Talk:2007 Ontario general election/Archive 1

Archive 1

election guidelines apply

Please follow Wikipedia:election guidelines and best practices, and update that page if necessary. It mostly lists good examples. If this page is a good example of anything, then, make sure it is linked.

NDP fate

It's looking to me like the next election will give Howard Hampton the keys to the Premier's office at this point...

Would be nice, but he's still third in the polls. Earl Andrew 17:40, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I doubt it. I think John Tory stands a shot at becoming Premier. I don't think Ontario is ready to elect another NDP governmetn after Bob Rae. And if not Tory, then McGinty. Louis333 18:58, 24 Mar 2006 (EST)

You guys must not live in Ontario, Weak Liberal majority will occur this election.

Political junky 03:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Results by party

Party	Party Leader	candidates	Seats			Popular Vote
		#	Before	After	% Change	#	%	Change
Liberal	Dalton McGuinty		68
Progressive Conservative	John Tory		24
New Democratic Party	Howard Hampton		10
Greens	Frank de Jong		0
Family Coalition	Giuseppe Gori		0
Freedom	Paul McKeever		0
Communist	Elizabeth Rowley		0
Confederation of Regions	none		0
Independent/No affiliation			1
vacant			0
Total			103	1071

The Ontario Legislature recognizes the NDP as green on the letterhead of thier broadcasts. Maybe the ONDP should be changed to reflect. What do you think?

Orange is used far more commonly for the NDP. The Greens should get the deeper green, the NDP can have a pukey green. Remember they still fight for logging jobs!

Elections charts

I've been trying to get some consensus on what to do about colours in the elections charts, but I don’t want to get into a revert war, so I’ve asked people for their ideas before any changes are made. Some of the colours that are currently being used are too dark for some monitors so that it is difficult to read the text. I think the colour you've chosen for the NDP falls into that category. The point of adding colours to the charts is to make it easier for readers to derive information from the charts. This goal is foiled by using colours dark enough to obscure the text. The Wikipedia style guide is clear on the issue:

Use colour sparingly. Computers and browsers vary: you cannot know how much colour is presented on the recipient's machine if any. Wikipedia is international: colours have different meaning in different cultures. Too many colours on one page make them look cluttered and unencyclopedic. Use the colour red only for alerts and warnings.

Several people have suggested their ideas. Three specific proposals have been made. A vote between these proposals and the status quo in underway.

Please vote and/or contribute your comments at Talk:Canadian federal election results since 1867 Thanks. Kevintoronto 22:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sick of hearing people complain about the colours. The current colours look good. They best reflect the official party colours, and they look sharp. If you can't read it, then get a better monitor. But, that's not my point. I am wondering if the ONDP should be changed to a green colour???

Nice. Wikipedia isn't about me. Or you. It should be as accessible to as many people as possible in order to spread information. That is its purpose. Do you think it should just be for people with good monitors/good eyesight?

sandybrown is used for the NDP in all federal and provincial elections charts. And the party itself uses orange in elections, and sometimes green, but always orange. Kevintoronto 22:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

yes, ALWAYS orange

I agree with Kevintoronto. Most Canadians are familiar with orange for NDP or ONDP. Please sign your comments. --Csnewton 00:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Ever thought about holding the mouse over the party link? A nice little box pops up and tells you what it is.Ever looked at wikipedia with a mac? Most tables are so messed up you can't tell what it is, and yet I hear no outcry over that. If people really cared about what they saw, then they could always open the link and learn more about the parties. But, thanks for giving opinion about the ONDP.

Don Valley West placement

Is anyone aware of the reason that Don Valley West was considered a Downtown Toronto riding on the page for the 2003 provincial election and is filed under suburban Toronto for this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.96.151.229 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

It's been moved back. Thanks for brining this to my attention. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is it listed as a downtown riding? if you drive or walk through the neibourhoods that consist of DVW it is clearly not part of downtown toronto. -- Nat.tang 02:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not really Downtown, more than it is in central Toronto. Most of DVW is in the old city of Toronto. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

here's a map of the riding and you'll see a majority of the riding is in north york and not in old toronto: map of DVW (PDF) -- Nat.tang 16:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of it is though, and that's what counts. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Nat.tang, Don Valley West is not considered a downtown riding, buy most standards, that includes the media, and by the three major parties at least (in my dealings with colleagues in other parties anyways). As a political organizer, it is news to me that DVW is downtown, even Leaside is not considered a downtown neighbourhood. In my experience downtown starts in the west with Parkdale–High Park and follows all the ridings along the waterfront, terminating at Beaches—East York. This means St. Pauls, York South–Weston Eglinton—Lawrence would also not be part of the downtown ridings. It seems what you are counting as downtown is any riding that was part of the old city of Toronto, which isn't how it is treated by most of the media and political parties. One of the problems is the current size of the provincial ridings compared to how they were configured before the 1999 election: they are huge and go over older boundaries, so placement in whichever section is going to be arbitrary, more so now than in the elections prior to 1999. Even with that, I'd still recommend putting it back with the likes of Etobicoke North. Abebenjoe 20:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Or we change "Downtown Toronto" to "Central Toronto" or "Old Toronto". I'd like to have things even, and 13 in a region is too many. Another option is dividing the city in three, but that hasn't been the standard. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I like your suggestion of Old Toronto, though you will find that ridings like Davenport, St. Pauls and York South–Weston cross-over old municipal boundaries, notably the city of York and North York. So Central Toronto makes the most sense since, if my memory serves me well, many of these ridings are in as many as three former municipal jurisdictions. YSW is mostly in the old city of York, with some of it in Toronto, and some of it in North York. St. Pauls is mostly in Toronto, though sections of it are in York and North York. Davenport's population is almost evenly split between York and Toronto, though I think slightly more people live in the former Toronto section of the riding. As I said earlier, it's arbitrary on how you want to slot these ridings, because they no longer follow the old municipal borders, or in the case of Scarborough East-Pickering current municipal boundaries are ignored. So going with Central Toronto seems to be the most agnostic and factual, if such a term can exist in this context. Abebenjoe 09:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we can divide the ridings by how Toronto city council divides the wards. there are north, south, east, west. so for example, Etobicoke - West, Scarbrough (excluding pickering-scarborough east, because even the media in the past federal elections have excluded it from their toronto election result maps) - West , North York (including ridings who have a majority of their boundaries within former North York) - North, and old toronto, york and east york - South -- Nat.tang 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dah, now why didn't I think of this? Nat.tang's proposal makes even more sense, so even though Ward 13, Parkdale–High Park is in the West district and Etobicoke York Community Council, it is 70% in the old city of Toronto, with a section of its north west perimeter in the old city of York. So that, together with Ward 14, which is in the south district and part of the Toronto and East York Community Council, would make Parkdale-High Park in the South District. York South–Weston would be in the West District since both of its wards are there and are part of the Etobicoke York Community Council. Davenport, which like PHP has a ward in South and West district, would still be in South, although this is a fudge factor, so it might be a trade-off between Davenport in the South, and PHP in the West, if the numbers are becoming too large for the South district (that was how it was orignally set-up in 2003, but Sylvia Watson, then the councillor for Ward 14, made a deal with Ward 17 councillor Cesar Palacio to have their wards switch community councils and service districts). Don Valley West, following these rules would be in the North district, since its Wards 25 and 26 belong to the North district and North York Community Council. I think this makes by far the most sense yet. Abebenjoe 01:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

York West is another split riding. Ward 7 is in Etobicoke York Community Council, and Ward 8 is part of North York Community Council. Again, this allows for a 'fudge' factor that would allow it to go to the district that needs another riding to even things out.Abebenjoe 03:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just changed my mind. I think it should be just called Toronto, and then divid the table itself into the for districts as I am attempting below. Abebenjoe 03:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Toronto

---

Toronto East Region

Electoral district	Candidates										Incumbent
	Liberal		Progressive Conservatives		NDP		Green		Other
Scarborough—Agincourt		Gerry Phillips								Tony Ieraci (FCP)		Gerry Phillips
Scarborough Centre		Brad Duguid		Dan Sandor								Brad Duguid
Scarborough—Guildwood		Mary Anne Chambers										Mary Anne Chambers
Scarborough—Rouge River		Bas Balkissoon										Bas Balkissoon
Scarborough Southwest		Lorenzo Berardinetti		Gary Crawford						Victor Borkowski (FCP)		Lorenzo Berardinetti

Toronto North Region

Electoral district	Candidates										Incumbent
	Liberal		Progressive Conservatives		NDP		Green		Other
Don Valley East		David Caplan										David Caplan
Don Valley West		Kathleen Wynne		John Tory								Kathleen Wynne
Eglinton—Lawrence		Mike Colle										Mike Colle
Willowdale		David Zimmer										David Zimmer
York West		Mario Sergio										Mario Sergio

Toronto South Region

Electoral district	Candidates										Incumbent
	Liberal		Progressive Conservatives		NDP		Green		Other
Beaches— East York		Thomas Teahen				Michael Prue		Caroline Law				Michael Prue
Davenport		Tony Ruprecht						Frank De Jong				Tony Ruprecht
St. Paul's		Michael Bryant		Lillyann Goldstein or Christine McGirr								Michael Bryant
Toronto Centre		George Smitherman						Mike McLean				George Smitherman
Toronto—Danforth						Peter Tabuns						Peter Tabuns
Trinity—Spadina						Rosario Marchese				Eleonor Daresi (FCP)		Rosario Marchese

Toronto West Region

Electoral district	Candidates										Incumbent
	Liberal		Progressive Conservatives		NDP		Green		Other
Etobicoke Centre		Donna Cansfield		Andrew Pringle								Donna Cansfield
Etobicoke—Lakeshore		Laurel Broten		Tom Barlow						Bob Williams (FCP)		Laurel Broten
Etobicoke North		Shafiq Qaadri										Shafiq Qaadri
Parkdale— High Park		Sylvia Watson				Cheri DiNovo				Stan Grzywna (FCP)		Cheri DiNovo
York Centre		Monte Kwinter										Monte Kwinter
York South—Weston						Paul Ferreira						Paul Ferreira

Toronto infobox comments

Works for me, as they are between five and 12 ridings each. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I added it, worts and all. If someone can clean up the coding a bit, that would be great. Abebenjoe 03:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Genius --Nat.tang 13:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's clean --Nat.tang 14:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what will be interesting...

You know what will be interesting...if the Ontario legislature was in a minority position...kinda like the recent Québec elections... --Nat.tang 13:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gposmall.png

Image:Gposmall.png 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale is that the logo is being used to demonstrate a Canadian political party's logo and name in an article about them. There is no other reasonable way to demonstrate this. Since the quality of the image is low, there will be little to no economic fall-out from this use. As well, the chance of legal action to be incurred by the usage of this image is on the very low end of the probability scale.--Abebenjoe 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NONDP.PNG

Image:NONDP.PNG 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 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 04:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale is that the logo is being used to demonstrate a Canadian political party's logo and name in an article about them. There is no other reasonable way to demonstrate this. Since the quality of the image is low, there will be little to no economic fall-out from this use. As well, the chance of legal action to be incurred by the usage of this image is on the very low end of the probability scale.--Abebenjoe 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Léger Marketing Ontario polls: need confirmation

The Léger Marketing polls for 2006 were removed, because I could not find proof of their existence. Does someone have those polls available for public viewing, if they do exist? If the polls can be validated, then obviously they should be put back in the article. The only poll I could find, that took place in 2006 from Léger, was dated April 11, but the link was broken on their website, and contained no numbers. Not particularly useful. --Abebenjoe 18:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad links to articles about candidates

Just so you know, 'Chris Robertson' is linked to the wrong article, pointing to the Australian squash player rather than the Canadian politician. I will leave it up to someone more 'wiki-wise' than me to determine whether to remove the link, or to start a new, proper page for Robertson (seeing as he is a candidate in a major election, and an internationally-renowned speaker -> http://www.chrisrobertson.com/). Caydel 19:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The link to the Sudbury Green candidate David Sylvester links to a dead British art critic. I'm going to break the link. Wolfstu 07:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding a section to the candidate's list

Hello! Can someone please add Libertarian Party as one of the official listings? I would do it myself but I am afraid I will break everything. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.250.77 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

hello 74.112.250.77, sorry but we cannot do that because if we do so, then we would have to created a section for the Family Coalition as well and we simply don't have enough room for all the minor parties to have a section of their own. And yes I know the Greens have never won a seat, but they've been recently winning large amounts of votes in the last couple elections. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You should take the greens out, it is dishonest to include them and not other political parties with the same number of seats (0). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.250.77 (talk • contribs)

It doesn't matter if they won seats or not, the point is they've been gaining a huge number of votes lately, qualifying them for government funds. They've also gain media attention, unlike the other minor parties in Ontario. If you wannt them remove, you have to convince other editor to do so. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you support the green party Nat Tang? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meistro5555 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 25 July 2007

No I do not. If you have read my user page, you would have picked up that I am a Tory's Tory. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 23:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh that makes sense, you want to marginalize the Libertarian Party because they take votes from fiscal conservatives and you want to support the green party because they take votes from leftists (NDP / Liberals). Sadly, your obvious use of point of view to further your own political ends is just one example of something that dominates wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.250.77 (talk • contribs)

Frankly, I don't care who's affliated with who. On wikipedia, I follow policy and guidelines. As Earl Andrew said below, the Green Party is there because it runs candidates in all or almost all seats, nothing more nothing less. My role here is not to play partisan politics, it is to build an encyclopaedia. In other words, on Wikipedia I am an editor first, and every thing else comes second. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 01:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't like it when people assume that I support so and so party just to, as you like to call it, marginalize another one. The comments that you made above were uncalled for. nat^tang 07:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

uncalled for? Now you're defensive... obviously you don't like the fact that I point out how you are manipulating wiki for the benefit of your party... why don't you just delete my comments and the libertarian party from this page, that's cleary what you want.

Again that is not what I want. I do not manipulate Wikipedia for the benefit of my party. "Speading the word" or advertising is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia. I have a duty as a Wikipedia to uphold WP:NPOV and also ensure that the information and subjects presented in Wikipedia are notable and the way they are presented are neutral. If you continue this way you will soon find yourself violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF. nat^tang 07:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Green Party has a column because it runs candidates in all or almost all seats. When the Libertarian Party does this, we will add a column for them -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How much is almost all? What rulebook are you making this rules up from?

Almost all means that they have enough candidates to challenge the Government or any other party so that they have a chance to form the next government. So in this case, you would need at least 55 candidates by this definition. nat^tang 07:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton Mountain

Bryan Adamczyk will be running for the NDP, not the Green Party.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.39.153 (talk • contribs)

Rearranging the sections

I find the article's navigability to be poor. With all the candidates front-loaded, it makes it harder to find other information. My suggestion is to put the list of current candidates at the bottom of the article, just before the See also, and Reference sections. I would keep the order the same otherwise.--Abebenjoe 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. nat^tang 02:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Family Coalition Party

Could we add a section for their candidates as they have at least 59 listed on the article page and are clearly in a position (by number of candidates) to challenge any major party for power. nat^tang 01:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, seeing as they're currently only running 8 more candidates than they did in the last election. I also don't know why you'd say that they're in a position to challenge a main party for power, seeing as they most often place last or second-to-last. Morgan695 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Too late, already done. I feel if a party nominates candidates in more than 50% of the ridings, they should be included, which they have done this time, and not last time. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Un-elected candidates

I've noticed that people have begun to make pages for unelected candiadates - including pages such as, (but by no means limited to), Ki Kit Li, Kathryn Holloway, Paul Miller and John David Ford. In the past, un-elected candidates have recieved blurbs on the pages listed under "Candidates by party", and if they are elected, are given their own pages. Should we delete these pages now, or wait until after the election and delete anyone who lost? Morgan695 00:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I say delete them if they lose, but keep them for now. nat^tang 03:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)