Talk:2023 Alberta general election

Alberta Party in Infobox
It's time folks. The Alberta Party is now polling exclusively below 10%, well below their 2019 support, and now struggles to maintain a 5% average. They have sub-30 candidates and as of writing this, looking at the Elections Alberta page post-candidate deadline, they may have sub-20. They are not expected to win any seats, including their former stronghold of Calgary-Elbow, and very unlikely to win their leader's seat in Brooks-Medicine Hat where Smith is running. It's time we take them out of the infobox. Jebussez (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If a party can't run in at least 50% of the ridings, they shouldn't be in the infobox (unless they have seats or are polling well).-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree. They received over 5% of the vote last election. That is our usual test for inclusion before the election occurs. They should remain in the infobox until election results are known. If they recive less than 5% this election, and elect no one, we will remove them then. It is not for us to predict that will happen though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * At their current polling levels, which to simplify we will say are about 5%, they'd be lucky to hit 2% of the vote province-wide given their lack of candidates and ability to have voters actually vote for them. That's mathematics. You cannot find a credible non-partisan source that claims they have a chance at winning anywhere in the 19 seats they're running. I just don't see the justification, they did well in 2019 I agree, but it is very clear they're not going to catch up to that result this time, let alone win a seat. Jebussez (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not mathematics, it is prognostication. It is still mathematically possible that they receive 5%. It is also completely possible, that they win seat(s). It might be unlikely, but that isn't the same thing. As a general rule for Canadian elections articles, once a party has a seat or over 5% in the last election (2019), we do not reassess their inclusion until after the results are known (for 2023). The Greens and WIP were removed because they never warranted inclusion in the first place (as they didn't have a seat or 5% in the 2019 election). There is no need to look at polls for the Alberta Party, and we shouldn't. Their results from the last election mean they are included here.  If once the result are know, they have won a seat or 5% of the 2023 vote, they will be included post-election. If they don't, they will likely be removed post-election.  Though, I guess we could also decide to include them to show the decline of that party. It is a bad idea for us to start second guessing whether established parties are going to do well, before results are known. We shouldn't decide that. It is a different consideration for parties without a track record, or claiming they are about to emerge.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I accept your reasoning to a degree regarding the previous results given I've spent some time looking through previous pages and see it is a consistent standard. While I disagree with that standard and believe we should set a new one, I'll accept the status quo if the majority of editors don't wish to mess with it. I won't accept them staying in the infobox however if they are, as I believe, entirely DOA (no significant vote share, no seat) even if they end third in votes - that is not a practice I've seen elsewhere, such as the 2011 Saskatchewan election with the Liberals or 2020 New Brunswick election with the NDP. Jebussez (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The standard on Wikipedia is to go by reliable sources to determine what are the major parties running in the election. Are any reliable sources treating the Alberta Party as anything other than a bunch of also-rans? No, of course not. This is a two-horse race. We're not prognosticating, we are just reflecting reality by believing the Alberta Party does not belong in the infobox.-- Earl Andrew - talk 12:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What polls or RS specifically do you say we should look at to decide to exclude the Alberta Party? There is a reason we don't go down this road for established parties that received 9% of the vote in the last election. What test could we apply, that isn't just us substituting our opinion? The Alberta Party has received 5% in many polls (above in a few, below in a few more).  The last poll has them at 5%. Is your argument that we should remove them because in your opinion they are an "also ran" party? Doesn't seem like a good reason to deviate from the general rule. What is the harm in including this established party in the infobox at least until results are known?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think if we were to do a random sampling of election news stories from mainstream news outlets, we would find that the Alberta Party is rarely mentioned if at all. And yes, Abacus has them at 5%, but Mainstreet has them at 2%. If we want to rely on polling alone, then maybe we could wait a bit to see if their average dips below 4% consistently, which I suspect it will as they're not running many candidates.-- Earl Andrew - talk 18:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that for parties that have proven that they can elect candidates, or who have recieved over 5% in the last election, we shouldn't second guess them before the election. Beyond being rather subjective, it is a waste of our time. It isn't useful for us to debate which RS we should look at, and which we should ignore. It isn't useful for us to debate whick polls are significant. They received 9% in the last election. That should be the end of the question until election results prove different. Personally, I would prefer not to debate this everytime an previously established party seems to be having a difficult election year. Why do you think we should deviate from the long established general rule?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The over-arching rule on Wikipedia is to base our decisions on Reliable Sources. When it comes to edge cases, it makes sense to go by long established rules, but I don't think it makes sense in this instance. It is so clear cut in my opinion that the AP does not belong in the infobox, that I didn't think it would even be controversial. However, you disagree which is why we're having this debate.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I expect the Alberta Party will fall short. Still I would rather not decide that based on my own prediction, or any of our views about how "clear cut" that prediction is. The general rule is worth adhering to. If we scrap it we will have a lot more of these debates every election cycle. Frankly, I don't think it is useful for us to argue about which RS and which polls to rely on (which to ignore) when making these calls. Where a party has a seat or received 5% in the last election, I am happy to provide the party the benefit of the doubt until the election. That is my understanding of the prevailing consensus on Canadian Election articles. It avoids us debating polls and RS, and shields us from POV allegations where we decide to "delegitimize" an established party. If you are right and they fall short, it sounds like they will be removed on May 29, 2023. At that time, the result will be clear and plain. It will not be subject to our own bias and ability to gaze into crystal balls. So again, I don't see the harm in having them remain, until results are known, as tradition would dictate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the real issue is that they are entering the election without any representation and according to all respected seat projection models have zero chance of winning any representation. It's standard convention in Canadian elections to include third, fourth or even fifth parties in info boxes if they have seats in parliament or are believed to have decent odds of winning at least some representation, but not if they have zero seats and will likely finish with zero (and particularly not if they aren't running a full slate of candidates). What's next, the Libertarian and Communist parties of Canada in federal election infoboxes? If you go back, the Alberta Party was only first included when they actually won a seat in 2012. If they had least had one incumbent it would be different, but including them gives status to a party whose support and prospects don't seem to warrant it. Alberta seems very much to be developing a party system similar to Saskatchewan (strict duopoly, orange versus blue). Chris Gilmore
 * It is settled that parties which are on over ~5% (and in this case, almost 10%) at the last election should be shown. PPC was shown for 2021 for example. I don't see why this is of much importance whatsoever, we are merely respecting generally accepted precedent. If they do fail to win any seats and get 3% or so, they will be removed. That has not happened yet, and our first source should be the last election, in which the Alberta party got over 9%, which is certainly enough to be included. Quinby  ( talk ) 18:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Alright, the Alberta Party has received less than 5% of the vote; closer to 0.7%, actually. I think it's safe to say that they can be removed from the infobox now, right? — twotwofourtysix (talk &#124;&#124; edits) 11:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have more than enough results to show they are going to fall well short of 5%. They also haven't won a seat. Sometimes I find the argument persuasive that we should include a party that declines (is effectively no longer competitive) to show its fall. The infobox is supposed to be a summary after all, and part of the story is the triumph of some parties, and the fall of others. In this case though, I think it would be inappropriate to include them, even for that reason, because it looks like the Alberta Green Party has actually received more votes than the Alberta Party. It would be inappropriate to include the Greens, as they were never competitive (and haven't been included previously). It would also be inappropriate to include the Alberta Party (with 0.72%) and then exclude the Greens (with 0.8%). So the best solution seems to be to remove them all together and just have the NDP and UCP in the infobox post election. If four years from now the Alberta Party happens to rise from the ashes and win a seat or recover something of their previous support, I think that would be a basis for us to reconsider, but we will just have to wait and see on that.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Leader's Seat
Once the election started they don't have a seat. They only have a riding they are running in. 2001:1970:5A67:6500:D8EA:E75A:9183:B1 (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, in theory. But they do maintain their offices, staff, some duties, and pay. In any event, "leader's seat" is what is included in the template. Here is likely not the place to change it. Doing so would likely need a broader consensus at WP:CANADA or WP:WPE&R.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Debates Section, and perhaps Campaign
A section about the leaders' debate, and any other prominent debates would be a useful addition. I have added the May 18 debate to the timeline, and created a stub of a section about it. Please help expand it. Perhaps it should be incorporated into a larger section about the campaign. Thanks.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Election Map
I have commented out/hid the map. This isn't needed until we have results. There is no need for a blank map of Alberta. Also there is no need to perpetuate the assumption that only NDP and UCP will win seats, even if that is the most likely outcome.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's actually not perpetuating any assumption. Talleyrand6 (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When you include only two parties, it assumes only two parties will win seats. There is no need for Wikipedia to make that assumption at this time. There is no need for a map to be included in the article at all at this point. There are no results to show in it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. I have never seen anyone care about making an 'assumption' (when it's true) on a map. You're being a silly goose. Grow up. Talleyrand6 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So you admit it is an assumption. One that is not WP:NPOV. You do not have consensus to include this. I am not going to edit war with you about it, but I recommend you remove it until you obtain such a consensus. Ignoring the arguments and resorting to name calling, even as light as "silly goose" is not particularly helpful.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus for YOUR rule. Are you Alberta's Wiki Hitler or something? Since when did you have any authority to make up your own consensus. I gave you two examples that disprove your petulant authoritarianism and you proceed to lambast me with nonsensical quibbles regarding my word choice. Since when did a light bit of tomfoolery become basis upon which we judge the necessity of a cartographic product, eh? Talleyrand6 (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CON. You need to establish consensus for inclusion. It isn't the other way around.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Voting closes in five hours. Do we really need to rush to include this map? One that assumes a certain outcome?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * every predictor site has indicated only 2 parties will win seats, 338Canada for example says that the Alberta party will receive at best 13% of the vote in a seat. it's common practice to not include parties in maps that either A. don't win seats or B. fail to reach 5% of the vote, it seems really petty to continue to remove the map because you believe differently to the consensus on wikipedia. Matthew McMullin (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I expect Alberta Party won't win seats. General consensus, on Canadian election articles, is that parties that have received over 5% of the vote in the previous election (or have a seat when the election is called) are included in the infobox. My point is that the map should reflect that prior to results showing the contrary... or we should just wait for the results. WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL mean that we shouldn't get into the business of predicting elections.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * the map is representative of the final outcome and not the beforehand results as the wikibox you're saying shows. no party regardless of what it got in the last election is included in the map, not even at the 2019 election when the Alberta party got over 9% of the vote did it receive a space in the map 'because it did not have any seats Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but at this stage we don't know the final outcome, and WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL prohibit us from guessing. Hence the general consensus that has formed about Canadian election articles and inclusion in infoboxes. Well, I see has added this back again. I am not going to violate WP:3RR to make the point. I appreciate the edit summary including I agree that the alberta party should be included, but im not sure how to do that. I also agree with the principle that it is might be "useful" or at least nice to have a map included on election day. My primary concern remains including maps that suggest an outcome. After an election it is fine to exclude a party from a map if they don't win seats. The problem is assuming they won't ahead of time. Predictor sites like 338Canada are free to predict elections. As an encyclopedia, we aren't supposed to.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree we shouldn't be predicting things, but unless we've got a better map alternative then the value of having a map at all outweighs the minuscule chance that the alberta party wins seats, IMO Alexcs114 (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but we shouldn't rely on Wikicommons map makers to decide what maps are used here. WP:POLICY applies to us, and not to those operating only on the commons. Not all map makers know or agree with our rules.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * wait wait wait, so you're saying you don't want the map included at al??? not even after the results are final? I'll be brutally honest and say that's an incredibly bad faith position to have and it lacks logic Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying it is fine to include a map with results after we have results, as I always have. This isn't an issue after we have results. I am saying we shouldn't include maps that violate Wikipedia policies before we have results, just because one is available.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * now you're being petty, the map doesn't violate anything, there have been numerous examples in the past of a map being present before an election begins, hell even elections as far away as the 2024 American presidential election have a map! Matthew McMullin (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not being petty at all, and would appreciate WP:AGF. You are just missing my point or otherwise arguing that we should ignore WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL and the general consensus around infoboxes that is long established for Canadian election articles. I have been clear about my objections for days now. And the response I have gotten from some, is essentially "so whatever" lets just ignore those objections since WP:ILIKEIT, or invitations to look at WP:OTHERSTUFF which is irrelevant to the point I have raised. If you think it isn't off side of these policies or the previous consensus, I would love to hear why. I haven't so far. Are you arguing that we should accept 338Canada as a WP:RS for who will win seats prior to an election? Saying doing so is not the sort of prognostication which CRYSTAL warns against? Look, unless someone else removes the map, it is going to stay there, since I have said I am not about to violate 3RR. But I am concerned about this sort of appeal to expediency becoming a precedent. Wikipedia is not supposed to signal to readers "these are the parties our editors think will win". I don't think that complies with NPOV. You are free to disagree, but please don't call me petty.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean I make maps for wiki commons, but I also contribute to the wikipedia by adding those maps to it (and I also make text contributions when I feel like it, see my page for more). I agree that knowing policy is important, however it seems your above comment is more of an ad-hominenm about map makers in general? Not sure how it addresses the actual issue at hand? Anyway, I think all wikipedians get a vote in these sorts of matters, regardless of whether their contributions primarily focus on maps or text Alexcs114 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not meant as an adhominenm. Just an observation that policies like WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL, in fact all WP:POLICY applies to Wikipedia and not to the commons. So Wikipedia editors not commons editors should decide what go in articles. I don't doubt many commons contributors (eg. "map makers"), also edit articles. Not all do. I am simply pointing out that these are different roles. Wikipedia editors have to follow WP:POLICY, aside from when we can ignore them. Commons contributors have different rules. So just because something is in the commons, doesn't mean we should include it in an article. Collectively, wikipedia editors serve a gate-keeping function to decide whether something in the commons should be used in an article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fair, but I think everybody involved in this situation is involved as an editor to Wikipedia, so IDK how it's topical Alexcs114 (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The creator of the map is currently indef blocked. As far as I know, they can edit maps on the commons, including this one.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tallyrand is site banned which means according to WP:SBAN he is blocked indefinitely from editing any page or media relating to wikipedia Matthew McMullin (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Site bans apply Wikipedia wide (ie articles, talk pages, templates etc). A global ban applies to all Wikimedia projects including Wikimedia Commons.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken then, he received a global ban Matthew McMullin (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, we both are. Apparently, there is another thing called a Global Lock.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)