Talk:2011 Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador leadership election
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Election or Convention edit
I thought only delegates to the convention could vote on the leader. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
They do why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.120.203 (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The name should be changed back to election, but seeing the name had already be called that, and redirects to "contest", I'm unsure how to change it back so that it's the official name.Jordo72 (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- A page should not be moved until the move discussion has ended. 117Avenue (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I've never understood why all these Leadership Conventions were RM'd or created as Leadership elections. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, now I know why. Just read the December discussion at the BC Liberal related article. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress edit
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:British Columbia Liberal Party leadership contest, 2011 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Dunderdale endorses Dunderdale edit
Do we really need to list Kathy Dunderdale in the list of MHAs who have endorsed Kathy Dunderdale? I mean, it's obvious that she supports her own candidacy. Has her office issued a press release stating that she endorses herself or something? It just seems a little silly to me. Would there be any serious objections to removing her name from the list? Sima Yi (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've noticed in other leadership election articles that if the person is a caucus memeber that person is listed. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No earlier than March 4? edit
No earlier than 90 days after the vacancy? Sure that's not no later than 90 days after a vacancy (i.e. March 3 at the latest)? 117Avenue (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- That should be referenced, if not then it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)