Talk:Fair Vote Canada
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fair Vote Canada article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days  |
 | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Break petition out of lead
editAbstract niceties such as "regardless of political belief or place of residence" are not suitable for the lead (a lead should not dry paint from 50 paces), and the lead was too long anyway, so I bust the petition out. — MaxEnt 15:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
There are four lights!
editThe group evaluates each initiative based on its statement of principles, which states that any electoral reform should achieve the five objectives of proportional representation:
- fair representation for women, minorities, and Aboriginals;
- accountable government;
- geographic representation; and,
- real voter choice.
And finally, why are there five principles, but only FOUR lights?
Having said that, what we need here is some clarity as to whether these principles are mildly incoherent as stated by Fair Vote Canada in their own words, or merely incoherent as Wikipedia has sloppily sliced them up. Resolving that ambiguity alone would be a good start. — MaxEnt 21:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Most of your comments are not salient to improving this article, as this talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM, so I have removed those extraneous comments. How you feel about Fair Vote's stated goals and terminology is not something it is appropriate to discuss here, as per Wikipedia policy.
- Your comments regarding the oddity of saying there were five objectives but then having only 4 listed are spot-on, however, and I have addressed that by going to the source document and editing the article to reflect the actual five objectives. Thanks for pointing that out! —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Catch 22 of Twitter "Verification"
editJoeyconnick, I saw your edit removing Fair Vote Canada's twitter account. I do not see anything in WP:UGC or WP:ELNO which prohibits linking to a topics' own twitter account. WP:ELNO reads:
- Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links...
This Twitter account is an official one. It is linked to from the organizations' offical website. I do not see anything that requires Twitter "verified" status to include the account here. That is Twitter's rule not ours. As I noted in my edit, Twitter has put on hold the "verified" program for some time. If organizations or persons wish to become verified their is no avenue for them to currently do so. I think you are taking a pretty strict interpretation here, and not one that is supported by the policies you are referencing. Is there something I have missed in our policies on this? Thanks.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Joeyconnick:. Yep, WP:ELOFFICIAL suggests to me that we can include this as an official account. Am I missing something?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- The WEBSITE is the official page. The Twitter account could (conceivably) be run by anyone. WP:TWITTER: point 4. Which translates into: verified accounts only. If Twitter has suspended their verification program, that is awkward but it doesn't mean we just include the account. I think it's safer to err on the side of caution. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- I guess, it could be run by anyone... except the fact that their official website links to it suggests that is not the case. I am not sure there is "reasonable doubt" about whether it is official. If it isn't, someone has also taken over their website. It is not a hill I am going to die on, but I think insisting on "verified" status is not going to be a good policy. It seems the verified program has been "on hold" since about July 2018. [1][2]. I don't see anything indicating when it will be back up and running.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- The WEBSITE is the official page. The Twitter account could (conceivably) be run by anyone. WP:TWITTER: point 4. Which translates into: verified accounts only. If Twitter has suspended their verification program, that is awkward but it doesn't mean we just include the account. I think it's safer to err on the side of caution. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Affiliation with FairVote USA
editIs Fair Vote Canada affiliated with FairVote USA in any way? Given that the two organizations have very similar names and goals, it would be useful to find a citable source (e.g. a public statement from either organization, or perhaps a video from an event that the directors of the respective organizations were both on a panel for, where they describe the relationship between the organization). By the way, this article needs a pretty big rewrite, which I started doing tonight, but perhaps someone else can take this on. -- RobLa (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)