Talk:Legislative Assembly of British Columbia/Archive 1

Proposing lists-tables of historical legislatures/MLAs
Came here looking to see if there were any categories for MLAs; or for cabinet ministers? Saw the list of the Leg as it is; think it's a good thing for the historical legislatures, 1st-37th; to go on their election pages rather than on new pages perhaps.Skookum1 02:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Article content should not be 38th Parliament only
This should be a general article on the Ledge as an institution; and the table of 38th Parliament is already present via List of British Columbia general elections, in the latest election. It's true that Parliaments are not the same as election returns, so individual Parliaments should be different articles, if need be. In any case, this article should be about the Legislature's history and structure and powers etc. Not about its current composition.Skookum1 21:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Coat of Arms of British Columbia.png
The image File:Coat of Arms of British Columbia.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --15:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For anyone that woudl care to replace it, the French-language Wikipedia has a version that's a photograph of the stained-glass coat of arms in the Ledge that's PD.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The image is in the public domain and no longer requires a fair use rationale to appear in this article. It has been re-added to the infobox. 67.86.75.96 (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sessions
The list of "sessions" included in the article is incorrect. The "sessions" are in fact a list of Parliaments. A session is a division of a Parliament. BC is currently in the 4 session of the 39th Parliament. http://www.leg.bc.ca/39th4th/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.160.109 (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Conservatives don't have stading in the House
John van Dongen is not recognized as a Conservative member. Standings should be 3 independents not 1 BCC and 2 independents. 108.172.8.149 (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Diagram
I'm not going to get into an edit war over this. Hshook isn't respecting the be bold and revert policy and I don't want to get into an editing war over it. This should be taken to the talk page and work it out with the other editors of the page. His diagram is crossbench, it is inconsistent with canadian parliaments. The structure of Canadian parliaments has no crossbench and it is physically set up differently than British and Australian parliaments which have a third side or which bend in a horseshoe like shape. The diagram is inconsistent with the 12 other provincial and terrotorial diagrams as well. In Canadian politics the houses are diagrammed with only two sides, and symetrically or a true representation (as is given in the body of the articles). The last revert summary was "reverting vandalism" which is a stretch. Shabidoo | Talk 12:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry my actions have offended you. I considered it not a very bold edit, and I thought it was you who had to take it to the talk page. We're here now. Anyway, separating the official opposition and other parties (the 'crossbench' even if there is no physical bench there in the chamber) is important to create that distinction (e.g. the NDP/Greens are not a coalition). Not all diagrams everywhere have to be the same, just check out the Australian parliaments for that. The reason I even made changes was that the old diagram had different numbers of rows which at a glance seemed to be the same number. Hshook (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am updating the image without crossbenches so we don't have to go through a big fight. Thanks :) Hshook (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There need not be a fight but a discussion. The diagrams don't need to have the same amount of rows. The rows should be symetrical because in Canadian legislatures the MPs are seated so that the rows on each side are syemtrical in length. These diagrams are also conceptual. The point is to show the weight of the government vs the opposition parties together. A true diagram of the legislatures are placed down further in the rest of the article. Before you redesign the diagram...take a look at the diagrams of the other provincial legislatures and perhaps you will get the concept. Shabidoo | Talk 12:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm coming from the perspective of the reader, I didn't know anything about the BC Parliament or the strength of the parties, so I immediately looked to the diagram, which had rows of identical length. At a glance it appeared to be a hung parliament because the rows were of equal length and so seemed to have the same number. It needed a double take to remove the confusion. If the goal is to show the strength of the opposition vs. the government, then the number of rows should be equal (as in the updated diagram) to give that split-second recognition. It's really a question of layout accuracy to the actual chamber vs. ease of use and I would sway towards the latter. Hshook (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you come across a lot of problems when you deal with parliaments with massive majorities which is common in Canada. There are very few hung parliaments and the information is conveyed in the number of seats anyways. The number of rows cannot be equal when the opposition only makes up 4 seats. Take a look at all of the current diagrams in Canadian provinces and territories:

| |  |  |   |   |

Especially with Saskatchewan and Alberta, a diagram with the same number of rows on each side would be akward and convey less information. Some parliaments have massive majorities others are rather tiny with more or less equal sides. The attempt is to not place more than one party in a collum if at all possible and to place the parties on the opposition side in order of their size (number of seats) from left to right. A user is in the process of working out an algorythm which will automatically make these kinds of diagrams. Shabidoo | Talk 16:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that equal rows with some legislatures would look strange. For Alberta and Saskatchewan, and maybe PEI, differing rows works, but I'm not quite sure about the rest, especially with the seemingly random looking structure of the seats on each side. Hshook (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a version that has both symmetrical rows and columns. Please make sure that any diagram is symmetrical by columns if you think that they must be symmetrical by rows as well. If you still have a problem with it then please revert the image back to Dr. RandomFactors and we can discuss it here and propose alternative diagrams on the talkpage. Shabidoo | Talk 16:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks great and very easy to understand! Thanks for creating that diagram. Hshook (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dr.Randomfactor, Slashme and I have been discussing the australian diagrams. If you (or anyone else here) are interested take a look at Slashme's talk page where there are links to some proposed diagrams and let us know what you think. Shabidoo | Talk 16:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Opposition vs. Confidence and Supply
I suggest putting the Greens into Confidence and Supply category, and the Liberals as "Other Opposition", as Confidence and Supply party is also in opposition. The other option may be putting Confidence and Supply and Other Opposition under a bigger category as "Opposition". Both conventions above are used by pages of many other parliaments (Ireland, Spain, the UK, etc). The Westminster System is shared by Canada and the UK, the particularity of "Official Opposition" should also be reflected in the categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kafari (talk • contribs) 13:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Greens not part of government
Please stop listing the Greens as part of the government. A confidence and supply agreement is not a coalition and the Greens remain an opposition party. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While the Greens are not part of the government and are technically an opposition party, they are also a support partner of the government on matters of confidence and supply. I think there is a case for having the Greens listed in a different category such as "Supported by" or "Confidence and Supply". Minority governments supported by confidence and supply agreements are the norm in the New Zealand Parliament, being one of the few Westminster system parliaments where the House is elected by proportional representation. In the infobox on that page, the government support parties are listed in a separate category above the other opposition parties. This layout makes it clear to the reader how the government has the numbers to govern. Jol123 (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Confidence and supply is not a category of MP or MLA. If the BC legislature categorises the greens as opposition than so do we. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The BC NDP-Green accord is modelled on the 1985 Ontario Liberal-NDP accord. Here's the relevant infobox from 33rd Parliament of Ontario:

My main objection is to either listing the Greens under "Government" or inventing a bench called "confidence and supply". I'm fine with having an inline note explaining that the Greens have a confidence and supply agreement with the NDP and I've added this in parentheses. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In agreement with HP. The Greens can still oppose NDP bills, along with Liberals & the NDP government would continue on, as long as such bills aren't confidence bills. This isn't a coalition government. GoodDay (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, a Confidence and Supply party is a special kind of opposition party, which cannot vote against the government in confidence and supply motions. There is no "Confidence and Supply" bench, but there is no "Opposition" bench either, it's either "Official Opposition" or "Other Parties", or "Cross-bench", and according to the rules of BC legislature, Green MLAs are listed as independents because they don't have official party status. Confidence and Supply is used by the UK House of Commons page, in New Zealand's case, it's "Supported By". The pages of specific Ontario governments use official titles, but pages for current parliaments are usually not bound to the official convention. Kafari (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Standings need updating
The BC Liberals are back up to 42 seats, as of a by-election on February 14, 2018. GoodDay (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing Usher of the Black Rod
Would anyone object to me removing the Usher of the Black Rod from the Officeholders section? All the others in that section are held by MLAs so it really doesn't seem to fit. If we're going to include offices of the senior Assembly staff I think we'd have to include the Clerk of the House, Sgt at Arms etc. T.plicata (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Joeyconnick creating fiction
You seem to be misapplying WP:V, which states that "other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". It does not state that all information must be referenced and discussed in the article. Where would you suggest that the member count actually be added? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I find it particularly odd as the current numbers and members are not referenced at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * uhm... WP:UNSOURCED. Just because the article wasn't properly referenced before doesn't mean it's okay to maintain that state, especially when you're making an edit. You have the sources, which I thank you for since I did look for news that Krog had actually stepped down and hadn't found any, so add them properly using citations. I'm not "creating fiction"—I'm saying we should follow policy and guidelines. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, you're back-peddling now. Please blank all of the unsourced content or revert your last edit. Your call.
 * For the record, you have created a fiction as the unsourced numbers are now wrong per WP:V. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't need to ping/@ me every time you write here—I have this page on my watchlist. And no, I didn't create any fiction: I restored an article to how it was before someone came in and made an unsourced edit. It's not on me (or anyone) to fix every unsourced claim in Wikipedia, but it is on an editor who adds unsourced material to actually source it when they are challenged on it being unsourced. Why do you think it's okay to make changes to an article without sourcing them as per WP:CITE? If WP:V is of such importance to you (which is great—it should be), then why won't you follow one of its basic tenets? Having things verifiable doesn't mean you force readers to go verify it themselves by doing web searches; it means you provide citations for the information you're adding or changing in an article.
 * This is dead simple to resolve: update the figure and add a citation explaining why and when it changed (which you've already provided, albeit in edit summaries which is not as useful as in the article itself). That will also require adding to the "Standings changes" section and I suppose Krog should be removed from the seating plan, although Krog's removal is less important than documenting why the numbers changed on Nov 30. In the time it's taken you to keep arguing with me, you could have fixed this. (And before you throw that back at me, the onus is on because you're making the change. It's not on me to do your work for you.) —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You did create a fiction and no, infoboxes are a summary of the article's content and should not contain references. Per WP:INFOBOXREF, "editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article". Find a place where you won't edit war with anons who are right when you're f*ed up in your logic. It's also not on me to work for you, and you reverted the correct change, twice, so I'm not going to engage in edit war with an editor who doesn't know the basics of Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Bolding party leaders in the seating charts
This comment is made regarding a change I made to the seating charts and this edit which reverted it.

MOS:BOLD does indeed state to "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text." However, the red colored background of the Liberal party, and to a lesser extent the orange of the NDP makes the thin bluelink text difficult to read, especially on mobile browsers. Boldfacing the text makes it easier to read, in a way that ALL CAPS, italicizing, or underlining does not. This seems to me to be a textbook IAR situation. The manual of style on boldface makes the article more difficult to read, so the manual of style should be ignored. Maintaining the status quo by keeping the party leaders in simple ALL CAPS seems to violate MOS:EMPHCAPS, but that rule is already ignored for the sake of the reader. If there is another manual of style at play, please inform me of it, but my same argument against it would apply. schetm (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Then use either bold or all caps, not both. That's what the MoS suggests to avoid. You can ignore as many rules as you want until someone with design taste says to stop it, so, "stop it". If you can show me someing in MOS:ACCESS that supports your claim, I'll relent, until then, stop it. Never mind that it's already been discussed in the "Recent Parliaments" section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Walter Görlitz, as far as I can tell, the MoS doesn't speak to the use of both bold and all caps. Please show me where it does that.
 * At any rate, I'll be happy to show you something in MOS:ACCESS that supports my claim: MOS:CONTRAST. It specifically says "do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." I'll also point you to MOS:NAVBOXCOLOUR, which reads "Colors used in templates such as navboxes and infoboxes, and in tables, should not make reading difficult, including for colorblind or otherwise visually impaired readers." and "background colors should contrast the text color enough to make the template easily readable." In this case, it's not easily readable, and it would be better if it were bolded.
 * Per my test, neither the Liberal, the Green, nor the NDP pass the WCAG 2.0's AA level, per MOS:COLOR. As someone with "design taste," you should appreciate that.
 * Per your request, I'll appeal to MOS:ACCESS and place a color notice on the section at hand. The best solution to get into MoS compliance would be to remove the wikilinks and make the text white, as seen in Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, but consensus should be achieved before that's done. Failing that, the text should probably be bolded to that better contrast is achieved. Do we have consensus to remove the wikilinks and make the text white? schetm (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Third edit conflict. If you're going to quote ACCESS, respect MOS:INDENTGAP as well. While we're at it, this is a Canadian English article, please use it as well.
 * The colour of the link is controlled by the skin and neither the visited nor unvisted colour meets CONTRAST, whether bold or not. Feel free to ask at the ACCESS project. It's one I have been working on for about a year, and I am familiar with WCAG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Walter Görlitz, you do like throwing up straw men, don't you? I'll stick to the controversy at hand. The fact is that the color of the link against the background fails our guidelines, as I have pointed out by citing specific policy in several areas, something you've failed to do. I'll ask again: do we have consensus to remove the wikilinks and make the text white, as seen in Legislative Assembly of Manitoba? Since the links will always fail the WCAG, I think that's the only solution. The links also duplicate those in the members' list above, and are arguably a case of overlinking. It'll take some time, so I don't want to start work unless we achieve consensus. schetm (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it does fail CONTRAST and making it bold does not affect anything. And I think you mean WP:REPEATLINK, not WP:OVERLINK.
 * I cannot create consensus on my own, but based on REPEATLINK and ACCESS, it should probably be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. schetm (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It was done with only two voices of approval. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I was most interested in your approval, given your extensive history of edit warring. I don't think anyone else would object. schetm (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The percentage of blocks to edits outweighs many. Your complete change of tone and disregard for other styles is more problematic than my handful of blocks. By change of tone I mean that you edit warred to have bold and then after it was shown that that's your preference alone and I pointed out ACCESS issues, you switched to that line of reasoning. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Dude, your initial revert didn't even cite policy, which is why I made my initial revert. Your revert asked a question, which I responded to. Your second revert asked me to bring it to the talk page, which I did, per policy. I proposed to IAR, which you responded to, citing "your preference alone" with your "design taste" remark. You never pointed to any place where "the MoS suggests to avoid" "either bold or all caps, not both." After that, to seek consensus between us, I proposed another policy-based solution, which you approved of. You never cited any specific policy in your initial revert of the bolding, even after you said you would in the edit summary. As such, your initial objection smelt of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your track record, block log, and sock record indicates that you are an editor that has to be handled with kid gloves, which is why I went out of my way to find a solution that met with your approval. Unless another editor has an objection to the way the table is now, I consider this matter closed. schetm (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It think we've gotten off on the wrong foot. That is compound with your careless use of the the language. The edit summary to that first revert was: "caps and bold". True MOS:CAPS and MOS:BOLD are not policies, they are manuals of style. Meanwhile you wrote "bolding to improve visibility", which as I stated, isn't actually the case.
 * In responding, per WP:BRD, you should have discussed the revert, rather than reverting.
 * WP:CONSENSUS is not usually between two editors.
 * Making the text white is also not a policy-based change, it's MoS and CONSENSUS has not been reached.
 * It's not a IDLI situation, it's that your suggestion of making the text bold was not a solution.
 * May I suggest that you stop addressing my block record when you don't know the difference between a policy, guideline, manual of style, essay and pillar? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I consider this matter closed. schetm (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have raised it at two projects so I consider it just starting. Good that you consider it closed. We'll come to a proper consensus without you, but thanks for raising your concerns. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Let me quote from my original statement. "Unless another editor has an objection to the way the table is now, I consider this matter closed." schetm (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are there seating charts? Is this encyclopedic? --Izno (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to their removal as they seem CRUFTy. But as long as they're here, they should meet MOS:COLOR, which is what we discussed above. schetm (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Such a great question! I don't really see why we need them/how they enhance the article, but agree that if we have them, they should meet MOS:COLOR. Also unclear is what the boldface and italics in the "Party standings in the 41st Parliament" means. First, we shouldn't be using just boldface or italics to indicate something (per WP:ACCESS, MOS:BOLD, and MOS:ITALICS) and second, whatever is being indicated and however it's being indicated, there should be a legend. I'm going to guess boldface is for cabinet members and the italics is clearly for the premier/government leader but if I didn't live in BC, I'm not sure how I would possibly know that just by looking at the table as-is. Anyway, thanks for dealing with the most pressing issue. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)