Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
order of elections and by-elections....shouldn't it be most recent first, working backwards?
I just noticed on the Vancouver-Point Grey page that things are in oldest-to-newest order.......for usability wouldn't it be better the other way around? I know when I started the historical ridings pages I automatically went at it from the first results as the first table, but now I see, when a riding's been in a dozen or more elections, that's cumbersome and it's not the old elections people are coming to look at......Discuss? On that page it's problematic because there's a break, too.....not in that case, but sometimes that's the fault of those mergists who went around merging ridings even when they didn't have the same names/boundaries.Skookum1 (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be nice to have the newest at the top. But I've learned from FL reviews that everything has to be in cronological order everywhere, all the time. 117Avenue (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hm, well maybe we could at least put something at the top, or in the infobox, that's "most recent election" then....Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- And that page (Point Grey) needs to be re-ordered then, there's two election results sections, 1993-2013 and then 1933-1991 or whatever......if that rule applies, then shouldn't all of that first section be moved to the bottom?Skookum1 (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- The infobox is all current information, namely MLA and last contested. 117Avenue (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- so the 1993-2013 tables should be moved south?Skookum1 (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- The infobox is all current information, namely MLA and last contested. 117Avenue (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- And that page (Point Grey) needs to be re-ordered then, there's two election results sections, 1993-2013 and then 1933-1991 or whatever......if that rule applies, then shouldn't all of that first section be moved to the bottom?Skookum1 (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hm, well maybe we could at least put something at the top, or in the infobox, that's "most recent election" then....Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer them in chronological order; it's what we do with most lists, and it seems to me the natural order you would put historical events in an encyclopedia article. That said, I do agree that most people coming to a riding page would be looking for the most recent election result. We already have the incumbent MP/MLA in the infobox, so Skookum, what else do you think we should add at the top of the page? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- How 'bout a hatnote type statement indicating the chronological order and directing people down the page for the recent ones; or section headings in the ToC for each decade or pair of decades or whatever division seems viable.Skookum1 (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I like the idea of using section headings and the ToC to direct people to the most recent election. We wouldn't really need a rule about where to add section breaks. If a riding has three elections each with a couple paragraphs, then each one can have a heading. If there are 40 elections, we could break them up by decade, or by logical groupings, like "post-war" or "pre-Mulroney", or whatever makes sense for that article. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Typically electoral boundaries change every couple of elections right? Can this be used? 117Avenue (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- If the riding names stay the same, it's fine, though a preface to each table when boundary changes have taken place since the prior election should be noted. This also complicates the instances where eager-beavers have merged various historical and different-name/different-boundary articles into one article......will have to think about which those were, but all were ill-advised.Skookum1 (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Typically electoral boundaries change every couple of elections right? Can this be used? 117Avenue (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I like the idea of using section headings and the ToC to direct people to the most recent election. We wouldn't really need a rule about where to add section breaks. If a riding has three elections each with a couple paragraphs, then each one can have a heading. If there are 40 elections, we could break them up by decade, or by logical groupings, like "post-war" or "pre-Mulroney", or whatever makes sense for that article. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- How 'bout a hatnote type statement indicating the chronological order and directing people down the page for the recent ones; or section headings in the ToC for each decade or pair of decades or whatever division seems viable.Skookum1 (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Beauharnois
I've posted a query on Talk:Beauharnois (electoral district), but upon reflection, that page wouldn't be on the watchlist of dozens of editors. Can I thus please draw attention to my query here? Schwede66 21:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 10:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
- – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)