Talk:2014 New Brunswick general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed deletion[edit]

It is common practice for there to be a page on the next scheduled election in a jurisdiction. Many events unfold over the course of an election cycle and there will be many verifiable media reports about the "next election." See also the many other articles on the "next election" in other jurisdictions:

I am therefore removing the deletion tag. - Pictureprovince (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:British Columbia general election, 2013 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing leader's names[edit]

Assuming that 117Avenue's recent edit was in response to the discussion taken place here, it's clear that there was (and still is) a need for a broader consensus before actually applying these changes on a borad scale. Until then, I think it's premature to actually move forward with such a position. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I object to the name of this discussion. I only object to the addition of party leaders' names in the infobox, the names of the players can be included in the prose. Secondly, a reference has been added that the party has confirmed Cardy's candidacy to a district, have the PCs and Liberals announced where their leaders are running yet? 117Avenue (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The PCs and Liberals have not announced which districts that their leaders will run in. I am not familiar with the discussion linked above, but the longstanding consensus/tradition is to include the leaders names in the infobox in the article about the next election; I think it would be a disservice to readers to remove the names. It is highly likely that these leaders - particularly the Liberal and NDP leaders who have taken over since the last election - will lead their parties into the next election. Is it possible that they will not due to death, illness or scandal? Yes. It is also possible that a revolution could end elections altogether in New Brunswick or Canada. However, as WP:CRYSTAL allows for these very sorts of articles to exist on the basis that "the event is notable and almost certain to take place", it would be my view that leaders elected for the purpose of leading their party in these elections who have indicated their plans to do so should be included. If we remove the leaders from the infobox, I would argue that the infobox should be eliminated altogether until the election is called and it is restored with the leaders' names present. - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many leaders have changed their mind after mentioning themselves in the next election. This article can exist as it is an "expected future event" and "preparation for the event is already in progress", but stating who will be involved is "original research in the form of extrapolation and speculation", "we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." I wouldn't go as far as saying wait until the election is called (unless it is a snap election), but waiting until the candidacies are in full swing, like the next Nova Scotia general election two or three months ago. 117Avenue (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrarily deciding when the "candidacies are in full swing" seems more OR than assuming that leaders who have sought the leadership explicitly to contest the next election (Gallant, Cardy and Coon) and who repeatedly refer to their plans to lead their parties in the ensuing campaign will do as they've said. - Nbpolitico (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prospective candidates (nomination contestants)[edit]

There is a long standing convention on Canadian election articles (or at least there was) that candidates who have declared for the nomination in a riding are listed in italics. This is in fact part of the key that is used above most of these election articles. See this snapshot of an early edition of the 2010 New Brunswick election article. User:117Avenue has been removing such people from this page. When was there an agreement to change the consensus that we include verifiable nomination contestants? - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it has been a longstanding convention, since the 2004 federal election anyways. I say we keep doing it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of this convention, I understood that candidates don't get added until they have won the nomination, and are thus confirmed to be running in the election. This is how we have been doing it at By-elections to the 41st Canadian Parliament. We shouldn't speculate who may run, the election is a year away, has any party announced any candidates yet? 117Avenue (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The NDP and the Greens have already nominated candidates, and the Liberals have begun their nomination process. We should not and do not speculate on who may run, we note, based on verifiable sources, who will seek the nomination. - Nbpolitico (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We may have not been doing it at By-elections to the 41st Canadian Parliament, but I have been doing it on their respective riding articles. (that brings up an unrelated point, why don't we have separate articles for each by-election, like they do for UK, US and Australian by-elections?) -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because they're not notable to stand alone. I don't know where the discussion is, but By-elections to the 40th Canadian Parliament used to be three separate articles. 117Avenue (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What makes by-election articles in Australia more notable than Canada? Nothing that I can tell. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also I want to add, it's not speculation to list candidates who have officially entered a party's nomination race. It is speculation to put down un confirmed names, though. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Putting down names in this list is saying they are running in the general election, not they are running for the party's nomination. 117Avenue (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Years of service for retiring incumbents[edit]

User:117Avenue and I seem to be in a disagreement about whether to include the years of service of incumbent MLAs. He first removed the former riding of one of the retirees, in part because it was red linked. I created the corresponding article and restored it. He then removed all of the dates of service of MLAs on the grounds that "other elections haven't". In fact, other elections articles have, see: New Brunswick 2010 for an example. This data adds some interesting context without taking up very much space, I believe it should stand. But before restoring it, I thought it should be discussed here to avoid an edit war. What are other people's thoughts? - Nbpolitico (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I agree. More information is good. Sorry, 117Avenue (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, glad we were able to resolve it that easily :) - Nbpolitico (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coon/Greens[edit]

I see an anonymous editor has added the Green Party to the infobox. The NDP has been polling at 16-27%, the Greens at 3-5%, so there is certainly a clear NPOV cut-off between these parties. What is the precedent for including these sorts of parties in other election articles? If we include the Greens, should we also include the People's Alliance who poll at 0-1% (much closer to the Greens than the Greens are to the NDP)? In any event, if we keep the Greens, the picture for party leader David Coon should be cropped to better fit the infobox, it looks sloppy at present. - Nbpolitico (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I enforce 5% (opinion poll before the election, popular vote after the election), but there are always users and IPs who believe it should be higher or lower. 117Avenue (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about this before as well and I don't think percentages can be completely NPOV. I'd like to propose the following guideline (there is probably a better page to post it to, I know): (1) Since it seems the max number of parties that end up on election pages is 6, see German election linked above and 2011 Canadian federal election, I propose that as a hard maximum. (2) If there are 6 parties or less than they are all listed. (3) If there are more than 6 parties then only those with seats are listed. I think this will provide the correct balance of information and use of space. Wilson (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are to summarize the article. Since minor parties are not a major part in elections, it isn't right to list them predominantly at the top of articles. Trivial information makes infoboxes become bloated. 117Avenue (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on New Brunswick general election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_New_Brunswick_general_election&oldid=1196667609"