Talk:List of Canadian federal general elections/Archive 2

Amendment to the above proposal: Candidate table template, with minor tweaks
I've put together a nifty variable-accepting template which produces a set of header rows in keeping with the above, although there've been a few minor changes:
 * 1) instead of one "mark here with a coloured box for victor" column, there're multiples.  While it eats up a bit of space, it allows us to more clearly flag the winning candidate relative to the above proposal, where the coloured box can be some distance away.
 * 2) the party names have been de-linked.  In keeping with general Wikipedia format, there is no need for them to be repeated umpteen times down the page, and this gives us the pleasant side-effect of allowing clearly legible bold-black text to appear on coloured backgrounds.  (I personally cannot forsee the legibility argument coming into play  now that coloured links are gone, but I'm open to protestations to the contrary)

There are two variants of the table, one 4plus, which is for 4 parties plus an "other" column, and one 5plus, which is for 5 parties plus an "other" column"

...is all that's necessary to trigger it, and replaces the first hefty chunk of duplicated formatting that we're using for each table already. The subsequent data rows for each riding are formatted very slightly differently than they are at present, although conversion ought not to be difficult.

Some examples follow:

Kootenay, Columbia and Boundary (2005 BC Prov)

 * Created using  


 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|Columbia River-Revelstoke
 * Wendy McMahon
 * Norm MacDonald
 * Wendy McMahon
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|East Kootenay
 * Bill Bennett
 * Erda Walsh
 * Bill Bennett
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|Nelson-Creston
 * Blair Suffredine
 * Corky Evans
 * Luke Crawford
 * Blair Suffredine
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|West Kootenay-Boundary
 * Pam Lewin
 * Katrine Conroy
 * Donald Pharand
 * Barry Chilton (Con)
 * align=center|vacant
 * }
 * Bill Bennett
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|Nelson-Creston
 * Blair Suffredine
 * Corky Evans
 * Luke Crawford
 * Blair Suffredine
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|West Kootenay-Boundary
 * Pam Lewin
 * Katrine Conroy
 * Donald Pharand
 * Barry Chilton (Con)
 * align=center|vacant
 * }
 * Corky Evans
 * Luke Crawford
 * Blair Suffredine
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|West Kootenay-Boundary
 * Pam Lewin
 * Katrine Conroy
 * Donald Pharand
 * Barry Chilton (Con)
 * align=center|vacant
 * }
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|West Kootenay-Boundary
 * Pam Lewin
 * Katrine Conroy
 * Donald Pharand
 * Barry Chilton (Con)
 * align=center|vacant
 * }
 * Barry Chilton (Con)
 * align=center|vacant
 * }
 * Barry Chilton (Con)
 * align=center|vacant
 * }
 * }

Eastern Quebec (2004 Federal)

 * Created using  


 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine
 * Raynald Blais 21,446
 * Georges Farrah 12,579
 * Guy de Coste 2,636
 * Phil Toone 805
 * Bob Eichenberger 1,060
 * Georges Farrah
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|Lévis—Bellechasse
 * Réal Lapierre 21,930
 * Christian Jobin 13,664
 * Gilles Vézina 9,425
 * Louise Foisy 1,910
 * Sylvain Castonguay 2,372
 * Christophe Vaillancourt (Comm.) 163
 * Christian Jobin
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|Matapédia—Matane
 * Jean-Yves Roy 17,878
 * Marc Bélanger 9,653
 * Vahid Fortin-Vidah 1,972
 * Jean-Guy Côté 1,581
 * Nicolas Deville 585
 * Jean-Yves Roy
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|Rimouski—Témiscouata
 * Louise Thibault 22,215
 * Côme Roy 9,161
 * Denis Quimper 3,445
 * Guy Caron 2,717
 * Marjolaine Delaunière 1,008
 * Suzanne Tremblay1
 * Christophe Vaillancourt (Comm.) 163
 * Christian Jobin
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|Matapédia—Matane
 * Jean-Yves Roy 17,878
 * Marc Bélanger 9,653
 * Vahid Fortin-Vidah 1,972
 * Jean-Guy Côté 1,581
 * Nicolas Deville 585
 * Jean-Yves Roy
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|Rimouski—Témiscouata
 * Louise Thibault 22,215
 * Côme Roy 9,161
 * Denis Quimper 3,445
 * Guy Caron 2,717
 * Marjolaine Delaunière 1,008
 * Suzanne Tremblay1
 * Jean-Yves Roy
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|Rimouski—Témiscouata
 * Louise Thibault 22,215
 * Côme Roy 9,161
 * Denis Quimper 3,445
 * Guy Caron 2,717
 * Marjolaine Delaunière 1,008
 * Suzanne Tremblay1
 * Côme Roy 9,161
 * Denis Quimper 3,445
 * Guy Caron 2,717
 * Marjolaine Delaunière 1,008
 * Suzanne Tremblay1
 * Marjolaine Delaunière 1,008
 * Suzanne Tremblay1
 * Suzanne Tremblay1
 * Suzanne Tremblay1
 * Suzanne Tremblay1
 * Suzanne Tremblay1


 * rowspan=3 bgcolor=whitesmoke|Rivière-du-Loup—Montmagny
 * rowspan=3 |
 * rowspan=3|Paul Crête 25,327
 * rowspan=3|
 * rowspan=3|Isabelle Mignault 13,124
 * rowspan=3|
 * rowspan=3|Marc-André Drolet 4,040
 * rowspan=3|
 * rowspan=3|Frédérick Garon 876
 * rowspan=3|
 * rowspan=3|André Clermont 962
 * rowspan=3|
 * rowspan=3|
 * Paul Crête
 * colspan=2 align="center"|merged district
 * Gilbert Normand2
 * }
 * colspan=2 align="center"|merged district
 * Gilbert Normand2
 * }
 * Gilbert Normand2
 * }

Newfoundland and Labrador (2000 Federal)

 * Created using  


 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|Bonavista—Trinity—Conception
 * Brian Tobin 22 096
 * Randy Wayne Dawe 1 051
 * Fraser March 6 473
 * Jim Morgan 11 009
 * Fred Mifflin1
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|Burin—St. George's
 * Bill Matthews 14 603
 * Peter Fenwick 1 511
 * David Sullivan 924
 * Fred Pottle 5 798
 * Sam Synard (Ind.) 7 891
 * Bill Matthews2
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|Gander—Grand Falls
 * George Baker 15 874
 * Orville Penney 1 912
 * Bill Broderick 2 876
 * Roger Pike 8 191
 * George Baker
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte
 * Gerry Byrne 15 405
 * Murdock Cole 1 702
 * Trevor Taylor 8 297
 * Peter McBreairty 6 340
 * Gerry Byrne
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|Labrador
 * Lawrence O'Brien 7 153
 * Eugene Burt 677
 * Amanda Will 1 284
 * Hayward Broomfield 1 254
 * Lawrence O'Brien
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|St. John's East
 * Peter Miller 13 835
 * Garry Hartle 1 144
 * Carol Cantwell 5 395
 * Norman E. Doyle 23 606
 * Judy Day (Ind.) 254 Michael Rayment (NLP) 122
 * Norman E. Doyle
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|St. John's West
 * Chuck Furey 14 137
 * Eldon Drost 840
 * Dave Curtis 4 744
 * Loyola Hearn 22 959
 * Michael Rendell (NLP) 141
 * Loyola Hearn
 * }
 * Murdock Cole 1 702
 * Trevor Taylor 8 297
 * Peter McBreairty 6 340
 * Gerry Byrne
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|Labrador
 * Lawrence O'Brien 7 153
 * Eugene Burt 677
 * Amanda Will 1 284
 * Hayward Broomfield 1 254
 * Lawrence O'Brien
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|St. John's East
 * Peter Miller 13 835
 * Garry Hartle 1 144
 * Carol Cantwell 5 395
 * Norman E. Doyle 23 606
 * Judy Day (Ind.) 254 Michael Rayment (NLP) 122
 * Norman E. Doyle
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|St. John's West
 * Chuck Furey 14 137
 * Eldon Drost 840
 * Dave Curtis 4 744
 * Loyola Hearn 22 959
 * Michael Rendell (NLP) 141
 * Loyola Hearn
 * }
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|St. John's East
 * Peter Miller 13 835
 * Garry Hartle 1 144
 * Carol Cantwell 5 395
 * Norman E. Doyle 23 606
 * Judy Day (Ind.) 254 Michael Rayment (NLP) 122
 * Norman E. Doyle
 * bgcolor=whitesmoke|St. John's West
 * Chuck Furey 14 137
 * Eldon Drost 840
 * Dave Curtis 4 744
 * Loyola Hearn 22 959
 * Michael Rendell (NLP) 141
 * Loyola Hearn
 * }
 * Chuck Furey 14 137
 * Eldon Drost 840
 * Dave Curtis 4 744
 * Loyola Hearn 22 959
 * Michael Rendell (NLP) 141
 * Loyola Hearn
 * }
 * Loyola Hearn 22 959
 * Michael Rendell (NLP) 141
 * Loyola Hearn
 * }
 * Loyola Hearn
 * }

So yeah, that's it. Thoughts, as always, are welcome. -The Tom 03:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

comments

 * I like what you've done here - a lot - but I think we should make a minor change and get the text off of party colours as was done in the first attempted candidates table. The reason being is that a) per wikipedia standards, we want to be universally accessible, we may have people coming here with 16 colour of greyscale monitors, the visually impaired, etc; b) we may have parties with a "near black" or other dark party label at some point which would make it difficult for anyone to read.  I think there is already a mindset among some to, once the conversion is complete, consider making the colours more similar to the actually party colours now that readability is not a concern - that would mean a dark red for Liberals, dark blue for Conservatives, etc which might not be that easy to read.  Also, I would encourage you to, or perhaps I will at somepoint, make a 3 party plus template for use in elections in a great many provinces (i.e. Sask, MB, QC, and all of the Atlantic).  All-in-all, great work :) - Jord 14:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that linking the party names is unnecessary and that bold black text stands out much better than the linked blue or red. But I also agre with Jord that it works given the current generally-pastel colours. As these change to darker colours now that we are liberated from legibility constraints, that won't always be true, and we'll back back to the same issues we had before. Otherwise, it looks good. Kevintoronto 15:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Template:Canadian_politics/candlist_header_3plus does indeed exist and works as the others do, but I only finished it a few minutes after I posted this. :)

As for the legibility concerns, I am a little skeptical. Firstly, it's now possible to play with the font colour of the text, so if we had a dark blue box, it would be possible to put "Conservative" into bold white. Secondly, I'd agree that black won't continue to be legible on the darker colours, but so long as we assign darks to fringe parties (ie, the Communist's tomato, or the Libertarian's green) who've never qualified for their own column in a chart like this, then this is isn't a problem (and considering that the overwhelming majority of parties who've contested elections don't get their own columns, it really does maintain flexibility). As for the decision to move the major parties to darks, I'd rather not let hypotheticals determine table layout in the here and now. If and when such a decision is made, it'll be rather easy to either do the white text trick or go back to the stacked white and coloured boxes we have at the moment. (in the interests of full disclosure, I must confess to a certain fondness to our current palette :) )
 * bgcolor="whitesmoke"|Riding
 * Pierre Trudeau
 * Robert Stanfield
 * Tommy Douglas
 * Doug Henning (NLP)
 * Pierre Trudeau
 * }
 * Tommy Douglas
 * Doug Henning (NLP)
 * Pierre Trudeau
 * }
 * Pierre Trudeau
 * }

Anyway, really glad you guys like it overall, and the stacked-box versus single box debate can be fairly easily resolved by modifying the templates down the line. I'm hoping at the this stage that nobody has a problem with the multiple-winners columns and/or the whole concept of using a template, though, as those changes will be harder to undo. -The Tom 17:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd be okay with white text on dark backgrounds where appropriate. Kevintoronto 17:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I too am definately supportive of the multiple win colums, etc and the principle of your table above. I do think we should stay away from text-on-colour as it is contrary to the Wikipedia style guide and, I think, looks more professional. - Jord 17:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * On a trial basis, I've converted the candidate list on British Columbia general election, 2005, and I'd like to wait a bit and see if it generates any feedback. The stacked box/coloured box matter can be settled in a separate debate once it's clear that consensus favours the templates period.  Fair?  -The Tom 22:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Now that I've actually worked on a candidates table, I can definitely see the merits of your version. I like it as well. A question about this and the original version: Is there a reason why the gray table headings are darker than for the overall elections results tables? It's hard to read the text, and I think the table formats are different enough that we don't need to have different shades of gray for the different tables. --Deathphoenix 21:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No idea how the two grays got split (happened some time ago). I've lightened the candidate table headers to match. -The Tom 22:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * How about everyone else? I like the table headers lightened like this, but what do the rest of you think? I'll lighten the candidate table I did (for Yukon 2002) if there's consensus to lighten the colour. --Deathphoenix 23:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Never mind. Using a template as the header certainly makes things less complicated. It certainly looks good on the Yukon 2002 page. --Deathphoenix 21:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I do believe that we should remove the colour from party name text cells. This returns us to the very reasons we had for changing the colour scheme and the way it's presented in the first place. I'm going to remove the colours after this posting. --Deathphoenix 21:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Colour headings, or no?
Okay, my changes were reverted, so rather than get into a revert war, I'd like to ask the folks working on these elections tables whether they prefer the table headings with shading or without? --Deathphoenix 23:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With

Without

With
 * 1) The Tom 00:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) MS123
 * 3) -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 06:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Without
 * 1) Deathphoenix 23:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ground Zero 18:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) even black is hard to read aginst some coloured backgrounds, e.g., Alberta Alliance in Alberta general election, 2004. I can live with the white-text-on-dark-background though.
 * 3) Text-on-colour is a clear violation of wikipedia style standards - Jord 02:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Cafemusique 01:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC) - Much clearer to read.

If the withouts win, how about replacing the column with small pictures that have white text. I have made an example of what the Liberal heading might look like MS123 00:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, we can quite easily do that with HTML. -The Tom 05:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I realize that, but using a white text against certain colours like yellow can lead to problems. By using a small picture you can use a white text with a black outline. To see an example of what it will finally look like see Saskatchewan_general_election%2C_2003 MS123 05:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Or black text on lights, and white text on darks...  Anyway, let's wait and see how this goes.  :) -The Tom 05:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm liking those actually. Maybe put them with a party logo as well. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 06:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Problems when changing the tables
I figured I'd add a new section where we can discuss problems when changing the tables.

Argh! I'm getting that weird bug on the Canadian federal elections charts again. See User:Deathphoenix/Work. If you have any idea how to fix this problem, please let me know. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 02:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll answer here so others can see, it is interpreting some of the spacing between your code as hard returns. So, instead of


 * something
 * something
 * something


 * something else
 * something else


 * do the following:


 * something
 * something
 * something else
 * something else
 * something else

- Jord 02:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Wonderful! That did the trick. Thanks, Jord! --Deathphoenix 15:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote - images
I'm hereby creating a vote on whether we should institute images into the riding by riding results. (Like we did for the 2004 election) Here's what I mean:

As opposed to what we have now for the 2005 election. I realize there is concern about other provinces, so, maybe we can create a new template for the federal races? I really think the images add to the charts, and make them more aesthetically pleasing. I think everything flows well so that it doesn't become too loud. :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support images

 * -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 03:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Against images
- We would need to have a template for virtually every election in every province because the logos change often. This would defeat the purpose of having templates, which is to simplify the process by only having to edit in one place should we change the format/standard at some point down the road. - Jord 04:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, how about 2 templates? One for general purpose and one for the federal election? -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 04:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * See my comments below. --Deathphoenix 07:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

 * I'm with Jord here. The whole reason for applying templates in the first place was to make it simple to change the colour and format in one place to apply globally. This makes it far too complicated to make any changes. In addition, the images don't really add that much value beyond what is in the text. Can the content present its information just as well without the images? I'd have to say yes. In addition, putting colour in the background of the text obscures it even more than the previous version (which I'm still against). If people really want to apply colour on text, then we should once again go back to the original debate and vote on the colour, because we have to go back to a lighter colour scheme in order to see the text. There are some pretty serious accessibility concerns with being able to read the text that we were trying to address when we were debating the colour scheme in the first place. --Deathphoenix 06:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That might be why we need to use logos. If you cant see the text, you'll still be able to see the logos! :D -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 07:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Problems
I have been finding some problems with numbers, and I think all the charts should be verefied for accuracy. First of all, none of the popular vote totals add up to what elections.ca say (See ) except for 1867, which I adjusted. Also, seat totals should add up to what it says at Past_Canadian_electoral_districts, which some do not. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, it might be the difference in percentages between "total votes cast" and "total valid votes." I know I ran into that discrepancy before.  We'd tended to report the latter. -The Tom 16:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh! Of course. But still, there are problems with seat totals, and I suspect there are still number problems. I believe it was the 1878 election I was trying to fix earlier. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 19:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Formatting issues
I have a couple more suggestions to improve the foramt of the summary tables: Comments? Ground Zero 15:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) change the "After" column heading to "Elected", which I think covers the meaning more clearly.
 * 2) use "-" instead of "0" where no candidate from a party was elected. (This reduces the clutter on the table.)
 * "Dissolution" and "Elected", perhaps? -The Tom 19:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "Dissolution"" works where we have the standings at dissolution. I've been using "Before" for standings at dissolution, and "Previous" if I only have the standings at the previous election. I like "Dissolution" better than "Before". Ground Zero 20:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now I'd like to make four proposals: I have a couple more suggestions to improve the format of the summary tables: Next question: If # 3 is adopted, should the % change column for seats refer to "Previous" or to "Dissolution" if thse numbers are available? (I think that would be confusing -- we should just stick with "Previous".) Comments? Ground Zero 20:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) change the "After" column heading to "Elected", which I think covers the meaning more clearly.
 * 2) change "Before" to "Dissolution"
 * 3) Include "Previous" election results in all charts, including those where "Before/Dissolution" standings are now used instead, i.e., there would be one extra column for those charts. This is similar to the chart in United Kingdom general election, 2005, which includes both.
 * 4) use "-" instead of "0" where no candidate from a party was elected. (This reduces the clutter on the table.)


 * Kevin asked for my comments here and here they are: I'll go with whatever you folks decide.  The above seems to all be just symantics to me and whichever way we go is fine with me.  I usually just cut and paste a table from the first article I see when creating them.  It is good to come up with best practices and make sure we are consistant across the board (which we aren't now) but as for to the specifics of those best practices I leave it to you folks to decide ;) - Jord 20:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * hahaha... nice one, Jord. Well, I think I agree with all except for #2: changing "Before" to "Dissolution". I think I'd prefer to change all these Before columns to "Previous". Having to find out whether Previous or Dissolution applies would create too much headaches, IMO. --Deathphoenix 20:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is what I am proposing. I have the dissolution numbers for 1965 onward. Elections prior to that would have only the "Previous" column until I get around to finding out the "Dissolution" numbers from historical newspapers. (I have not adjusted the % change in seats yet. I would do that before posting.)

I seem to be having formatting problems. Any suggestions? Ground Zero 15:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Fixed it, you were missing on column in the vacant row ;) - Jord 17:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) #&$#ing thing looked ok in the preview, working on it... - Jord 17:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There it is fixed, sort of. Same problem I had once before  wasn't enough for it accept that there was text in the box... Not sure why, so you are forced to put in something (I used an asterisk) and white it out.  - Jord 17:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jord. Your changes look good. Ground Zero 19:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: "% change" refers to change from previous election


 * I do like the year instead of "Previous". The only outstanding cosmetic nit of mine is that "dissolution" is now much wider than either column on each side.  Would a "Diss." header be clear enough in meaning to consider using instead?  (Incidental point, it should be Dissolution with a capital, n'est-ce pas?).  On the subject of consmetic tweaks, two other things that that mildy get my goat
 * The alignment of party leaders in the older elections seems to be centred in their column as opposed to left-aligned.
 * The N/A in the "Vacant" column for that merged cell under number of votes and so on seems a little needless. I'd rather just leave a blank white stripe there.
 * -The Tom 23:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The capitalization (or lack thereof) of dissolution is my fault, it had said "At dissolution" and I removed the "At" while neglecting to capitalize "dissolution". I agree that it would be nice if "dissolution" was not forcing a large column - perhaps if we made it "Diss." so that people could hover over and/or click on it to see what it was. - Jord 00:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My style
1 One seat was vacant 2 The Grey Party did not contest the 1999 election.

This is what I just hashed out... I like the change of popular vote + I hate the vacant line in the tables as there will never have been vacant in 2 of the 3 seat columns, so why not just a footnote instead of a colum which will have, at most, one out of ~10 values. Thoughts? - Jord 00:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Like the Diss. solution.  I found in my assorted work on the UK general election, 2005 chart that narrower colour swatches make it a _lot_ harder for you to distinguish between colours that seem obviously different in wider blotches.  It's totally an optical thing.. the eye seems to like a certain amount of horizontal width before it can percieve colour subtleties.  Considering how much sweat has been shed on colours already and how litle wiggle room there already is in terms of colour assignment, I'd hate to see us do something that might necessitate trying to diverge colours even more.  I'm personally sorta fond of the Vacant column in terms of liking to sum things vertically, but I won't cry substantial tears if everyone else wants it gone. -The Tom 01:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The small colour blocks are not intential, it is the formatting problem, if you do a preview you'll see them as the normal size. This is the first time I've seen the templates create this problem :S - Jord 03:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My six cents: It would look like this: Ground Zero 12:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'm not so crazy about "Diss." It doesn't explain what the column means -- you have to go somewhere else to figure it out. How about reducing the font on "Dissolution" so that it fits better?
 * Same for "# of cands" -- "cands" doesn't mean anything. Since that box takes up two rows, there is room for "# of candidates".
 * I, too, like the vacant like for the purpose of summing up, but I can live with the footnote if necessary. I'm happy to leave out N/A and leave it blank.
 * I agree that we should make sure that the colour box is a decent size, otherwise it's not much use. I've found a way to force it based on the trick Jord taught me above. See the "Vacant" row.
 * I prefer "Elected" to "after", and putting the "Elected" numbers in bold since they are the most important figures in the table.
 * I've been leaving cells blank where the party did not contest the previous election. "n/a" adds to the clutter, although I admit that that goes against the principle I set out #1. Maybe an asterix instead?

* The Grey Party did not contest the 1999 election.


 * This looks good, but I have to admit that I'm not crazy with the idea of small blue text with a dark grey background, but this is probably better than "Diss." I'm divided over this one. --Deathphoenix 13:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You have a good point, Death, but I don't have any ideas on what to do about it. The only thing I can think of is to lighten the grey we're using, which would be a good idea anyway (improving leigibility and all that). Maybe someone else can come up with something. Ground Zero 16:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, Zero, this is a tough one. Lightening the grey's an option. Maybe we should make a template colour for the grey as well. :-P --Deathphoenix 17:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move
I propose moving this article to List of Canadian general elections, for consistency with other Canadian election lists, such as List of British Columbia general elections. Tom pw (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sidebar vs. Background colors
Hi, I'm new at making formatting edits in Wikipedia and since I don't know how such conflicts get settled I'll just post here the case for background colors as I see it.

1) They make the summary more graphlike: With background colors your attention goes first to the patterns of party rankings, the big picture, and only afterwards, if you're interested in a particular year, to the exact seat count. I think this is exactly what a summary should give you. With sidebar colors the numbers are given an undue weight, party color keys are relegated into tiny, confusing (is this the key of the left number or the right one?) side labels, and patterns are not nearly as readily seen.

2) They're more compact: They easily allow for the results of six parties to be shown. Seeing how they all fit elegantly I don't see why this is "too much". (With sidebar colors, otoh, they would indeed be too many.)

As for them making text hard to read I've tested it in the 2 computers I have at my disposal and have absolutely no problem with readability. Now, of course, black on white is the best combination in terms of readability but there are other considerations to take in chosing the background color and there are many examples of this in Wikipedia. Table headers, for instance, are usually in a blue hue only slighly lighter than the Conservative one and the "This is an archived version of this page..." box too is in a red hue only slightly lighter than the Liberal one.

So what d'you think?

elzr 04:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, in order...
 * It's a list, not a graph. With sidebar colours, you can still see how a party's fortune waxes and wanes. The list is about results (i.e. seat count), so the seat count should have greater prominence. Also, the sidebar formatting is consistent with every election results page on WP (e.g. Canadian federal election, 2006, British Columbia general election, 2005, United Kingdom general election, 2005, etc. ...). I don't think sidebar colour are "tiny" - no-one has ever said that of List of British Columbia general elections (or the other provincial election lists). Also, I really don't think people get confused as to which side it is on - partly because the header cells make it clear, and partly because it immedtaly aparent when one looks at the top few rows.
 * I agree it's more compact, but only slightly so (the sidebar colours were 5 pixels wide, so there's little gain to be made). More importantly, it's not so compact that including six parties looks squashed. I have a lovely wide 19" screen, and it still looks very cramped and squished together, so it will be even worse for those with 17" screens (the majority of users). Further, the cut-off point of four parties was chosen carefully. There has only been two occasions (1997 and 2000) where the 5th party had more than ten seats, the minimum required for official party status in the House of Commons. In the older version, the third and fourth parties' results were included under "other" if the party did not have at least ten seats and has never done so at any point. - i.e. if the party never got official party status. If we start including parties that never got official status, where do we stop? The 1926 election had twelve parties who could lay claim to seats in the house, but only four ever got more than 10 seats. You point out that black on white is the best option, and so I feel strongly that where it is possible to use black on white, one should do so. We have a situation here where this is a choice, so we should choose the better option.
 * I think that's everything I want to say in reply. Thanks for taking this to the talk for proper discussion. Tom pw (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Text placed against a coloured background is more difficult to read for those with sight impairments. Wikipedia should strive to be as accessible as possible. Tompw's version is (a) consistent with existing formatting of elections tables, and (b) easier to read for sight-impaired readers. Let's stick with that version. Ground Zero | t 13:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick, informative reply Tompw — you convinced me. I'm reverting back to sidebar colors. Thanks! elzr 20:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Graph style
Ok, so User:Tompw decided to change the graph on the page from the one that I created. The original one, that I made, was a percentage graph showing the party results out of 100% of the seats. This allowed for an easy comparison between all of the elections and how the parties faired. The new graph is based on the literal number of seats that were won, and uses the wrong colours. This does not provide any new information from what is presented in the chart, and does not provide an easy way of seeing the results to compare across the years, since the number of total seats have significantly changed since confederation. Personally, I would like to see the original graph on the page, but of course I am also biased since it is my graph. I would like to know what others think. Grizzwald (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I think his looks cleaner due to it being a PNG. If you recreate yours as a PNG, I would support a change back - rst20xx (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I finally got around to recreating my version as a PNG, and uploaded it. I've now replaced the one that was previously on the page with my own, which represents the percentages of seats won, not literal seat numbers, so as to provide a better cross reference of the election results. Grizzwald (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Applying the new "standard"
The new standard for summary charts is being refined in the discussion below in "Formatting issues".

Per consensus that can be found on Archive1 and Archive2, candidate tables will be in the following format:

The reasoning for this is two-fold:
 * the elimination of text-on-colour is inline with the Wikipedia-style guide to ensure that tables are readable on as many computers as possible
 * the creation of templates for party colours and the formating of rows in election tables will make it far easy to change in the future should a new consensus be reached

In order to facilitate an orderly transition, we are asking Wikipedians to volunteer to "convert" an election pages or series of election pages. Please come back and strike those articles you have converted.

Articles to convert
Volunteers sought!:

Alberta election: 2004 riding results

Other: PEI list - Yukon list - Newf&Lab list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jord (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose we merge Canadian federal election results (1867-1879), Canadian federal election results (1880-1899), Canadian federal election results (1900-1919), Canadian federal election results (1920-1939), Canadian federal election results (1940-1959), Canadian federal election results (1960-1979), Canadian federal election results (1980-1999) and Canadian federal election results (2000-) into this article. The information they provide that this article doesn't is the exact breakdown of the seats of "Other parties" and (in the case of some of these articles) the breakdown of the popular vote. However, all this information can be found in the articles for the individual elections, and additionally no other Wikipedia article links to any of these articles - rst20xx (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and also, why is this article at "Canadian federal election results since 1867" and not "Canadian federal election results"? I wasn't aware there were any prior federal results - rst20xx (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the idea of merging the articles into this one (which mostly would amount to deleting them). I also think this article should be rennamed "List of Canadian federal general elections". Tom pw (talk) (review) 21:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've made both changes. And it did indeed amount to just redirecting them - rst20xx (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any other type of federal election other than general elections? In my view the current title is a little awkward and losing the word "general" would implicitly make more sense to the average reader and sacrifices no nuance. Orderinchaos 19:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there are federal by-election, which is the other term, but I highly doubt that Wikipedia will ever have a page dedicated to all federal by-elections in Canadian history. Not to mention that the actual pages themselves, such as Canadian federal election, 2008, have all been renamed from being Canadian general elections to just Canadian federal elections on Wikipedia, so I see no problem with removing general from the title of this page. Grizzwald (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Green Party
Why are the Greens under "other". If Labour won two seats in its history and got its own heading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.215.172 (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, the Labour never won more than three seats. 117Avenue (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Green Party needs to be represented. They are the fifth party in Canada at the moment. The rule in the House of Commons is you need more than 4 seats to be considered a party. Hence, in 1993 when the PCs dropped to two seats, they were no longer an "official" party, yet they remain in the chart as a "party." This chart either needs to represent all elected parties, or only parties that have 4+ seats following an election. It makes no sense to represent parties that have under 4 seats, only if they have ever had more. This chart needs major changes.