Talk:2013 Nova Scotia general election

Name

The previous general election was the 38th Nova Scotia general election election, please see Page 1 of this source.--Þadius (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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: move to 'Next Nova Scotia general election'. This seems to be the most favoured option and is in line with the article titles policy that states "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources" and the other options presented are clearly ambiguous. Dpmuk (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

---

39th Nova Scotia general election → 62nd Nova Scotia general election — This election will determine the 62nd Nova Scotia General Assembly, and is listed as the 62nd on the Timeline of Canadian elections. The count is from the first election, like New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland, it did not restart at one when joining Confederation. 117Avenue (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - for the UK the format is Next United Kingdom general election. You could consider that, as the current title does not convey the fact that this is a proposed future election.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why there is a difference between Canada and the UK, but this is the format used for Alberta, Quebec, PEI, and federally. 117Avenue (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Haven't noticed on AB, QC, ON etc, but the BC format is e.g. British Columbia general election, 1898; I don't see any reason to number elections 28th, 29th, 30th etc - that's for sittings of Parliament/the House and thigns like "28th Prime Minister"....i've never seen in common usage "Nova Scotia will hold its 69th general election" instead of "Nova Scotia will hold a general election in 2011".Skookum1 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about future elections. Except for the UK and Nova Scotia, where there is a number discrepancy, the naming convention for elections where the year is unknown is to use the number. 117Avenue (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have discovered why the UK is different, it is because there is a number discrepancy there too. 117Avenue (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously at Talk:Nova Scotia general election, 2009. While the assemblies are numbered from the original creation of the colonial assembly, the elections are numbered only from Canadian Confederation. The source here is Elections Nova Scotia, which does indeed number the 2009 election as being #38 — see here, frex. I have no special insight into why they'd do something so confusing, but this page is correctly named as #39 rather than #62. Similarly, Elections New Brunswick considers the 2006 election to be #36, as shown here, not #56 — which would make the one that just passed a few weeks ago #37, not #57. Conversely, Newfoundland didn't reset the count; their elections office refers to the most recent election there as #46 rather than #18. And I have yet to find any indication at all of what PEI does one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I took the Canadian timeline as correct, as it has featured status, but if we take your recent edits as correct, I rescind my request. 117Avenue (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment I would support moving to "Next Nova Scotia general election" and bring the other Canadian provinces into line. This is more comprehensible to the general user, and avoids disputes like this. PatGallacher (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Where did the numbering naming convention come from? 117Avenue (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with "Next...", as in the UK case. The title's going to change anyway, when the date becomes known, so little practical point in using an obscure (though theoretically potentially permanent) title in preference to one that everyone can immediately understand.--Kotniski (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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.

Atlantica Party

Why aren't the Atlantica Party included in the info box when the Green Party is? Either all parties should be identified or just those with representation in the house.Jordo72 (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Every province has major and minor parties (check out the next elections of other provinces for other examples of unincluded parties). Since the Atlantica Party hasn't been included in any of the polls, it appears to be a minor party, and isn't likely to win any seats. 117Avenue (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The Green Party is only a minor party, just because it's included in polling doesn't mean it should be in the infobox. The Green Party was included in polling for Newfoundland and Labrador and there is no such party, so just because the party is included in polling doesn't make it a major party. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This could be true too. I am unfamiliar with maritime politics. In Alberta the Green Party was included in polls after being deregistered by Elections Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that CRA now prompts for the Atlantica Party in polling and have over their last few quarterly polls. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Atlantica has had results in the polls? Then why isn't it included in the table here? 117Avenue (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the latest poll number release from CRA, the Atlantica Party has been included in the last 3 polls. The poll support has been recorded at 0% on all three occasions. Cmr08 (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So shouldn't it be added to the table? 117Avenue (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Atlantica isn't a registered party with Elections NS, apparently by their own choice as a statement of principle. Their candidates would not show their affiliation on the ballot. While they might deserve a mention in the text, I would favour leaving them out of the tables on the page.Tunborough (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

RM

This article should be moved to 39th Nova Scotia general election. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion, due to a counting error in 1857, calling it by its number isn't correct. 117Avenue (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then we can move it to 62nd Nova Scotia general election, as the other maritime provinces include colonial elections in their total count. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, New Brunswick also reset. 117Avenue (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Results map

Is anyone going to make a map for this? This is the only recent Canadian election that we don't have a map for. --Noname2 (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis

I removed the last paragraph of the analysis section as no credible connection can be drawn between the defeat of the Nova Scotia NDP and the popularity of its federal counterpart, let alone the disappointing results of the BC NDP and the popularity of Manitoba's incumbent NDP government. To suggest otherwise is grasping at straws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.128.114 (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the removed content has nothing to do with the Nova Scotia election. I have to wonder if the rest of that "Analysis" section should actually be included in the article? It reads more like an editors interpretation of the election results than it does an encyclopedia article. Terms like "relatively successful", "more importantly", and "remarkably" sound like point-of-view, and the section includes an opinion as to why the PCs won more seats with less votes than the NDP. According to the article history, the text has been in the article for two months without anyone noticing until now, so maybe there is no problem here and I'm just reading too much into this. However, I personally don't like the idea of the article being used to discuss or comment on the election results, but I'll leave the text and see what other editors think. Cmr08 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)