Talk:Green Party of Alberta

Logo

Thanks for uploading the logo, 117Avenue. :-) Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Name

Elections Alberta says the registered name doesn't capitalize the G. 117Avenue (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The party's website does, but it doesn't matter. Make sure to fix the redirects. Me-123567-Me (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mid-word capitals can be tricky, see MOS:TM. I suspect that we will see both usages. On their website E and G are upper case in the banner, E and G are lower case in e-mail addresses, and the whole word is uppercase on the news page. Yes, it takes a couple of days for the what links here to update after editing the templates. 117Avenue (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

E and G being lower case in web and email addresses isn't unusual, since that is what they default to when you have them in an address bar, etc. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• It appears there is no consensus to always capitalize the g. We should avoid non-standard capitalizations unless they are universal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes

1. They're not members of the Global Greens. Please cite a reliable source to prove otherwise.
2. Despite having 0 seats, it's appropriate to have the seats field there.
3. Ashmore isn't interim anymore. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Reference 7, right beside the statement "The party bases its principals on the Charter of the Global Greens."
2. Why? There has been no by-election during the party's existence, and no interest by polling companies to mention the party.
3. His bio still says interim. 117Avenue (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Just because they base their principles on it doesn't mean they're a member. The Global Greens own website doesn't list them as a member.[1]
2. I'll check out that link. Thank you for the reference. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Evergreen Party is a section of the Green Party of Canada (their home page mentions the Alberta election), which is a member of the Global Greens (reference 1 there). In May's letter, endorsing the party, she states it is a "part of the global network of Green Parties". 117Avenue (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move for now: the name change is not official yet and there is no evidence for primary topic. As there is no primary topic, I have made "Green Party of Alberta" a disambiguation page for now. DrKiernan (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

---

• Evergreen Party of Alberta → Green Party of Alberta
• Evergreen Party of Alberta candidates, 2012 Alberta provincial election → Green Party of Alberta candidates, 2012 Alberta provincial election
• Category:Evergreen Party of Alberta politicians → Category:Green Party of Alberta politicians
• Category:Evergreen Party of Alberta → Category:Green Party of Alberta
• Category:Leaders of the Evergreen Party of Alberta → Category:Leaders of the Green Party of Alberta
• Category:Presidents of the Evergreen Party of Alberta → Category:Presidents of the Green Party of Alberta

– The party formally changed their name. Source: [2] Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Please cite a source to back this up. Thanks, PKT(alk) 15:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I did, the Edmonton Journal. Did yo miss the link? Source. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support in concept, on the condition that Evergreen Party of Alberta is merged with Alberta Greens, and not moved to Green Party of Alberta (we should not be doing an end-run around the move discussion earlier this year where there was no consensus to move Alberta Greens to Green Party of Alberta - if anyone wants to reconsider that consensus, that's a separate discussion and it should not be slid through in the context of this proposed change).

  I disagree with the proposed move of Evergreen Party of Alberta candidates, 2012 Alberta provincial election as it should stay as is. Correct me if I am wrong (and maybe I am mistaken here), but didn't the 25 candidates in 2012 run under the Evergreen name, not the Green banner? I appreciate that the Evergreen name was adopted to get around an Elections Alberta rule, and that the party has now reverted to the Green name. However, that does not change the fact that the candidates in the 2012 election were candidates of the Evergreen Party, not the Green Party. The lead paragraph of Evergreen Party of Alberta candidates, 2012 Alberta provincial election could be amended to explain the unusual circumstances, but we should not be rewriting history. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarification I just checked, and there is already a category structure for Category:Alberta Greens. While I agree that the content of the Evergreen Party categories should be moved, it should be to categories using the Alberta Greens name, not the Green Party of Alberta. The current consensus is to stick with Alberta Greens. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was on the previous party to be called the Alberta Greens. They de-registered and went under, and then the Evergreen Party formed later. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

On its face, that's too cute by half. This appears to me to be a case of a small political party that failed to file its financials, got deregistered, and fairly soon thereafter jumped through the necessary hoops to get reregistered and to eventually return to its original name. There was no party merger or significant reinvention that would justify having two articles, esp. given the relatively minor status (to date) of this party. There appears to have been some internal party upheaval, but almost every political party goes through such periods (and we don't create a new article every time it occurs). From what I understand to be the facts, I would not support creating two articles for the two legal incarnations of what is essentially the same party.

In the previous move discussions (in which I was not involved), the Alberta Greens article title appears to have been preferred both on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME and based on how the party actually registered itself with Elections Alberta. If either of those circumstances have changed now that the party is reregistered (and it might be premature at this point to make that determination), then I would suggest that the appropriate path would be to make another move request at Talk:Alberta Greens on the basis of new facts once they have been established.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Back then that was the name they were using sometimes. But the source I pvoided above specifically says Green Party of Alberta, not Alberta Greens. And the Alberta Greens article wouldn't be the appropriate venue for a move, because it's the old, de-registered party. The Evergreen Party (now renamed Green Party of Alberta) is a whole new thing. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Your bald assertion that it's a "whole new thing" completely fails to address the point I made above. As for the source, the problem in the previous move discussions does not appear to have been that one could not find references to the Green Party of Alberta name in the media, but rather the two issues raised above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

We're just talking in circles, and will probably just grow frustrated with each other at this rate. I will post a note about this discussion on the talk pages of all those who participated in the previous article title discussions about this party, since they would all presumably be more familiar with this issue than me. You've already left a note about this discussion at WP:CANBOARD, so that's covered off. I am happy to go along with whatever consensus emerges. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Just a few months ago, Me-123567-Me, you were arguing that the old party used "Green Party of Alberta" more than "Alberta Greens". Now you claim that the new party is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "Green Party of Alberta", despite yesterday being the first mention of it. We don't need to wait for Elections Alberta to approve the name change, as per the discussion at Talk:Wildrose Party#Name Change, and we have a media release from the party stating the exact new name, so this article should be moved to Green Party of Alberta (2011–present). The list of candidates page should not be moved to any other name, because they ran under the Evergreen banner, and were registered as Evergreen Party of Alberta for that election. If a merge discussion is needed here, then this move request should be speedy closed, and the merge discussion takes place first. I think they should not be merged, they are different parties, many people left the Alberta Greens at dissolution. The number of candidates and popular vote in the 2012 election, compared to the 2008 election, I think also displays how this new party is not as popular, and thus not the primary topic, as the old Green Party of Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Usually it's the old party that'd be named via dates. So in this case Green Party of Alberta (1986-2009). Me-123567-Me (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Your perception of "usually" is not a policy that trumps WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A recent example of a new party not becoming the primary topic is Conservative Party of Quebec. 117Avenue (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Green Party of Alberta (2011–present). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.evergreenparty.ca/mayletter.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Evergreen%20Party%20rises%20from%20ashes%20Alberta%20Greens/5922201/story.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rockyviewweekly.com/article/20120102/RVW0806/301029995/green-party-back-on-albertas-political-scene
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elections.ab.ca/Public%20Website/603.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vision2012alberta.ca/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014165530/http://evergreenparty.ca/EverGreen%20media%20release%20Oct%201%202012.pdf to http://evergreenparty.ca/EverGreen%20media%20release%20Oct%201%202012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Green Party of Alberta (2011–present) → Green Party of Alberta – Seems pretty clear that the current party by this name is the Primary Topic. The predecessor party was called "Alberta Greens," not the Green Party of Alberta, and putting a hatnote on each page with a link to the other is a better solution than using years in the title and having a dab page.

These two pages have a complex naming history. In a nutshell, the original environmentalist party in Alberta was called "Alberta Greens." Their Wikipedia page was titled "Green Party of Alberta" for some time to comply with (now out-of-date) naming policy. The Alberta Greens were deregistered and a new group called the "Evergreen Party of Alberta" took their place. This party referred to itself informally as "Green Party of Alberta," and some felt this article should be titled as such. In 2012, the party became officially known as "Green Party of Alberta."

So, my suggestions are:

• the page about the current party should be called "Green Party of Alberta"
• the page about the former party should be called "Alberta Greens"
• both of those pages should have clear hatnote links to the other
• the dab page currently at "Green Party of Alberta" will no longer be necessary
• "Evergreen Party of Alberta" should redirect to the page about the current party.

Madg2011 (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The term is not ambiguous if another term needs to be mangled to match the term. bd2412 T 00:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, seems reasonable. Current disambiguation is unnecessary. –BLAIXX 03:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support No need to disambiguate the current party. Move the old party to "Alberta Greens" and that'll be sufficient. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

To clarify: the article about the old party is already at Alberta Greens. Only this one requires a move. Madg2011 (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.