|Elections and Referendums|
|Canada: Ontario / Governments|
|The contents of the Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet page were merged into 2003 Ontario general election. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
Thanks for mentioning the NDP's visual aids. For a party that wanted to be taken seriously they were probably a big mistake. The Swiss cheese episode was particularly condescending. Trontonian 16:39, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Why are parties that got 0% of the vote and 0 seats included in this chart?
- I don't know why, but a list of all the parties that ran seems appropriate. It's interesting both the Communists and the Libertarians appealed to no one. Trontonian 20:08, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- They ran candidates...if we could include the number of votes each party got (as well as the percentage), then there wouldn't be as many zeroes. Adam Bishop 20:09, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't have time to fix this, but In my opinion this article doesn't have a very 'encyclopedic' feel to it. There seems to be some editorializing, especially in the 'mudslinging' section. If no one objects I would like to clean that up at some point.
Peregrine981 02:11, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
What's the consensus on using the same pages for federal and provincial ridings? I've noticed that there are a few pages set up like this already, which strikes me as a recipe for confusion in the future (the federal and provincial parliamentary representations don't match up *now*, after all, and there's no guarantee that Ontario will continue to synchronize its ridings with the federal boundaries for the indefinite future).
My preference would be to have separate pages for the federal and provincial ridings, which is why I used the "(Ontario riding)" approach in my previous edit. What does everybody else think about this? CJCurrie 17:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I believe some used Carleton (Ontario riding) and Carleton (New Brunswick riding) to distinguish between two federal ridings with the same name but from different parts of the country (at different times in history). AndyL 20:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with that idea... wonder how much encylopedic infomration you can pack in about many ridings, though...? Krupo 22:08, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I am opposed to the idea. Districts have, have had, or will have the same borders than with their federal counterparts. People have noted that a district has an MP AND an MPP in numerous articles. If we explain in the articles about it's provincial and federal history, I don't see a problem. However, I don't mind seperate articles for pre-1999 districts however, as they are much different. Earl Andrew 22:27, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- How can you be so confident that the provincial/federal distrcts will always have the same borders? Krupo 22:52, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- It is the law, actually! Earl Andrew 23:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Laws can be changed. The current synchronization was the result of a political decision taken by Mike Harris's government in 1996 -- another political decision could easily reverse it. CJCurrie 17:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Well when that happens, we can put in (Ontario riding) but for now I say it shouldn't change. Earl Andrew 18:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Okay ... I'll leave it as it is. CJCurrie 03:03, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Kent & Lambton
- Huron Shores
- Erie Shores
- Georgian Bay Shores
- North York
- West Toronto
- North Toronto
- Central Toronto
- Central Ontario
- Near-Eastern Ontario
- Ottawa & Saint Lawrence Valleys
- Northeastern Ontario
- Northwestern ontario
I am guessing that you are planning t srot the ridings by regions, awhich is commendable. But this is a lot of regions. Maybe a simpler approach would be nmore manageable: Toronto, GTA, southwest, central and east, north. Just a thought. Ground Zero 20:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that Milton Chan's categories on the Election Prediction Project would be a convenient guide. http://www.electionprediction.org/2003_on/index.html CJCurrie 23:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I was looking to use more regions than what we used for Ontario in the federal election. I was having difficulties with names, and logical groupings though, and that was the best I could come up with. On reading the districts from electionprediction.com, it looks like we could use those instead, with a few alterations. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Are these Riding Sections good enough?
I would like to know. Jack Cox 13:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've changed "Central Toronto" to "Downtown Toronto", but it seems fine otherwise. CJCurrie 19:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I was hoping we would use a different set of regions than the federal races. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another change in format?
Recently, I've been adjusting some "election returns" entries to fit the following template:
|New Democratic Party||Madeline Crnec||10,433||29.10||-5.06||$38,712.34|
|Progressive Conservative||Matt Bufton||4,162||11.61||-7.17||$18,088.00|
|Independent (Independent Renewal)||Saroj Bains||253||0.71||+0.71||$0.00|
|Total valid votes||35,855||100.00|
|Rejected, unmarked and declined ballots||302|
The quoted results are from 2003 election. I recognize that this format takes up more space, but it also permits considerably more information to be listed than does the current model.
What would people think of using this here? We could still list the constituencies by region, but the entries would be done an individual basis again.
I should clarify that this template is not my invention, btw. CJCurrie 02:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Ontndp.jpg
Image:Ontndp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Ontarioliberallogo.PNG
The image Image:Ontarioliberallogo.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.
Note that anti-Wikipedians redirected evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet here without any merging of the content and its references (this article currently has no refs). I suggest someone carry out the merge. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Evil kitten-eater bias
- Much of it seems intuitively true but is speculative and unsourced. Also, it would probably need to give the PCs a 'right of reply' over what happened. Anywikiuser (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)