Talk:Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (British Columbia)

q?

Do the major parties have positions on the reform yet? These would be interesting to know.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhsmit (talk • contribs) 02:46, 14 December 2004 (UTC)

Date linking?

Is there a reason all the dates in this article are linked? It seems unnecessary and confusing because none of the dates are particularly significant to the matter being discussed. I would propose unlinking all the dates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyconnick (talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 January 2005 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (British Columbia). 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/20141111233806/http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2008/LeDuc.pdf to http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2008/LeDuc.pdf

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) 07:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Better integration with Citizens' assembly main page

Wondering if anyone else thinks the page could benefit from more clearly pointing readers to the page on Citizens' assemblies? Superb Owl (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No, because this was a specific group for a specific purpose. The generic concept of citizens' assemblies is already linked in this article; it does not need additional highlighting as the general concept is not of particular relevance to this specific instance of a citizens' assembly. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)