does not include any text which asserts that the parties are "targeting" anything, and is not structured in such a way that it precludes the possibility of a 3 way race or multiple parties concentrating on a single riding. I will also comment that "ridings to watch" information isn't very useful after the election results have been published, so the section needs to be structured in such a way that it remains relevant even after the election. Otherwise the information is best included on the individual riding page itself.

Vietminh (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please comment here and do not restore section until consensus has been achieved. Issues have been raised, 3 editors agree there are issues, and they need to be discussed and acted on. That is the proper procedure, if you do not want to follow it then please step back and allow those who do, to do so. Reverting the page will not make the issue disappear. Vietminh (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you that the section should not be restored until consensus has been reached, anonymous IPs aren't going to look at the talk page, nor are they going to look at edit summaries. I resent your accusation that I am responsible for the reverts. If you look at the edit history, you see who is responsible. I know the proper procedure in these instances, and have acted accordingly. Vale of Glamorgan makes a good attempt at compromise here, and this article has been plagued with enough petty squabbles to choke a cat. Let's try and find a sensible solution that everyone is happy with. Bkissin (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for following them, it is much appreciated. The first comment I made falsely attributed the revert to you, which I apologize for. The second comment was directed at the user who was making the reverts, I forgot to delete the original comment after I checked back to see who was actually doing it. So again, I apologize about that. Also it was not the IP that was doing the reverts, it was Ottawahitech. See my comments below for what Vale of Glamorgan has suggested. Vietminh (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps rather than title the section "target seats" it should be called "marginal seats" which is the usual name given in Westminster style elections for seats that are below a certain margin of victory (hence the term "marginal")? This wouldn't be "original research" but a straight calculation of the margin and just because it's a marginal doesn't mean it's a target (and vice versa, as party's certainly do sometimes prioritize seats they lost by a large margin due to incumbent retirements, star candidates and/or local circumstances and other factors). In any case, the target seat list has existed on almost every federal and provincial general election page in the past few years so I think there needs to be a discussion *before* removing it and given that the election is tomorrow we might as well restore it for now and make a decision about future pages instead. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can live with that, if others can! Thanks for at least trying to find a compromise, Vale of Glamorgan. Bkissin (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, that name is much better. I have removed the supplementary text which explained the table (not needed as the structure is self evident), and I removed the bit about the 15%. I'm assuming whoever made the table picked the 10 most marginal seats anyway, so there is no need to assert a maximum threshold to begin with. Vietminh (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Why can't I sort by Date of Polling?
The table listing Ontario_general_election,_2011 cannot be sorted by the date. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can no longer sort the table Ontario_general_election,_2011 and am wondering if this is because I am using a different system, or whether someone at Wikipedia changed this table? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was able to sort it yesterday, but the arrows looked different. I have been noticing a few glitches going through Wikipedia, hopefully it is only temporary. 117Avenue (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Date of Polling
Is there no way to standardize the dates in Ontario_general_election,_2011 so that the list can be sorted? The list is just about useless the way it stands now. Any wikipedian can insert their favorite Poll at the top of the list regardless of date (some of  the Polls were conducted in previous years). Ottawahitech (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The most recent poll is always added (or should always be added) to the top of the list. Looking at the list now it is listed in order of date.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. 117Avenue (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ottawahitech (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Minority government?
It's a little premature to say that the Liberals have formed a minority government. My understanding would be that this is something that needs to be negotiated over the coming days in consultation with the Lieutenant Governor. A coalition government could be formed, for example. -Dhodges (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It should say "will form" rather than "formed". Techically of course, the lieutenant-governor has discretion to choose a government regardless of election results.  McGuinty will not have formed a minority government until his new cabinet is sworn in.  But reliable sources indicate it will be a minority government.  TFD (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)