Talk:2024 British Columbia general election

Polls from Angus Reid

I am unable to find some polls to find the polls in graphs [1] (november 2020 and March 2021) Braganza (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

For the two Angus Reid polls in the table for Nov 2020, both sets of numbers come from subsets of the same poll, as seen in the detailed results: http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2020.12.09_Province_Spotlight-PR-Tables.pdf

The difference comes from using "currently support" and "likely to support." I suggest we use the numbers they chose to publish in their main November report, and ignore their numbers in past vote intent graphs. What a mess! Lilactree201 (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Which ones did they publish? "Currently" or "Likely"? —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

"Currently" Lilactree201 (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

new map issues

hi Talleyrand6

Truncation: the right side of the image is truncated in the thumbnail and full view as seen here.

Contrast: the current very light grey colour of the ridings make distinguishing the white riding borders very difficult. The previous image used a much darker grey where this wasn't an issue.

Additionally, I would set the initial values at "0.0%"... we don't format zero values with double digits. You can also save visual space by removing the "BC" in front of every party name since the image is clearly about BC (i.e. just "New Democratic" "United" "Conservative" "Green").

Finally, per MOS:ABBR and sentence case, the title should be "2024 BC general election" and subsequent heads should be:

• "93 seats in assembly"
• "47 for majority"

And the "Vote %" should have a space between "vote" and "%". —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Option 1

Option 2

It seems another issue affecting this is the decision to use teal for BC United at Template talk:Canadian party colour/Archive 3#RfC: British Columbia United. That was also discussed at Talk:BC United#Colour. While I was in the camp advocating pink, we seemed to have lost the argument. If we are going to switch to pink, some discussion is likely required.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the legend is cut off on the right side of the map we are currently using in the article (Option 2). Perhaps we should revert to the Option 1 map, at least until these issues raised by Joeyconnick are resolved.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Issues Section

This section seems to be a WP:OR table relying only on party platforms and arguably no reliable sources. Furthermore, MOS:USEPROSE suggests that we should use prose not use a table for this information. Should we blow the section up and start over?-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Getting rid of it would be okay by me. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like these issues/platform sections are not included in the articles for the last few BC elections. I think it can be dealt with in a campaign section that sets out relevant details in prose.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of these sections; just because people use Wikipedia as an election resource doesn't mean it actually is. We should only cover issues that are flashpoints in the campaign. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

United/Conservative Merger talks

We should probably mention this somewhere.[2][3][4][5] Not sure where in the article is appropriate, perhaps in a new "Campaign" section. That might be easier to do in the coming weeks, if something actually comes of it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)