Talk:2018 Ontario general election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Leaders in infoboxes

For future elections in Canada, there seems to be a debate on whether or not to include leaders in the infoboxes. For example, leaders are not included in the articles for the next Quebec election, next Alberta election, and next British Columbia election, but are included in the articles for the next Manitoba election, next New Brunswick election, and next federal election, among others.

The common argument for excluding them, it seems, is that their inclusion is a violation of Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. While that may be the case for presidential elections, as is pointed out, I do not believe this includes future elections in a Westminster system. This is not just my opinion, evidently, as articles for elections in many other countries - such as for the next United Kingdom, the next Italian, and the next German general elections.

Further, unlike in a country like the United States, where a presidential candidate must first be nominated by his party, in our system of government that isn't the case. For example, Tim Hudak has continually been the leader of the Ontario PC's since 2009 and will continue to be so until his successor is chosen, while in the United States, for instance, Mitt Romney, if he wanted to once again represent the Republicans in the 2016 Presidential election, would have to win the nomination for a second time. Also unlike the United States, in Canada the election is, to an extent, always "ongoing," due to frequent by-elections. Right now, five by-elections are pending federally, and I think it's difficult to argue that voters in these ridings are not influenced by party leaders - whether it be Justin Trudeau, Stephen Harper, or Thomas Mulcair.

It is for these reasons (and I hope I've made myself clear) that I propose that party leaders are included in the infoboxes for future elections. Hopefully people will weigh-in on this and we can come to a consensus, and avoid unnecessary edit wars. Tholden28 (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I would also argue that until the writ is actually dropped, the "next election" articles are de facto "current situation" articles, including info on by-elections, opinion polling, etc. So in this case, keeping current leaders in the infobox is obviously informative. Esn (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely the election will be called while Hudak is leader, there is no reason to have him, (and to be fair the other leaders) in the infobox. 117Avenue (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It is just as highly unlikely that the next election will be called without Kathleen Wynne leading the Liberal party. As I said, I think that until the writ is actually dropped, these articles are de facto about the current political situation and historical milestones (political events, polling) rather than the coming election. And they are very useful in that function. It is good enough that under Hudak's image in the infobox it says that he will be leader "until TBD", with a link to the page on the PC leadership race. Esn (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. For example, when I want to check up on federal politics, I go to the page for the 42nd Canadian federal election. The timeline section and current standings (the latter especially), for instance, are far more about the present political climate than the future political climate. Tholden28 (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Esn, you're wrong, the truth is premiers resign. Alberta is a perfect example, in the last election the PCs got a majority, flash forward two years, and the premier was forced to resign. I'll say it again, this article is on the future election, not the current state. If you want to know who the leader of a party is, go to that party's article. This article can list stats on the current number of seats, but the leaders do not need to be in the infobox. 117Avenue (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"This article can list stats on the current number of seats" - how is that any different? If you truly want the "problem" fixed, the solution would be a split. In this scenario, the current article would be strictly about the future election, and would feature absolutely no timeline of events nor any opinion polls from the pre-writ period, and would also feature no leader names, nor any party seat numbers in the infobox or article (because those are unpredictable as well, due to resignations and by-elections; WP:CRYSTAL). All of the other stuff (including the infobox which would include current leaders and seat numbers, the opinion polls, and the events timeline) would instead be merged into the 41st Parliament of Ontario article. Obviously, you would then have to do the same thing for every other election article in province, country and world. I think the current practice is fine, but let me know if you think that would be a better option. Esn (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm kind of glad you brought this up, because this was really my basic point. Canada isn't the only country in the world to include leaders in infoboxes, and update them if/when somebody resigns. Next Italian general election had Guglielmo Epifani as Democratic leader up until the day he was replaced by Matteo Renzi. The only election infobox from a major country that doesn't have leaders included is the United States at the presidential level, but that's only because Barack Obama (or Mitt Romney) aren't actual leaders of their parties. My point is, if just about every other country thinks it's okay to do this, why shouldn't Canada? Tholden28 (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ideally only events that affect the election should be in the timeline. Ontario general election, 2011 is shockingly lacking the events of the election. While the infobox lists the current state, it is still false to add the picture of someone on an election article, who doesn't want to be a leader in that election. Hudak does not intend to run in the next election, he should not be in the infobox. 117Avenue (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

But my point is, while I understand this sentiment, just about every other country includes leaders in the infoboxes. When Gordon Brown resigned as Labour leader following the United Kingdom general election, 2010, the infobox for the Next United Kingdom general election had Harriet Harman as leader until Ed Miliband is chosen. Why is it that Canada (and Canadian provinces) should be an exception to this? Tholden28 (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, doesn't mean it is right. I like to look for the reason. 117Avenue (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the only reason we should include leaders in infoboxes for elections that have yet to occur is because other countries do it, but if most every other country does this, than clearly were missing something. Tholden28 (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Speculation on an early election date

The date for the next election in Ontario is given as 14 June 2018, based on a speculative comment by Kathleen Wynne. However, the Ontario legislation for provincial elections is very clear that "general elections shall be held on the first Thursday in October in the fourth calendar year following polling day in the most recent general election" which would be 4 October 2018 (from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e06#BK22 ) . Wikipedia should not be making forward-looking statements based on speculation when there is clearly a date determined by legislation. Until a definitive election date is set, Wikipedia should indicate 4 October 2018 as the next Ontario provincial election date. If there is no strong argument to the contrary, I'll edit the article in a few days. Of course, the statement by Kathleen Wynne is important, and should remain on the page to indicate the possibility that the election may be called early. --Bob (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed by Elections Ontario - A this time the official date for the next Ontario General Eletion is 4 October 2018.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Info <[email protected]>
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: feedback for how--when-and-where-to-vote

Hello Bob,

According to the Elections Act<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e06> Section 9(2)(a)(b) a General Election shall be held on the first Thursday in October in the fourth calendar year following polling day. That date would be Thursday October 4, 2018.

However, the Chief Electoral Officer, Greg Essensa, has been advocating for many years that the provincial election date should be moved from the fall to the spring. There are several reasons for this, you can find out more in our 2014 Post Event report<http://www.elections.on.ca/content/dam/NGW/sitecontent/2014/reports/Post%20Event%20Report%20-%202014%20General%20Election%20-%20Ready,%20Set,%20Go!.pdf> (page 16).

At this time no legislation has been introduced that would change the timing of the election.

We hope this information is helpful.

Kind regards,

Elections Ontario   www.elections.on.ca<http://www.elections.on.ca>
1.888.668.8683   Fax:  416.326.6200

--Bob (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears that Bill 45, Election Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 came into force on 7 June 2017, the "E-Laws Currency Date" at https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e06 . Is it still necessary to have the history of the election date in the top paragraph on this article? --Bob (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 42nd Ontario general election. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140625105441/http://wemakevotingeasy.ca/en/general-election-results.aspx to http://wemakevotingeasy.ca/en/general-election-results.aspx

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) 22:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Candidate without citation

Hi all, multiple IP addresses (possibly the same person?) have been attempting to add a candidate called Daryl Christoff without providing a citation for them. I've attempted to write on the talk pages of some of the IP addresses a few times asking them to provide a source, but since it's almost always a different IP address each time, I don't think they are seeing it (or ignoring the messages). I've hidden the candidate and also added a message asking for a citation, but they ignore it and just keep adding them back. Does anyone have a suggestion/recommendation on what to do? Canadianpoliticalwatcher (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2017

Scarborough-Centre Liberal Nominee Ali Manek has entered the nomination (ref: www.alimanek.ca) Nafisaladha (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Your User access level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  — Ammarpad (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for candidate lists in election articles

Hi all, please feel free to offer feedback on my proposal here: Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Proposal for candidate lists in election articles
Madg2011 (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Temporarily removing Doug Ford "running in Etobicoke North"

So each of the four parties (Liberal, Conservative, NDP & Green) have a list of candidates on their website. Not every riding has a Liberal, Conservative, NDP & Green candidate. Each party has their own nomination process.

Kathleen Wynne is listed as a candidate for Don Valley West in the Ontario Liberal Party website. Andrea Horwarth is listed as a candidate for Hamilton Centre in the NDP website. Mike Schreiner is listed as a candidate for Guelph in the Green Party of Ontario website.

However Doug Ford is not as of right now (02:07 March 17, 2018) listed as a cnndidate in any riding in the Ontario PC Party website. Doug Ford's father was the MPP for Etobicoke North, Doug's brother Rob Ford was the Councillor for half of Etobicoke North, Doug himself was the Councillor for half of Etobicoke North. Anyone that follows the election, knowns Doug Ford is running in Etobicoke North.

I am sure the Ontario PC Party will have a nomination or he will be appointed to Etobicoke North. However, as of right now, he might be the leader of the Ontario PC Party but he is not a candidate in any riding. I think the part that he is running in Etobicoke North should be temporarily removed until he is an official candidate for Etobicoke North.

I am not a member of any political party, nor have I decided who I am voting for. I also do not live in Etobicoke North. I think anyone listed here, should be an official candidate for their respective party. For me is when they are listed on their party's candidates page. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)MiroslavGlavic

Doug Ford has already indicated he will be seeking election in Etobicoke North (also see here). No candidate is officially running, as the writs of election have not been issued by the Lieutenant Governor. What we're going on here are statements from candidates and from parties simply indicating that an individual will be a candidate in a particular area. Candidates can be nominated, but not file, and they can be appointed at the last minute. This page is about using the most relevant information possible to provide the most complete picture possible to the public. And that information, as of right now, includes Ford's intended candidacy in Etobicoke North. HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I propose a compromise - I've changed the infobox to say "seeking nomination in Etobicoke North" rather than "running in," which goes to Miroslav's point. Jebussez (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Many candidates don't have their own articles or websites

Let's take the first riding on the list Carleton.

Liberals have to choose in their nominatio between Kim Elliot and Theresa Qadri. PC have Goldie Ghamari. NOTA has Anthony Sevigny. Other/Ontario Alliance Jay Tysick. All those candidates are not linked to any article. There must be some history to use for a new article for each. Jean-Serge Brisson from the Libertarian party has an article.

Same for most of the ridings. Incumbents have their own page. I just think the others should have their names link to a page, that page include their history, any previous political runnings and external links to the bottom to their official websites even if it's to politicalparty.com/candidates/JohnSmith and include their candidate social media accounts. Some candidates get new social media accounts when running for political office and keep them separate from their personal social media accounts. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)MiroslavGlavic

Unfortunately many of these candidates have not yet achieved what one would call "notable" status, enough to warrant their own Wikipedia page. The standard is only those who have attained elected office or contributed in significant, objective ways (i.e., they made national media for their actions or headed up a large company), and simply running for a nomination of a political party doesn't constitute that. Brisson has his own page because he used to lead the federal Libertarian party and made some news back in the day - the others have not achieved the same level of notoriety, not until they actually represent people. As to social media and etc; Wikipedia is not the place for self- or partisan promotion, it's aim is to provide objective information. The only thing in that list you could pursue is their pages on their respective websites, and then only as a source verifying their intention to run or status as that party's candidate. What you're looking for is a website like http://punditsguide.ca or a Canadian version of http://ballotpedia.com, which are specifically made for that sort of information, not Wikipedia. Jebussez (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

you could wp link direct it to a page like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_of_Canada_candidates,_2015_Canadian_federal_election Outback the koala (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I originally meant their campaign websites, as I am sure others will link them up. However most of the times it is politicalparty.com/johnsmith or johnsmith.politicalparty. Just a ref thing beside their names. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)miroslavglavic

I get the idea, but unfortunately that's not really feasible nor necessary, we're information not promotion - and I say that as a dyed-in-the-wool partisan voting in this particular election who loves the idea on principle; I suggest you either follow Koala's suggestion, or we can have a general source link available for people to click through to (we did something similar on BC's election page before the official lists came out). Jebussez (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion in Infobox

What is the criteria for inclusion of a party in the Infobox? Can I get a link to it, please, if it exists? Thanks. Yan.simkin (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The criteria is consensus of editors on a given article. There isn't a rule or policy. As can be read above on this talk page, current consensus is that the only 4th party that should be included is the Greens, due to their prominence and high polling numbers. The infobox is for "major parties" - an unfortunately, but unavoidably, subjective measure. The Libertarians don't inherently warrant inclusion just because they're a bit bigger than the average fringe party. Madg2011 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree about the Green Party. While it is the most popular of the minor parties, it has never gained a seat nor gained more than 8% of the popular vote in previous elections. If they're included, that would only encourage people to add other minor parties (like what happened with the Libertarian Party). If there's going to be a consensus, I believe it should be parties that are likely to gain seats. Additionally, their polling numbers aren't really that high, they are in the single digits putting them far behind the NDP's 3rd place. If the Green Party does pull it off and gain a seat in on election night, we can add them then. 65.93.108.15 (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

See above discussion. I had the same thoughts before, but their polling has been steady above 5% for sure and 8% typically - and the last time they were in the infobox was 2007 when they earned 8% of the vote. They are not a minor party in polling, and so should be treated as equal with the big 3. Jebussez (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

What does a province wide poll matter in a FPTP system? Ontario publicly funds 7 parties currently, why don't we list all those in the infobox? I'm not seeing any consistency here. Outback the koala (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The lack of consistency across every page is part of the problem, to be sure. We all need to hash this out. However there is certainly one consistent thing I can find, and that is regardless of the FPTP method of electing members in every province in Canada, parties without representation but significant totals of the vote are included in their infoboxes - including in Ontario, where the Greens were included in the infobox in 2007 despite having zero seats. That threshold is varies, to be sure, but I don't think it unreasonable to conclude the Greens meet the threshold given that they clearly stand apart from the minor parties in terms of voter support, both in previous electoral cycles and in the current polling, where they are one of four named parties polled by companies, while Trillium, Libertarian, and so on are not. They deserve to be in there. As for 'publicly funds 7 parties', I only see evidence for four - OLP, PC, NDP, and Greens. Can you give a citation showing otherwise? Jebussez (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

[1]. Under riding associations section. I was surprised the Freedom Party and Northern Ontario party were there, but they did get more than 2% of the vote in their respective ridings according to Elections Ontario. Outback the koala (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I see now, thanks. That's for constituency associations however, not parties - the only parties to receive public allowances are OLP, PC, NDP and Green, because they all received above 2% of the vote province-wide. Constituency associations, while obviously 'associated' are not quite the same thing as the parties themselves. Jebussez (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I have commented above in the section on specifically including the Greens, but the page editors in 2007, 2011, and 2014 did not include the Green party during the election because they did not have either an MPP and achieve 5% of the vote in the previous election. Polls chance during election and pre-election. It would be a political decision to include them as it does not follow the past precedent the ON Election pages have used for the past 12 years. We have never used the 2% as an indicator or referred to Elections Ontario for deciding on who to include in the infobar. It seems to be some users are looking for justifications to include the Greens when in similar past result and polling situations they have been excluded from the infobar. How can we justify including a party that recieved less than 5% in the last election, and exclude parties that have members in the legislature (Trillium Party?) We will not know if they are able to field candidates until 1.5 weeks into the election when nominations close.

I am happy to quote from the debates page editors had on the talk pages in 2007, 2011, and 2014 where users more eloquently made these points and it was consistently decided not to include the Greens at this time. Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent Cotter (talk • contribs) 15:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Greens in the Infobox

This is the second page where I've had to deal with people putting in the Greens in the infobox alongside the three major and represented parties in the Legislature. The reason this time is that the Greens have been polling at 7% - ignoring the fact that the Greens once polled several times at 8% and we didn't have the party in the infobox then! I'm taking it out until someone can give a good reason why they should be included when they have zero current representation and we're outside of a writ period - "up in the polls" is not it, unless they surpass one of the other parties. As far as I can tell and anyone has told me, this is the standard enforced on other pages.

Jebussez (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This same debate occurred for the 2014 Ontario election page. While there's some merit to a strict "no seats in the current legislature = no spot in the infobox" rule, note that several other Canadian election pages currently contravene that criterion, notably BC 2001, 2005 and 2009. In the event that a party wins legislative representation for the first time in a given general election (e.g. federal Greens 2011, BC Greens 2013, Quebec Solidaire 2008, etc.), would you suggest adding the party to the election's infobox only after the election has been concluded? Regarding polling, choosing some arbitrary support threshold would admittedly be iffy, but I believe some have argued that when there emerges a consensus among the pollsters to always include some "lesser" party in their results—for whatever reason (usually because it's generally considered to be a potential player in the upcoming election)—that might be good enough to warrant an infobox spot. That was the case for the BC Conservatives for a little while, but now the pollsters have abandoned them. Ontario Green Party support, however, is consistently reported in all polls. Another suggested criterion was any party that runs candidates in all or almost all ridings. In any case, there's definitely a lack of consistency and consensus over this across the numerous Canadian election pages. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a lack of consistency, and that's a problem to be sure. But from what we do have, I don't think there is enough to justify their inclusion right now. As you noted, it may be better to include them when it's clear they'll be running in all or most seats, aka the writ period, though I remember other pages that didn't follow that, such as the 2016 Saskatchewan page, which only had the two larger parties present despite both smaller parties running full or nearly full slates. For now I think it's better to stick with the usual standard I've seen, which is to not include unrepresented parties or smaller parties not included in major polling, like the Trillium Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebussez (talk • contribs) 10:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The Green Party of Ontario is one of four parties in Ontario that receive taxpayer funding through the new per-vote subsidy. There are 21 registered parties in Ontario, but only four literally get paid by taxpayers every year. I think it's essential that the Greens are at the very least, included in the infobox on this page. This is a criterion set by Elections Ontario, any party that received at least 2% of the popular vote last general election is eligible for per-vote funding . We should follow the lead of the non-partisan Elections Ontario criteria. It's the fair and proper thing to do. 2607:FEA8:64E0:644:D182:5B7B:2626:D645 (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a good rationale and I would be inclined to agree; on the other hand, the Greens do not have an infobox presence excepting 2007 when they took 8% of the vote, despite taking over 2% in every election since, so precedent says we don't include them. Then again, some polls have put them at 8% or above recently, so we could say that justifies their inclusion for now, and if they don't win a seat or fail to take a significant percentage of the vote following election day we can take them off. Does this make sense? Jebussez (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

In past ON Election pages, the threshold has been 5% of the vote to be included. The Green Party has 0 seats in the Legislature of Ontario, and recieved less than 5% in the last election. We cannot put up and take down the Green Party leader's photo based on polling that has had the Greens lower than 5% when you include undecided voters (check the last two polls mentioned on this very wikipeidia page.

They should not be on the page if we are to be consistent, and non-partisan in the application of the rules for the leader photos. Just look through the past ON election pages and you will see this is quite consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent Cotter (talk • contribs) 15:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

All you need to do is go back three elections to find this supposed consistency broken. Jebussez (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Jebussez It would be entirely consistent, I don't follow your point. In the 2007 ON Election the Green party leader achieved 8% of the vote, so they are included in the list of leaders after the election. Notice they were not included in the next election (2014) as they did not have 5% of the vote (2.9%), and additionally did not have an MPP, and more importantly were not included during the election in 2014. If you read the talk page dating back to 2011, and 2014 these are settled questions. Once the Greens either achieve over 5% of the vote, or elect a MPP they can be included. They were not included in earlier elections due to polling as polls change through the election and pre-election period. Using your criteria, why are we not including the Libertarian Party, or more to the point, the Trillium party who has a MPP actually in the legislature currently. We need to add at least the Trillium party of we are including the Greens, which obviously would be a discredit to informing users of the page.

I'm happy to quote directly from the debates users had in 2014, 2011, and 2007 where this question was debated, and in every single case, including elections where the Green party was polling higher they were not included going back at least 3 elections.

Additional to this, the idea we should tie it to 2% would mean we need to go back to previous ON elections pages and add other political parties to be consistent. This is clearly an argument meant to justify the Greens inclusion. This is argued every single election, and the consensus has been 5% so we do not have these arguements every single time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent Cotter (talk • contribs) 15:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If you look back in previous Ontario elections, there hasn't been a 4th party that has received more than 2% of the vote since 1945 when the Labor-Progressive Party got 2.4% - and that party is included in the infobox for the 1945 election article. So, actually the argument you are making is clearly meant to justify the Greens' exclusion. Now that Elections Ontario recognizes 2% as a threshold for public funding, there should be some consistency in how the 4 largest parties are covered and presented. We should follow the precedent of the 1945 election and we should follow Elections Ontario's criteria.--2607:FEA8:64DF:FFC1:35D9:2494:E09B:BDC7 (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Edit Warring - Libertarian Party

Hello! The ongoing edit warring with regard to the inclusion of the Ontario Libertarian Party in the infobox has been reported to the edit warring noticeboard. If anyone else has any suggestions as to how to address this issue respectfully and with regard to the inclusion of minor parties in the infobox, feel free to chime in. HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this. Clearly there are some unusual circumstances regarding infobox inclusion for this election. We have a minor party with seats in the legislature (Trillium) and a major party without (Green). If we can't point to a reason why party X is included and party Y isn't, edit warring could easily recur. I think we should seek consensus on one of the following:

• Option 1: Include only major parties (with "major" defined through a polling threshold - 5%?) with seats (OLP, PCPO, ONDP)
• Option 2: Include only major parties (OLP, PCPO, ONDP, GPO)
• Option 3: Include only parties with seats (OLP, PCPO, ONDP, TPO)
• Option 4: Include all parties that meet polling threshold or have seats (OLP, PCPO, ONDP, GPO, TPO)

Madg2011 (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

-I appreciate the attempt to seek consensus. I agree that the circumstances are unusual. It would appear from other provinces' elections pages, only the major parties competing tend to be featured (in New Brunswick, the NDP and People's Alliance have a spot, despite not having seats, as do the Greens in Manitoba). My vote would be for Option 2, for the simple reasons that:

• the Liberals, PCs, and New Democrats all maintain seats in the legislature,
• the Greens have been the only major 4th party to field candidates in all ridings for the past few elections and have polled between 2.9 and 8% in General Elections since 2007, and
• the Trillium Party has existed only since 2014, and, in the province's most recent by-election, polled last with only 36 votes. If they are able to win a seat or come close to polling the same numbers the Greens can, I'd reconsider their inclusion. Thanks again! HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I am happy with Option 2, as was stated in the previous discussion on the talk page. Until such time that the Libertarians or Trillium are polled and reach a significant threshold, they should not be in the infobox. As a compromise we can create a table of nominated candidates on the page that includes every party running candidates, so there is a clear addition for these smaller parties without crowding the infobox. Jebussez (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems hardly fair as it stands, there are 4 parties represented in the legislature. Each should be shown, instead we have 3 main parties and a fourth party that has never been represented. What does polling have to do with anything? I am going to remove the greens, an unrepresented party and add this trilium party to the infobox. Outback the koala (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Polling has everything to do with it, it's the standard we've followed on not just Canadian election pages but every single one, otherwise we'd see infoboxes as long as my arm on European election pages. Just having a seat doesn't cut it, you also need to have a significant electoral presence - Trillium has none, they are not included in polling by any firms and it doesn't even seem like they'll have a full slate. The Greens may not have a seat, but they are obviously relevant to the broader race, which is what the infobox is for - quick summary of the broader picture. I will revert your edit, sorry. Jebussez (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Although I don't personally argee with that perspective in the Canadian context, if that's the consensus, then I can understand that. Did you by chance have a link to this consensus agreement. I have not been massively involved in election articles, but find them interesting to support in the Canadian context. Outback the koala (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no one link, though there is a discussion above on this Talk page that touches it a bit and I've had the same discussion on previous election articles, BC 2017 in particular regarding the Conservatives in that province; also going through any number of Canadian election pages, you'll see a basic standard, where smaller parties are left out even if that have a seat going in (or even if they won a seat), or ones where larger parties without seats but significant vote totals or polling (usually above 5%) are included. It's not universally true to be sure, but a general sense of what I've seen. We should have a proper standard set, and I'd be happy for one to exist even if it disagrees with my interpretation - but I think my idea is reasonable. End of the day, I'll leave it to admins. Jebussez (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Cool stuff, thanks for replying! :) Outback the koala (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that this is happening again; I've had to remove the Libertarian Party from the infobox twice, now. I will add that in addition to the general consensus that exists across every Canadian election box, one thing that separates the Green Party from other minor parties is that the Greens are typically included in pushpolling alongside the three major parties, while the Libertarians and others do not. Kawnhr (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

We should use option 1 to avoid making a political decision, and to follow earlier precedent by ON Election page editors in the last 3 elections. I have commented above in the section on specifically including the Greens, but the page editors in 2007, 2011, and 2014 did not include the Green party during the election because they did not have either an MPP and achieve 5% of the vote in the previous election. Polls chance during election and pre-election. It would be a political decision to include them as it does not follow the past precedent the ON Election pages have used for the past 12 years, and objectively not using the same criteria used in the past 3 elections before election day when we have the results. We have never used the 2% as an indicator or referred to Elections Ontario for deciding on who to include in the infobar. It seems to be some users are looking for justifications to include the Greens when in similar past result and polling situations they have been excluded from the infobar. How can we justify including a party that recieved less than 5% in the last election, and exclude parties that have members in the legislature (Trillium Party?) We will not know if they are able to field candidates until 1.5 weeks into the election when nominations close.

I am happy to quote from the debates page editors had on the talk pages in 2007, 2011, and 2014 where users more eloquently made these points and it was consistently decided not to include the Greens at this time. Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent Cotter (talk • contribs) 15:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent Cotter (talk • contribs)

Go ahead. Quote them and let's see the final decision. Until then the reasons stated so far make sense. Jebussez (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Changing Doug Ford from Candidate in to Running in

Doug Ford is going to be acclaimed as Candidate. Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-etobicoke-north-1.4595998. Acclamation is when only one candidate is running, in this case Doug Ford, so no one is running against hi, in Etobicoke North. So he will be acclaimed, no candidate election for the Ontario PC Party in Etobicoke North. It is 4pm, The event is at 6pm. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)MiroslavGlavic

Technically you should've waited until he was officially the candidate. Regardless of what WILL happen, we need to look at this article as what HAS happened. Please keep this in mind for future edits. RoyalObserver (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Candidates who quit race, with strikethrough through their names

Out of curiosity...a strikethrough is like an underline but in the middle of the word. Why did someone put a strikethrough instead of just removing those candidates that withdrew/got kicked out/not running/etc...? If they are not in the running any longer, for whatever reason, their names should be moved, it makes the page just that much longer MiroslavGlavic (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)MiroslavGlavic

They should stay. It has been common practice. They get removed after the nomination is held anyways. I've undone your changes.RoyalObserver (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Scarborough Centre Ontario PC Party candidate

Thenusha Parani is no longer listed on the Ontario PC Party candidates list: https://www.ontariopc.ca/our_candidates

Please note that I have never been a member of the Ontario PC Party, nor am I currently.

I am editing this to be clear: I will not make changes based on hearsay. I will only add a candidate when he/she is nominated, otherwise I don't think nomination candidates should be there as those are candidates running in the election representing their respective parties. Each of the parties have a list of candidates in their respective websites. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)MiroslavGlavic

Wait until the nomination is done. There are more than just Christina Mitas seeking it. Antonio Villarin is also seeking the nomination. RoyalObserver (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I Don't think Christina and Antonio should be there on the list, neither of them has won, as of this minute that I am typing this. That list is for nominated candidates. Hence why both Christina and Antonio 's names should be removed and whomever wins the nomination (or a third candidate) then that is the time when there should be a PC candidate for Scarborough Centre.

I am not going to change any candidate's names based on hearsay. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)MiroslavGlavic

We put people seeking the nomination in italics. It is common practice. After their nomination, we remove the losers and in regular font the winner's name stays. RoyalObserver (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

To continue with our common practice, I've undone your changes and readded people seeking the nomination in italics. RoyalObserver (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Party leaders photos - copyright?

Both Wynne and Horwath photos look like it is party Ford's photo looks like one used by some media article, I seen it somewhere before. Schreiner, I don't know enough about him.

How does the whole copyright, wikipedia and so forth work with photos.

I am not saying we go track down the four leaders and ask them if can take a photo for Wikipedia.

Not going to edit them, remove, or whatever else. I am just curious about "the rules" on the photos.

MiroslavGlavic (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)MiroslavGlavic

@MiroslavGlavic: Images have to be free and must be licensed accordingly. See Commons:Licensing. There is also a formal process to add an image that has copyright on it to Commons by submitting a statement from the copyright holder which releases the image to Wikimedia Commons as a free image. Note that such releases are irrevocable. See Commons:OTRS. // sikander { talk } 13:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

What sikander said, and I took a moment to review the licensing of the images mentioned. The ones of Ford, Horwath and Schreiner are all fine. However, I'll eat my hat if the one of Wynne is correctly licensed - it's under the release of the copyright holder, but it clearly is a professionally-done photo for one, one can only assume, professional purposes. I'm pretty sure that needs to be deleted. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I wasn't the only one to think so. Someone else has marked it for speedy deletion. Thanks for highlighting this, Miroslav. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Most big political parties have their own photographer, the party owns the copyright usually. Now if let's say Wynne or Horwath have a photo as MPPs then that's usually public domain. But yes, Wynne seems too professional. However if it gets deleted, shouldn't the incumbent party leader have a photo? If the photo gets deleted on the 2018 ontario election page, what about the photo (same one) from Kathleen Wynne's own wikipedia page? I am sure none of us will go to one of her events just to take the photo replacement. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)MiroslavGlavic

Inclusion of Greens in Candidate List

Out of curiosity, what is the justification for including the Greens as a distinct party in the candidate list, however not the Trillium? The Trillium party currently has an incumbent, whereas the Greens do not. Is this because the Greens have regularly contested previous elections?

I'm not married to anything, I'm just genuinely curious. - RoyalObserver

Every party that nominates a candidate in a majority of ridings in a region will get a column for their candidates. The Trillium Party hasn't done that, and it is assumed the Greens will. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Assumed? — The facts are that the Greens not only don't have official party status, they don't even have a single seat. Since their inception they have never won a seat in the Legislative Assembly. Only parties with official status should be included. Greens, Ltns, and Trillium are all minor in comparison. Carlbergman (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

We're not talking about the infobox, we're talking about the candidate lists. If any party runs in a majority of ridings in a region, they should have a separate column at least in the sake of avoiding clutter in the 'other' column. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Means the Libertarians are on track to get into the Infobox. Yan.simkin (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it means they're on track for a column in the candidate list. Not the same thing. Madg2011 (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The NOTA Party runs in the majority of ridings in multiple regions. I created a seperate column as they published their candidate list. (Most of their candidates arent currently listed. The update got Undone right away. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:22:4000:E32:1FCF:328C:A230:7872 (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The NOTA party also announced that they will be running candidates in all ridings this election, so by the statement "Every party that nominates a candidate in a majority of ridings in a region will get a column for their candidates. The Trillium Party hasn't done that, and it is assumed the Greens will" The NOTA Party should get a column. Or am I missing something?Football-Col (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The standard we seem to be going with and can hopefully enforce is that when candidates have achieved a majority of candidates running in a region, then they get their own column; otherwise their candidates get shuffled into the "Other" column. Libertarians have ones in each region because, frankly, no one has managed to clean it up yet where appropriate. 23:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebussez (talk • contribs)

On a related note, the Northern Ontario Party seem to have been given the benefit of the doubt in regards to the number of candidates running through Northern Ontario in 2018. As of this morning, there are currently only 4 confirmed candidates (3 in NE & 1 in NW). Would suggest removing their special status as unlikely to manage too many more. NorthOnt001 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2018

Add nominated candidates:

Monique Hughes (NDP) - Ajax Jill Andrew (NDP) - Toronto St. Paul's DelSuze (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Waddie96 (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2018

Hello, my name is Douglas Thom of the Freedom Part of Ontario, a registered and running political party since 1985.

I was hoping someone could update the list of parties to include the Freedom Party. If nothing else, my name under the Whitby riding. Soon, this year's election's candidates will be listed here: http://www.freedomparty.on.ca/candidates/candidates.htm

Thank you,

Doug TheDuck21 (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2018

Need to update the PC candidate entry for Mississauga Centre (in table in Section 5.3.2. Peel) as Natalia Kusendova. Currently, it is blank. Source: https://twitter.com/fordnation/status/992921772474355717 Trialkiwi (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

We should remove the useless polling 'average' sections of this page

It is useless and disingenuous to provide a meaningless "average" of a random number of polls pre-campaign, as well as during the campaign. There are decent polling aggregators out there that weigh polls properly using sample sizes, as well as giving more recent polls greater weight in the aggregation than older polls as the new ones are more relevant. I see NO REASON to have a random average that weighs all polls as equals. If people want to view a proper aggregation of polls, they can go to the CBC website where professionals do this in a responsible way.

Just taking an average of all polls regardless of when they were issued or how many were polled or how they were polled, provides a useless number that ought not to be given prominence here or anywhere.Mattfguerin (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I would support the removal as well. Mikemikem (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It adds nothing over an extended period. Nfitz (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The numbers in the table just keep changing until we will ultimately be left with an average of the polls released in the 2 months prior to the writ being dropped, which seems rather pointless. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. But I have to say, as a pollster, this sentence made me laugh: "If people want to view a proper aggregation of polls, they can go to the CBC website where professionals do this in a responsible way". -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Removed as per discussion. Though now I think about it more - wouldn't calculating an average - particularly one with no temporal biasing, be original research? I'd think one would have to reference the average to somewhere, even the "professional" CBC site. Nfitz (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2018

Adding in that Mickey Auger has been chosen as the Liberal candidate in Timmins: https://www.timminstoday.com/local-news/mickey-auger-acclaimed-as-liberal-candidate-912601. Brkely (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Also need to add in Gary Schaap as the Northern Ontario Party candidate for Timmins: https://www.timminstoday.com/local-news/northern-ontario-party-names-its-timmins-candidate-913240 NorthOnt001 (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done by someone. Please mark so here. Nfitz (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia could be at legal risk

https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/copyright-ownership-Canadian-political-polls

Furthermore, any use of this information to produce polling aggregations or election models without Ipsos’ written permission will be considered a violation of our intellectual property

Nickjbor (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

As someone who works at one of the polling firms in question, I can promise you, we will not be going after Wikipedia. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Really? Of course not! Nfitz (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

We're not "producing, reporting and selling various constituency or election outcome models based on poll aggregations". We're just listing the base numbers as reported in media coverage, not drawing any predictions from them or trying to profit off those predictions, so that press release isn't relevant. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Candidate Edit - Niagara West - NDP

The edit was removed due to the tweet being deleted from an earlier date. Curtis Fric is the candidate for the NDP in Niagara West, linked is a tweet from the Riding Association twitter account - 10:10pm (EST) May 8th, 2018

 Done Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Who's the Liberal candidate User:Curtisboy? That's quite the hole. Nfitz (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

We have no idea. At this rate, it seems they might not even put someone up. But who knows. 08.30AM, 9 May 2018 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.249.224.101 (talk)

Well that would be interesting. Though they have until Thursday May 17th (2 pm) - so I'd expect someone to jump out of the woodwork yet! Though voting by special ballot begins May 10. The Elections Ontario website actually doesn't show the NDP candidate yet either. Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It's entirely possible. Some candidates aren't yet officially on the ballot as they have to get 60 signatures from electors in the riding and be approved by E.O. Difference for Niagara West is that the NDP have held their nomination meeting and picked a candidate while there's zero news about the Liberals holding a nomination meeting any time soon. So we shall see what ends up happening. User:Curtisboy 10:26pm, May 9th 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Political Parties with no wiki of their own

So you know the tables with the candidates for all the provincial ridings?

CAP: Cultural Action Party of Ontario; CCP: Canadians' Choice Party

These two are in red, meaning no page for them. Since I never heard of them, out of curiosity...for someone who knows them (or at least can go to their website to get info), what is the Wikipedia Policy on creating new wikis for CAP & CCP ?

Just out of curiosity

MiroslavGlavic (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Some of these parties that are listed seem to be unofficial. Though I see CCP is, and has two candidates listed at voterinformationservice.elections.on.ca/en/election/candidate-search. James Sears in Ottawa Centre and Bahman Yazdanfar. Historically James Sears has been involved with the neo-Nazi New Constitution Party which the newspaper he edits (Your Ward News) still carries product placement for. Perhaps CCP should redirect to that party. The entry at Elections Ontario, notes that Bahman Yazdanfar is the leader. Though reading www.canadianschoice.ca further, perhaps it's not linked. See also Template talk:Canadian party colour/Archive 1#New parties for Ontario general election, 2011 Nfitz (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Cultural Action Party of Ontario (CAP) is also listed at Elections Ontario. Their website is www.constituents.online and the president is Arthur Smitherman (George Smitherman's estranged brother) who ran as a Rob Ford candidate in Ward 8 in old York during the Toronto municipal election, 2010. Perhaps best to redirect to the federal Cultural Action Party (Canada), which already mention Smitherman and the Ontario wing. Nfitz (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for updating latest poll list

Hello everyone, please request here for additions of new/latest polls unto the Article's poll table. 173.209.113.109 (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Please add April 30th Mainstreet Research poll: https://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/ford-pc-lead-over-liberals-and-ndp-has-narrowed/ 173.209.113.109 (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It's already been added; last date of polling was 18 April. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone needs to reformat the polling section. Forum Research has already released a post writ poll: http://poll.forumresearch.com/data/5d6357bf-f171-4aa2-839c-381e714ff96fOntario%20Horserace%20Day%201.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.74.75.4 (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I've added the poll to a new "Campaign period" poll table. Please note that the formatting of this table must not be changed, as I will soon be adding a local-regression style graph like the one on the Opinion polling in the 43rd Canadian federal election page, which requires the table to be formatted this way in order to properly extract the data. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and fyi, the Forum Research link no longer works, and they have removed any reference of that poll from their site. I'm not sure what's going on over there, seems like amateur hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.74.75.4 (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is "AlpinetheGreat" adding polls and debates to the pre-campaign period? Newsflash the writ has dropped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.74.75.20 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

NDP has a candidate in Carleton

Please update the page to show that the Carlton NDP has nominated Courtney Potter as the candidate please. https://www.facebook.com/CarletonRidingNDP/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BE20:842:DCA8:F84D:EF9D:6B9A (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done by someone. Please mark so here. NorthOnt001 (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

NOTA/LIBERTARIAN vs. other minor parties

So I noticed NOTA and Libertarian candidates having their own column beside the 4 regular parties(LIB CON NDP GPO).

Most if not all MPPs that will be elected are going to be within the 4 regular parties.

What was the reason to give NOTA and Libertaraian candidates their own column on the charts yet other parties are categorized under OTHER? Why aren't NOTA and Libertarian candidates under other?

I personally think every party with at least one candidate should have their own column but there are so many tiny minor parties that the chart will be extra long the horizontal way.

Not going to change things, or ask someone to do it. Just asking why NOTA/Libertarian have their column yet other minor parties will not have their own column? MiroslavGlavic (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)MiroslavGlavic

They have just as many seats as the Greens (0). It's based on the percentage of candidates in that region. They're running candidates in practically every riding, so they get a column. RoyalObserver (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I can see the Greens having a separate column, as they have achieved 5% or more of the provincial vote, and have come in as high as third place in previous races. If these other parties can't achieve either criteria, they should lose their separate columns.Raellerby (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No, because the 'other' column would get too cluttered. This has been debated to death, and this is the consensus. Let it go. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Candidate lists far behind Elections Ontario

Elections Ontario is publishing a preliminary list of candidates at https://voterinformationservice.elections.on.ca/en/election/candidate-search with over 50 candidates who don't appear here. I won't have time to get more than a few of them in. Is anyone available to help? Nominations close at 2 pm EDT today. Tunborough (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Have added all candidates listed for Northern Ontario Party and Consensus Ontario. Will continue work with small parties as time allows, but more hands make lighter work, so additional aid appreciated.NorthOnt001 (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Go Vegan, CoR, NPCP, SNSA, The People, SCC, Paupers, PSN now complete from Elections Ontario source. Must return to work now. GL! NorthOnt001 (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Ekos polls on Twitter

It looks like Frank Graves from Ekos is releasing their polls on twitter, as opposed to full website releases.

We should find a consenus, do we want to include all these polls that are posted in tweets but not available online (aside from Frank’s twitter)? Mikemikem (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait a day or two to see if it pops up on EKOS politics, otherwise just use the Twitter link? Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

campaign period graph

Our campaign period graph doesn't seem to be up to date with the polls coming in. It still shows the wiki poll average as the PCs around 40 and NDP around 30, but this can't possibly be right with the Abacus and Ipsos polls. Are new polls not being added correctly to the graph? I have no idea how it functions. Mikemikem (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No need to panic; I was away from my computer for the long weekend. I'm back now, so you can breathe easy again. ;) Undermedia (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

New poll

http://hkinsights.ca/election-survey-data/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derpy Kirby (talk • contribs) 14:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

PC platform

Should we put this into the timeline? https://www.ontariopc.ca/plan_for_the_people Derpy Kirby (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Controversies

Should there be a "controversies" page in here for each and every single scandal and allegations relating to all the parties, the federal pages had them and I find it interesting seeing all of the scandals that plagued a campaign — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derpy Kirby (talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree a section like this would be interesting. Emass100 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau endorsement

I noticed that Justin Trudeau's name was put under Liberal endorsements, but this can't necessarily be taken for granted. Aside from the fact that he voted in the election (as an Ottawa resident) but didn't say who for, it's speculative to assume that he's supporting the Liberals. Unlike both Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and NDP leader (and former Ontario NDP Deputy Leader) Jagmeet Singh, who have openly campaigned for their respective Ontario counterparts, Trudeau has been purposefully silent. Unless someone can find a link proving this "endorsement," I don't think his name should be necessarily included. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-to-stay-out-of-june-ontario-election-but-scheer-and-singh-to/ Chris-Gilmore77 (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)