Talk:2010 Calgary municipal election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Canada: Alberta / Politics Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Deletion of candidate information[edit]

Just a quick note here to add my voice to the consensus for not deleting candidate information (a consensus I believe exists given the diversity of editors who have added some candidate information to a 2010 Alberta municipal election article).Bdell555 (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What deletion? Its all still there. 117Avenue (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

117Avenue - I just had an edit I made deleted by you. You claimed it was advertising. Linking to another Wikipedia page is not advertising. Ksnaden (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is when the other page is an advertisement, and violates all the policies cited on the deletion discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antoni Grochowski[edit]

Is Grochowski the same Grochowski running for Ward 8 Alderman and Ward 6/8 school trustee? --Þadius (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that was allowed, but the official list doesn't differentiate, and the contact list cites the same address and phone numbers. But the website is for the separate school board. 117Avenue (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I called in, and they explained that it is allowed for someone to run in both. 117Avenue (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Photo, Naheed Nenshi[edit]

I need help posting my photo for Naheed Nenshi. Missing here, and requiring updating on his main bio page. It is on Floickr, wihth a CC attribution license. I have a new Wiki account (lost track of my old one).

Photo is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/teddyboy/5095579015/

Can someone help me out with this? You can contact me through the Flickr page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TedtheSith (talk • contribs) 06:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done 117Avenue (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of Election Table[edit]

Just wondering why the table was reverted to the previous version. I changed the table to present information more professionally. Knowing this, is there a clear reason that the change was reverted? MakeItProper (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I asked in the edit summary, how is hiding them, and making them sortable by first name more professional? 117Avenue (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that tables should be visible on first-load of the page, so the change to make them visible is trivial (my reasoning was that hiding the tables avoided an entire "carpet" of data being shown to the end-user, which could be opened selectively by the viewer). Perhaps sorting is over-kill. However, the data currently presented in one table seems to be a design that was "thrown together" in a hurry. Individual tables makes the page look more professional.

The code in the wiki editor with the current table is compacted (which may improve page performance), but makes it hard to read in the wiki editor (due to my updated design, the tables were separate and faster to read/edit). Knowing this, it would make more sense to divide the one big table into Ward-specific tables.

This change would allow for several advantages...

The possible creation of a wiki page for each of Calgary's Wards (a wiki-style ward profile, independent of Calgary.ca's hosting)
The tracking of polling for candidates across various years (e.g. Alderman/Councillor candidates, etc... in Ward "x" over past elections)

Even in terms of database construction, designers would rather have separate tables for each specific Ward, not everything clumped together in an awkward table design.

Please let me know of your thoughts. MakeItProper (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, I have been busy with work, and the provincial election articles. The current design was not just "thrown together", as you said it is hard to read while editing, it took time to put together. It was designed to optimize space, and not have a long list down one side of the page. I admit, from a look after the fact, it may be difficult to follow, and could be separated better. I don't think creating articles for the wards is normally done, I can't find any for Toronto, I would advise against that venture. 117Avenue (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]