Talk:2011 Saskatchewan general election

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 10% 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. In a general sense, if the purpose of the section requires an extensive (and awkwardly worded) explanation to explain its purpose, you should question whether it ought to be created at all. Vietminh (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Target seat sections are standard Wikipedia practice for every election in almost every province and federally. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I said pretty much the same thing over at the Ontario election page. Bkissin (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Article conventions are not a justification for keeping unsourced and POV material in an article, WP operates on WP policies and not article conventions. The material I removed asserted a POV without attribution (saying certain political parties are targeting certain ridings), included information without sourcing (Original Research), and was in general poorly structured with confusing wording. All of these are atypical and completely justifiable reasons for removing content. If the content is going to go back into the article these problems have to be addressed, article content has to meet basic editing guidelines, and sourcing is the most basic you can get. Vietminh (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I restored per format and discussion at the page listed above by Bkissin Vietminh (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

SK Grits to focus on leader in campaign
Is Twitter an approved source? According to " http://twitter.com/#!/SaskLiberals/status/121738098584469504 ", the Liberal's strategy is to focus all their resources on a single candidate: leader Ryan Bater. BIG implications on regional table format and the overall summary table! What does the WikiProject Saskatchewan think? – Jwkozak91 (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the party's endorsed Twitter, so it's an official news release. I have been assuming the Liberals were waiting until after the drop of the writ to announce their candidates. After all, we don't know how many candidates there will be until nomination day. Normally columns are only created in tables if they can be filled, which means for elections, they are only created for parties that are running close to a fill slate in that region. I say that the Liberal columns be removed all together. 117Avenue (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to be that drastic just yet! :-) We should leave the Grit columns alone 'till nomination deadline day. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

We have a deadline! According to Elections Saskatchewan, nomination paperwork must be in order and filed by Saturday, October 22 at 2:00pm CST to be on the ballot on Nov. 7. I think the wikipage deadline should be the final ".pdf" list published by Elections SK on Monday the 24th or Tuesday the 25th. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Liberals are running in 7 of 12 Saskatoon ridings, that table should have a Liberal column. 117Avenue (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete the column, someone else did! I'll restore it anyway. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, if we look to other provincial election pages this is not the case. There were many sections in Ontario for example where minor parties in Ontario ran full slates or near full slates but overall they ran few candidates so it didn't make sense. It also makes the page look messy due to inconsistency. The Liberals are running 9 out of 58 candidates and just barely over half in Saskatoon, they shouldn't have a column anywhere. 192.54.242.165 (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you understand what the term "full slate" means? Because you have contradicting statements, "ran full slates or near full slates" contradicts "overall they ran few candidates". 117Avenue (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about different regions. For example the Libertarians ran a full slate just east of Toronto, but overall ran few candidates. Thats why they don't get a column. The Liberals are running 1/6th of a full slate, and just over half in Saskatoon. They don't deserve a column anywhere, and it makes the charts inconsistent. Its also not seen on other election pages in Canada anywhere, it really makes no sense. 192.54.242.165 (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why they couldn't, in federal elections the BQ get a column in regions they run in, but not in others. This isn't a question about the notability of the party, or the party's influence in the election, it is about table format. If there is only one party in the Other column, then the column doesn't need to be named Other. 117Avenue (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)