Jump to content

Talk:Alberta Greens

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

Vote count update

[edit]

I origianlly put in the vote couts by looking at the Green newsletters dated just after each election. In some cases, I had added it up manually (giving potential for error). I noticed today that there were slight discrepancies between the numbers I entered and the numbers entered in the Wikipedia election articles which got the numbers from Elections Alberta. I suspect that the newsletter would not have accurate numbers because of the timing (i.e. unofficial results in the Green newsletters). So, I updated the numbers to be consistent with Elections Alberta. Because of this, I moved the Green Newsletter link from references to the external links section. It is no longer a source for any of the article content (unless someone else used it). --JamesTeterenko 18:20, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Ground Zero reverted the logo from Image:gpclogo.gif back to the old Image:Gpcsmall.jpg. gpclogo.gif is actually the correct logo for the Green Party of Alberta. We use the the federal party's logo provincially (which allows us to reuse the same signs, t-shirts, buttons, etc. - which fits in with our environmental conservation mandate). --GrantNeufeld 21:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

I keep trying to reword the article, but you undo my edits without reason. Its not copy and paste, I gave you a source, and even tried to reword the article even further then before. I can't believe this, you people don't even know. 74.14.147.245 (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you made (to the content copied from the party website) were cosmetic at best. Unfortunately, they were ugly cosmetics. Removing factual details, but retaining generalizations, does not improve an article's quality. More significantly, encyclopedia content should not be replete with sentence fragments, misspellings, etc. See if you can determine what's wrong with "During the 2004 Canadian federal election The Alberta Greens were able to field a full slate of candidates and ended with the least successful Green candidate in 2004 getting a greater percentage of the vote than the most successful candidate in 2000" and "49 ridings had Green candidates, three candidates received more than 1,000 votes, and candidates were able to climb as high as 15% in there ridings."--Orlady (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move January 2012

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moves made as requested, requested name complies both with Commonname and WikiProject naming conventions. Mike Cline (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


– This article was moved from Alberta Greens in July 2006, citing "the political party naming convention at the Political parties and politicians in Canada Wikiproject." There was a discussion there if articles should be named by their common name, or by the official named registered with the elections agency, it is now archived. The decision was to name articles by the official name, and that "Alberta Greens" was only a nickname, however, no evidence was given that "Green Party of Alberta" was an official name. Elections Alberta publishes an annual report of its registered parties, and the events (such as party renaming) that took place during the calendar year. In which, it, of course, has the official name of every registered party, and none on the website mention the "Green Party of Alberta" (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008). But what is possibly more important, "Alberta Greens" also complies with the more official naming convention, WP:COMMONNAME, because it is the name used by the party, as evidenced on this article by the website URL and logo.relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Discussion apparently ongoing relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC) 117Avenue (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To what naming convention are you referring to? "Alberta Greens" complies with the two I listed. If you are referring to the naming convention of Green parties in Canada, this also complies, because they are all at the official name, including Yukon Green Party, Winnipeg Green Party, and Evergreen Party of Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They used both. Green Party of Alberta was also their official name, and common name. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Green Party of Alberta was also used, but to a lesser extent. Is your opposition based on any Wikipedia policy, guideline, or practice, other than WP:ILIKEIT? 117Avenue (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lesser extent maybe, but as Grant said it was used. Thus it also falls under common name. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild oppose. Both seemed to be used. I prefer "Green Party of Alberta". "Alberta Greens" somehow seems like a weak attempt at a party being folksy, kind of like the Alberta New Democratic Party used "Alberta New Democrats" for years. I would think that the "Alberta Greens" are the politicians and members of the party, while the party itself is the "Green Party of Alberta". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got any proof of the party being "Green Party of Alberta"? 117Avenue (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Proof" of instances of "Green Party of Alberta" being used have been mentioned and linked-to above, where you agreed that "Green Party of Alberta was also used". Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant being "Green Party of Alberta" in any official sense, which is what your statement looks like you said. I still retain that "Alberta Greens" is the only proven official name, and the most commonly used name. 117Avenue (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to claim any official name as being the correct one. Official name is also not the issue, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Alberta Greens. This appears to be both the common name and the best-attested official name. If there's a local convention to use the other name, the question is Why?. WikiProjects are not a blank cheque to overrule policy, there needs to be a rationale. It's hard to imagine one that would justify the current name. Andrewa (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reversion of unilateral move and move protection.

[edit]

The unilateral and undiscussed move of this page back to Green Party of Alberta has been reverted, the editor who did so notified that the move was out of process, and this article has been move protected for 30 days. Should a consensus be reached that the name should be something different than the current title in the next 30 days, I will gladly unprotect the article and assist in the move. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the user would revert it, he presented no policy in the move request, and admitted the name Alberta Greens was used more commonly. I don't see on what grounds he has opposed the close decision. 117Avenue (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Not moved. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Greens → Green Party of Alberta – I don't agree that the current article name is the most common, and suggest we move it back to Green Party of Alberta. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof? What was your reasoning for flipping since 16:39, 13 January 2012? 117Avenue (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the rationale above is weaker than a spaghetti fish hook. Without some new evidence, this new nomination is a complete waste of time. Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My evidence was posted above. Here it is again: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There is no new evidence, as I think we all suspected. Andrewa (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the statements above. In my view opening a new move request to revert a change made in a previous move request a day before should only happen if there are compelling circumstances and I don't see anything compelling here.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the previous decision by admin as adhering to consensus. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. But again, without evidence, there's not a lot of use just expressing this opinion, and raising an RM to do it, again without new evidence to present, is borderline disruption. Andrewa (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The previous vote was 2-2, thus no consensus. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the relevant policies and guidelines. Actually I'm beginning to realise that you know them quite well after all, see below. Please keep them in mind. Andrewa (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A 2-2 vote is still not a win for either side. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We probably shouldn't call it a vote, a survey is a better term. The arguments count, not just the numbers. Andrewa (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Just to formalise my position, reasons above, and to make it clear that I'm disqualified from myself closing this RM. Andrewa (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I’m abstaining because I’m fine with either name being used — also to avoid unnecessary issues of bias because of my direct involvement with the subject (I served as a President of, and ran as a candidate for, the party). The party used both names at various times during it’s existence. In its final years, “Alberta Greens” was the name it primarily used in promotions. If I recall correctly, we were registered with Elections Alberta under the “Alberta Greens” name, but probably (where my memory gets hazy) also registered “Green Party of Alberta” to protect use of that related name. If absolutely critical here, I can get ahold of the old party Secretary who would either remember specific details, or have documentation (however, the consensus appears to be solidifying here even without such documentation — and I’d rather not go to the trouble if not needed). —GrantNeufeld (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I mildly opposed the move to Alberta Greens, but the discussion was carried out and concluded properly and I agree that it should not be moved back without some stronger arguments to support "Green Party of Alberta". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

While I believe this RM could be immediately closed under WP:SNOW, I think it's better to let it run its course. The proposer is a relative newbie. Other opinions of course welcome. Please also cast formal votes in the poll above, so consensus (assuming we have it) can be clear.

There is also a possible conflict of interest which I had not noticed before, in that according to their user page the proposer User:Me-123567-Me is a supporter of the Evergreen Party of Alberta, a party which I imagine might also hope to be known as the Alberta Greens. Andrewa (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work assuming good faith. Great work. While I may support the new party, I am not a member, nor do I live in Alberta. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am assuming good faith. You may not have been aware of the COI guideline, which reads in part Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia (my emphasis). You are now. (I am interpretting interests here in the broader sense; I think the guideline intends to caution supporters of parties not just their members.) Andrewa (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you've never edited the article for University of New England, Australia?? Your own user page lists you in the category for alumni. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't hard to find. Seems you have. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine my surprise when I discovered you created that article. Doesn't that also violate COI? I'm not a staff member of any Green Party. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The key word is promote. Regarding my UNE edits, I think I had grounds to be certain that a neutral editor would agree that your (my) edits improve Wikipedia. PS your jibe that I wasn't assuming good faith might backfire, I'm possibly assuming too much good faith. You do have several thousand edits, and some interesting editing history. Hardly a newbie, and evidently aware of the behavioural guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No, because the COI plolicy was written one year after University of New England (Australia). :D --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So? Andrewa (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You couldn't possibly be violating a policy that didn't exist...is that crickets I hear? Usually people find me way funnier than this...--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Andrewa (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS I can hear cicadas where I am... isn't Canada a bit cold for crickets right now? Andrewa (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nah we left the cold for WA in January, it's all stink bugs up here.--kelapstick(bainuu) 06:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have those too. Can you believe that they eat them in Laos? Andrewa (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not...--kelapstick(bainuu) 06:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Which name would a neutral editor from Alberta pick? I'm not promoting anything, I honestly believe the other name is more common. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We know you think this. You have said so several times. Andrewa (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely, so visit Alberta and get back to us on which name is more common. Me-123567-Me (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geographical location of an editor has no effect on their opportunity to give an opinion of an article title. Now can we please dispense with the back and forth, and either get back to work, or have a nice cup of tea. We have all stated our positions on the correct location for this article, and this conversation adds nothing to the discussion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, but just ignore anything not amusing. Agree it's not relevant to this RM, it's more community building. A means to an end, see User:Andrewa/creed. Andrewa (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tempted, but probably not within the time of this RM. Be warned I'm an early riser, but a good cook and happy to help with the washing up and housework. Should I bring my cross-country skis? (;-> Andrewa (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will not render a position on this nor will I close this RM as I closed the previous one. But I would like the nominator to review this bit of instruction relative to closing RMs to point out that a 2/2 position doesn't necessarily equate to no consensus. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alberta Greens. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 17:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alberta Greens. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Alberta Greens. 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:

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) 03:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alberta_Greens&oldid=1204665020"