Talk:Yukon general election, 2011

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Elections and Referendums  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
WikiProject Canada / Territories / Governments (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian Territories.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.

Green Party in infobox[edit]

Why is the Green Party listed in the infobox and not the United Citizens Party? I also thought it was understood that unless the party currently holds or wins a seat in the election they don't go in the infobox. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No one has won the election. So perhaps no one should be in it? Also, it was already in the infobox, I simply changed it so it was visible. I didn't add them. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Before an election, the infobox lists the current state, so the parties with current seats are listed. This rule is followed for most elections. I added the Green Party to the infobox in the event that they would be added in the future, I did not accidentally hide it, or want someone to have the temptation to add it. The reason they were numbered 5, is in accordance with the documentation, that if there are four parties, the 3 shall be skipped. The removal of the hidden party headers is also uncalled for, and done without explanation. To also clarify the order of the Summary of results table, before the election it is 1) descending order of current seats, 2) descending order of candidates, 3) order in last election, 4) increasing order of party creation date. The reason for 4 is that an older party should have more popularity. 117Avenue (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I was trying to figure out how to make all visible. I wasn't sure if the headers were the issue, or the numbering. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That very much was a minor edit. Fits the description well. You just don't like the edit I made, 117Avenue. So how about suggesting a compromise? Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, there is just no reason that party should be included in the infobox. 117Avenue (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Then you're not bargaining in good faith. I already made my case. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've temporarily protected the page. Please take this time to discuss and attempt to reach consensus on your content dispute. If you cannot reach consensus, various dispute resolution tools (see WP:DR) which can help in establishing community consensus for the appropriate page content. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 03:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've also given both Me and 117 a 24 hour period to think about things without editing. LadyofShalott 03:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I see only minimal discussion of reasons why the Greens should or shouldn't be in the infobox, I'm going to make a few observations. The Yukon, Liberal, and New Democratic parties all held seats in the outgoing government; it stands to reason that they should be listed. The Greens held no seats before the election, and they're also running a candidate in only one riding. On the other hand, not only were the Greens included in a July 2011 opinion poll, but they got a result above five percent in the poll. (The five percent threshold has come up in elections in the US, but third parties are an entirely different creature in the American political landscape.)

This is not the first time this issue has come up in a Canadian election. Whether to include the Greens in the infobox was a controversial issue in the recent federal election, per the discussion at Talk:Canadian federal election, 2011 and its archives. I made the following comment then: "Their inclusion in the leadership debates during the last election cycle shows that, in the perception of the Canadian media at least, the Greens are a major party. … The Greens sit in [a] bubble position, and evidence from reliable sources should be the indicator of what to do with them. Based on polling results and the aforementioned debate inclusion, I say to list them in the infobox." There's only one item of that sort of evidence in the article so far. To Me…, I say that if you think the Greens should be in the infobox, provide reliable sources that the media or the populace consider them a significant party. Are they invited to debates? Are they covered in the same way the biggest three parties are by Yukon newspapers and the CBC? To 117Avenue, I say to provide similar sources on the other side of the coin. Are the Greens excluded from coverage by newspapers and the CBC?

I'm not convinced one way or the other about the Greens in the infobox right now. What I see is that one editor made a bold edit and another reverted back to the status quo. Both of those editors now need to focus on discussing the matter and building a consensus about the infobox, so we can all move forward. If we have two editors who are passionate about Canadian elections, elections in the Yukon, or this election in particular, I'd like to have them working to improve the article during the next few months, not sitting on the sideline because they got themselves blocked or topic-banned by continuing to edit war. This isn't the last thing that will require editing in the article before the election, and the harmonious involvement of as many editors possible as are willing to collaborate is a good thing. —C.Fred (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If an article is written after the election has taken place, the writer must decide who (parties) were the key players in that election, in order to figure out whom shall have details in the infobox. This is easy, they chose the parties that contested the election and a) won seats in the election, b) held seats before the election, or c) won seats in the previous election. In order to determine which parties these are before the election, we must look at available evidence. As C.Fred has said, the Yukon Party, Liberal Party, and NDP, are included because they all currently hold seats. This, I understand, is the generally followed rule, for determining which parties are included in the infobox. The 41st Canadian federal election, after much discussion, has set a precedent, that if a party has the potential to be elected to a seat, it should be included in the infobox until election night. It is difficult to define what gives a party the potential to win, so I would like to propose two criteria, that if a party can meet either one, it shall be included until election night. 1) It is included in the infobox of the previous election by criteria a or b above, or 2) a reliable source cite's a poll in at least one riding where the party is leading, or within 5% of the leader.
I would also like to reply to C.Fred's proposals. You are correct to say that the Canadian system is very different than the American. Our first past the post system can cause major differences between won seats, and popular vote (or opinion polls). A high general opinion poll, or popular vote, doesn't always translate into seats. It can also work the other way, where a party can win a majority, without most of the votes. Regarding finding sources, it is hard to find a source that doesn't say something, let alone coverage of an election that hasn't been called yet, in a loosely populated place. I did find one, but it's a blog. 117Avenue (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I would also like to correct C.Fred on one thing. This list of candidates is of only declared candidates, other Green Party members may join the race in the future. 117Avenue (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
A couple quick notes and I'll try to address the other issues in the morning. One, the Green Party has a seat in the federal parliament. Elizabeth May, MP for Saanich--Gulf Islands. As well, and I can provide sources, but the Greens were included in the debate in PEI and BC, and in PEI's case both the Greens and NDP didn't have any provincial seats. I think we need to treat them all equally. If they don't win a seat, we can opt to remove them later. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
What has happened in other jurisdictions, has no bearing over the notability of this party. Even though they operate under the same umbrella, they are separate entities. You can't argue that the Conservative party of BC should be included because they are in Alberta and federally, or that the NDP of New Brunswick should be included because they are in Nova Scotia and federally. 117Avenue (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Should the Green Party be included in the article's infobox? Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Depends on Leader's notability - The Green party is a very notable party, so they should be included if their leader in this election is also a notable individual (regardless of how many seats/votes they had in the prior election). It looks like the Green leader(s) are Kristina Calhoun & Michael Ivens. Are either of them Notable in the WP sense? Do they have WP articles? If not, perhaps Green party should be omitted from the InfoBox. Alternatively, if the Green party won 5% of the votes/seats last time, that would be another justification for inclusion. --Noleander (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    • They have two co-leaders, I tried to Google the male co-leader to start his article, and I couldn't find anything. The female co-leader is the former riding association CEO, and she is running as a candidate. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    • It turns out they have only one leader now, and an article has been created for Kristina Calhoun. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
      • It looks like Calhoun is only notable as interim leader of the party and may not warrant an article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • No. The infoboxes on elections consistently include only parties that held a seat entering an election, or won a seat exiting it. The Greens, at present, have done neither. This is a definable, objective standard. Once we start getting into "but they have x polling support" or "but the federal party won a seat!" or any such arguments, we are basing on subjective, and therefore, POV criteria. Resolute 03:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Depends on seats. I agree with Resolute. If the party has one or more seats prior to the election then include them. After the election then parties that won a seat are included. The other parties can be given in the body of the article. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Green Party in candidates[edit]

It is my understanding that only parties that are running close to a full slate get a column in the candidates running table. The Green shoots grow slow article says that the Green Party no longer intends to run a full slate. 117Avenue (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No one is interested in discussing the notability of the Green Party anymore? 117Avenue (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with practice in similar articles; that's why I'd refrained from comment to let editors more familiar with the situation chime in. —C.Fred (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess my question is if they intend to run in a majority of ridings. If so, might as well keep their candidates field. If not, then perhaps merge the Green and other columns and list all of the non-big three party candidates together. Resolute 13:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying, as of August 12, they weren't. 117Avenue (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Even I'll admit, as of today they only have 2 candidates. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The requirement to remain registered. 117Avenue (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying it isn't, but do the Citizens and First nations parties have two candidates each? Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
My point being, if they aren't running anyone, especially the United Citizens, then there's no point in changing it. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The ref on the creation of First Nations says they intend to run at least two, but a search for United Citizens doesn't turn up much. If they don't contest the election, I want to nominate their article for deletion. 117Avenue (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
If they get de-registered, I'll second it. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Can we please not delete articles about historical parties please and thanks, I'm sick and tired of this deletionist hipster doofus bullshit --Þadius (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Green Party is the only "other" party in Whitehorse, so they get a column. 117Avenue (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yukon general election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)