Talk:Canadian federal election results since 1867

For previous discussion, see Talk:Canadian federal elections since 1867/Archive and Talk:Canadian federal election results since 1867/Archive2

A concensus has been developed to revise Canadian federal and provincial elections tables to adopt a consistent colouring scheme. For a record of that discussion, please see Talk:Canadian federal elections since 1867/Archive; a discussion also discussed the technical and logistical requirements there of, for a record of that discussion, please see Talk:Canadian federal election results since 1867/Archive2.

Contents

1 Applying the new "standard"

1.1 Articles to convert

2 Amendment to the above proposal: Candidate table template, with minor tweaks

2.1 Kootenay, Columbia and Boundary (2005 BC Prov)
2.2 Eastern Quebec (2004 Federal)
2.3 Newfoundland and Labrador (2000 Federal)
2.4 comments

2.4.1 Poll: Colour headings, or no?

3 Problems when changing the tables

4 Vote - images

4.1 Support images
4.2 Against images
4.3 Comments

5 Problems

6 Formatting issues

6.1 My style

Applying the new "standard"

The new standard for summary charts is being refined in the discussion below in "Formatting issues".

Per consensus that can be found on Archive1 and Archive2, candidate tables will be in the following format:

Electoral District	Candidates
	Liberal	Conservative	New Democratic	Green	Other

That riding	Alexander Mackenzie 521	Sir John A. Macdonald 601	Tommy Douglas 223	Ralph Nader 14		Alexander Mackenzie

The reasoning for this is two-fold:

the elimination of text-on-colour is inline with the Wikipedia-style guide to ensure that tables are readable on as many computers as possible
the creation of templates for party colours and the formating of rows in election tables will make it far easy to change in the future should a new consensus be reached

In order to facilitate an orderly transition, we are asking Wikipedians to volunteer to "convert" an election pages or series of election pages. Please come back and ~~strike~~ those articles you have converted.

Articles to convert

Name	Article(s) to convert
Jord	New Brunswick election pages: 1974-1991, ~~1995, 1999, 2003~~; ~~British Columbia general election, 2005~~;
Ground Zero
Death phoenix

Volunteers sought!:

Alberta election: 2004 riding results

Other: PEI list - Yukon list - Newf&Lab list

Amendment to the above proposal: Candidate table template, with minor tweaks

I've put together a nifty variable-accepting template which produces a set of header rows in keeping with the above, although there've been a few minor changes:

instead of one "mark here with a coloured box for victor" column, there're multiples. While it eats up a bit of space, it allows us to more clearly flag the winning candidate relative to the above proposal, where the coloured box can be some distance away.
the party names have been de-linked. In keeping with general Wikipedia format, there is no need for them to be repeated umpteen times down the page, and this gives us the pleasant side-effect of allowing clearly legible bold-black text to appear on coloured backgrounds. (I personally cannot forsee the legibility argument coming into play now that coloured links are gone, but I'm open to protestations to the contrary)

There are two variants of the table, one 4plus, which is for 4 parties plus an "other" column, and one 5plus, which is for 5 parties plus an "other" column"

{{Canadian_politics/candlist_header_4plus|Partyname1|Partyname2|Partyname3|Partyname4}}

...is all that's necessary to trigger it, and replaces the first hefty chunk of duplicated formatting that we're using for each table already. The subsequent data rows for each riding are formatted very slightly differently than they are at present, although conversion ought not to be difficult.

Some examples follow:

Kootenay, Columbia and Boundary (2005 BC Prov)

Created using {{Canadian_politics/candlist_header_4plus|BC Liberal|NDP|Green|DRBC}}

Template:Canadian politics/candlist header 4plus |- |bgcolor=whitesmoke|Columbia River-Revelstoke | |Wendy McMahon | |Norm MacDonald | | | | | | |Template:Canadian politics/party colours/BC Liberal| |Wendy McMahon |- |bgcolor=whitesmoke|East Kootenay | |Bill Bennett | |Erda Walsh | | | | | | |Template:Canadian politics/party colours/BC Liberal| |Bill Bennett |- |bgcolor=whitesmoke|Nelson-Creston | |Blair Suffredine | |Corky Evans | |Luke Crawford | | | | |Template:Canadian politics/party colours/BC Liberal| |Blair Suffredine |- |bgcolor=whitesmoke|West Kootenay-Boundary | |Pam Lewin | |Katrine Conroy | |Donald Pharand | | | |Barry Chilton (Con) |Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Liberal| |align=center|vacant |}

Eastern Quebec (2004 Federal)

Created using {{Canadian_politics/candlist_header_5plus|BQ|Liberal|Conservative|NDP|Green}}

|- |rowspan=3 bgcolor=whitesmoke|Rivière-du-Loup—Montmagny |rowspan=3 Template:Canadian politics/party colours/BQ| |rowspan=3|Paul Crête
25,327 |rowspan=3| |rowspan=3|Isabelle Mignault
13,124 |rowspan=3| |rowspan=3|Marc-André Drolet
4,040 |rowspan=3| |rowspan=3|Frédérick Garon
876 |rowspan=3| |rowspan=3|André Clermont
962 |rowspan=3| |rowspan=3| |Template:Canadian politics/party colours/BQ| |Paul Crête |- |colspan=2 align="center"|merged district |- |Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Liberal| |Gilbert Normand² |}

Newfoundland and Labrador (2000 Federal)

Created using {{Canadian_politics/candlist_header_4plus|Liberal|Canadian Alliance|NDP|Progressive Conservatives}}

So yeah, that's it. Thoughts, as always, are welcome. -The Tom 03:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

comments

I like what you've done here - a lot - but I think we should make a minor change and get the text off of party colours as was done in the first attempted candidates table. The reason being is that a) per wikipedia standards, we want to be universally accessible, we may have people coming here with 16 colour of greyscale monitors, the visually impaired, etc; b) we may have parties with a "near black" or other dark party label at some point which would make it difficult for anyone to read. I think there is already a mindset among some to, once the conversion is complete, consider making the colours more similar to the actually party colours now that readability is not a concern - that would mean a dark red for Liberals, dark blue for Conservatives, etc which might not be that easy to read. Also, I would encourage you to, or perhaps I will at somepoint, make a 3 party plus template for use in elections in a great many provinces (i.e. Sask, MB, QC, and all of the Atlantic). All-in-all, great work :) - Jord 14:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that linking the party names is unnecessary and that bold black text stands out much better than the linked blue or red. But I also agre with Jord that it works given the current generally-pastel colours. As these change to darker colours now that we are liberated from legibility constraints, that won't always be true, and we'll back back to the same issues we had before. Otherwise, it looks good. Kevintoronto 15:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Canadian_politics/candlist_header_3plus does indeed exist and works as the others do, but I only finished it a few minutes after I posted this. :)

Template:Canadian politics/candlist header 3plus |- |bgcolor="whitesmoke"|Riding | |Pierre Trudeau | |Robert Stanfield | |Tommy Douglas | |Doug Henning (NLP) |Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Liberal| |Pierre Trudeau |} As for the legibility concerns, I am a little skeptical. Firstly, it's now possible to play with the font colour of the text, so if we had a dark blue box, it would be possible to put "Conservative" into bold white. Secondly, I'd agree that black won't continue to be legible on the darker colours, but so long as we assign darks to fringe parties (ie, the Communist's tomato, or the Libertarian's green) who've never qualified for their own column in a chart like this, then this is isn't a problem (and considering that the overwhelming majority of parties who've contested elections don't get their own columns, it really does maintain flexibility). As for the decision to move the major parties to darks, I'd rather not let hypotheticals determine table layout in the here and now. If and when such a decision is made, it'll be rather easy to either do the white text trick or go back to the stacked white and coloured boxes we have at the moment. (in the interests of full disclosure, I must confess to a certain fondness to our current palette :) )

Anyway, really glad you guys like it overall, and the stacked-box versus single box debate can be fairly easily resolved by modifying the templates down the line. I'm hoping at the this stage that nobody has a problem with the multiple-winners columns and/or the whole concept of using a template, though, as those changes will be harder to undo. -The Tom 17:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd be okay with white text on dark backgrounds where appropriate. Kevintoronto 17:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I too am definately supportive of the multiple win colums, etc and the principle of your table above. I do think we should stay away from text-on-colour as it is contrary to the Wikipedia style guide and, I think, looks more professional. - Jord 17:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On a trial basis, I've converted the candidate list on British Columbia general election, 2005, and I'd like to wait a bit and see if it generates any feedback. The stacked box/coloured box matter can be settled in a separate debate once it's clear that consensus favours the templates period. Fair? -The Tom 22:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now that I've actually worked on a candidates table, I can definitely see the merits of your version. I like it as well. A question about this and the original version: Is there a reason why the gray table headings are darker than for the overall elections results tables? It's hard to read the text, and I think the table formats are different enough that we don't need to have different shades of gray for the different tables. --Death phoenix 21:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No idea how the two grays got split (happened some time ago). I've lightened the candidate table headers to match. -The Tom 22:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about everyone else? I like the table headers lightened like this, but what do the rest of you think? I'll lighten the candidate table I did (for Yukon 2002) if there's consensus to lighten the colour. --Death phoenix 23:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. Using a template as the header certainly makes things less complicated. It certainly looks good on the Yukon 2002 page. --Death phoenix 21:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do believe that we should remove the colour from party name text cells. This returns us to the very reasons we had for changing the colour scheme and the way it's presented in the first place. I'm going to remove the colours after this posting. --Death phoenix 21:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Colour headings, or no?

Okay, my changes were reverted, so rather than get into a revert war, I'd like to ask the folks working on these elections tables whether they prefer the table headings with shading or without? --Death phoenix 23:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With

Electoral District	Candidates													Incumbent
Electoral District		BQ		Liberal		Conservative		NDP		Green		Other		Incumbent
Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine		Raynald Blais 21,446		Georges Farrah 12,579		Guy de Coste 2,636		Phil Toone 805		Bob Eichenberger 1,060				Georges Farrah

Without

Electoral District	Candidates													Incumbent
Electoral District		BQ		Liberal		Conservative		NDP		Green		Other		Incumbent
Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine		Raynald Blais 21,446		Georges Farrah 12,579		Guy de Coste 2,636		Phil Toone 805		Bob Eichenberger 1,060				Georges Farrah

With

The Tom 00:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
MS123
-- Earl Andrew - talk 06:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Without

Death phoenix 23:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ground Zero 18:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) even black is hard to read aginst some coloured backgrounds, e.g., Alberta Alliance in Alberta general election, 2004. I can live with the white-text-on-dark-background though.
Text-on-colour is a clear violation of wikipedia style standards - Jord 02:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cafemusique 01:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC) - Much clearer to read.

If the withouts win, how about replacing the column with small pictures that have white text. I have made an example of what the Liberal heading might look like Missing image
Liberalcolumn.PNG
Image:Liberalcolumn.PNG

MS123 00:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we can quite easily do that with HTML. -The Tom 05:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I realize that, but using a white text against certain colours like yellow can lead to problems. By using a small picture you can use a white text with a black outline.

Missing image
Headerscdn.PNG

To see an example of what it will finally look like see Saskatchewan_general_election,_2003#Riding_by_Riding_Results MS123 05:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Or black text on lights, and white text on darks... Anyway, let's wait and see how this goes. :) -The Tom 05:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm liking those actually. Maybe put them with a party logo as well. --

Earl Andrew - talk 06:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Problems when changing the tables

I figured I'd add a new section where we can discuss problems when changing the tables.

Argh! I'm getting that weird bug on the Canadian federal elections charts again. See User:Deathphoenix/Work. If you have any idea how to fix this problem, please let me know. Thanks! --Death phoenix 02:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll answer here so others can see, it is interpreting some of the spacing between your code as hard returns. So, instead of


|-
|something
|something

|-
|something else

do the following:


|-
|something
|something
|-
|something else

- Jord 02:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful! That did the trick. Thanks, Jord! --Death phoenix 15:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote - images

I'm hereby creating a vote on whether we should institute images into the riding by riding results. (Like we did for the 2004 election) Here's what I mean:

Electoral District	Candidates						Incumbent
Electoral District	BQ	Missing image Lpcsmall.jpg image:lpcsmall.jpg Liberal	Missing image Cpcsmall.jpg image:cpcsmall.jpg Conservative	NDP	Missing image Gpcsmall.jpg image:gpcsmall.jpg Green	Other	Incumbent
Any Riding	Jean Bloqiste 18,694	Joe Liberal 18,766	Mary Tory 2,524	Leslie Dipper 3,160	Stef Green 1,864	Mr. Independent	Joe Liberal

As opposed to what we have now for the 2005 election. I realize there is concern about other provinces, so, maybe we can create a new template for the federal races? I really think the images add to the charts, and make them more aesthetically pleasing. I think everything flows well so that it doesn't become too loud. :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support images

-- Earl Andrew - talk 03:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Against images

- We would need to have a template for virtually every election in every province because the logos change often. This would defeat the purpose of having templates, which is to simplify the process by only having to edit in one place should we change the format/standard at some point down the road. - Jord 04:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, how about 2 templates? One for general purpose and one for the federal election? --

Earl Andrew - talk 04:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See my comments below. --Death phoenix 07:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I'm with Jord here. The whole reason for applying templates in the first place was to make it simple to change the colour and format in one place to apply globally. This makes it far too complicated to make any changes. In addition, the images don't really add that much value beyond what is in the text. Can the content present its information just as well without the images? I'd have to say yes. In addition, putting colour in the background of the text obscures it even more than the previous version (which I'm still against). If people really want to apply colour on text, then we should once again go back to the original debate and vote on the colour, because we have to go back to a lighter colour scheme in order to see the text. There are some pretty serious accessibility concerns with being able to read the text that we were trying to address when we were debating the colour scheme in the first place. --Deathphoenix 06:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That might be why we need to use logos. If you cant see the text, you'll still be able to see the logos! :D -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Problems

I have been finding some problems with numbers, and I think all the charts should be verefied for accuracy. First of all, none of the popular vote totals add up to what elections.ca say (See [1] (http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pas&document=turnout&lang=e&textonly=false)) except for 1867, which I adjusted. Also, seat totals should add up to what it says at Past_Canadian_electoral_districts, which some do not. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, it might be the difference in percentages between "total votes cast" and "total valid votes." I know I ran into that discrepancy before. We'd tended to report the latter. -The Tom 16:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh! Of course. But still, there are problems with seat totals, and I suspect there are still number problems. I believe it was the 1878 election I was trying to fix earlier. --

Earl Andrew - talk 19:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Formatting issues

I have a couple more suggestions to improve the foramt of the summary tables:

change the "After" column heading to "Elected", which I think covers the meaning more clearly.
use "-" instead of "0" where no candidate from a party was elected. (This reduces the clutter on the table.)

Comments? Ground Zero 15:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Dissolution" and "Elected", perhaps? -The Tom 19:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- "Dissolution"" works where we have the standings at dissolution. I've been using "Before" for standings at dissolution, and "Previous" if I only have the standings at the previous election. I like "Dissolution" better than "Before". Ground Zero 20:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now I'd like to make four proposals: I have a couple more suggestions to improve the format of the summary tables:

change the "After" column heading to "Elected", which I think covers the meaning more clearly.
change "Before" to "Dissolution"
Include "Previous" election results in all charts, including those where "Before/Dissolution" standings are now used instead, i.e., there would be one extra column for those charts. This is similar to the chart in United Kingdom general election, 2005, which includes both.
use "-" instead of "0" where no candidate from a party was elected. (This reduces the clutter on the table.)

Next question: If # 3 is adopted, should the % change column for seats refer to "Previous" or to "Dissolution" if thse numbers are available? (I think that would be confusing -- we should just stick with "Previous".) Comments? Ground Zero 20:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kevin asked for my comments here and here they are: I'll go with whatever you folks decide. The above seems to all be just symantics to me and whichever way we go is fine with me. I usually just cut and paste a table from the first article I see when creating them. It is good to come up with best practices and make sure we are consistant across the board (which we aren't now) but as for to the specifics of those best practices I leave it to you folks to decide ;) - Jord 20:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hahaha... nice one, Jord. Well, I think I agree with all except for #2: changing "Before" to "Dissolution". I think I'd prefer to change all these Before columns to "Previous". Having to find out whether Previous or Dissolution applies would create too much headaches, IMO. --Death phoenix 20:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is what I am proposing. I have the dissolution numbers for 1965 onward. Elections prior to that would have only the "Previous" column until I get around to finding out the "Dissolution" numbers from historical newspapers. (I have not adjusted the % change in seats yet. I would do that before posting.)

I seem to be having formatting problems. Any suggestions? Ground Zero 15:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

~~Fixed it, you were missing on column in the vacant row ;) - Jord 17:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)~~ #&$#ing thing looked ok in the preview, working on it... - Jord 17:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There it is fixed, sort of. Same problem I had once before wasn't enough for it accept that there was text in the box... Not sure why, so you are forced to put in something (I used an asterisk) and white it out. - Jord 17:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Jord. Your changes look good. Ground Zero 19:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Party		Party Leader	# of candidates	Seats				Popular Vote
Party		Party Leader	# of candidates	1972	dissolution	Elected	% Change	#	%	% Change Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Liberal/row	Liberal	Pierre Trudeau	264	109	109	141	+29.4%	4,102,853	43.15%	+4.73% Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Progressive Conservatives/row	Progressive Conservative	Robert Stanfield	264	107	106	95	-11.2%	3,371,319	35.46%	+0.44% Template:Canadian politics/party colours/NDP/row	New Democratic	David Lewis	262	31	31	16	-48.4%	1,467,748	15.44%	-2.40% Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Social Credit/row	Social Credit	Real Caouette	152	15	15	11	-26.7%	481,231	5.06%	-2.49% Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Independents/row	Independent	63	1	*	1	-	38,745	0.41%	-0.18% Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Independents/row	Unknown	28	-	*	-	-	17,124	0.18%	-0.15% Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Marxist-Leninist/row	Marxist-Leninist	Hardial Bains	104	*	*	-	*	16,261	0.17%	* Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Communist/row	Communist	William Kashtan	69	*	*	-	*	12,100	0.13%	* Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Independents/row	No affiliation	3	1	1	-	-100%	551	0.01%	-0.24%
****	Vacant			*	2	N/A
****	Total		1,209	264	264	264	-	9,507,932	100.00%	*
Sources: http://www.elections.ca History of Federal Ridings since 1867 (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/hfer/hfer.asp?Language=E)

Note: "% change" refers to change from previous election

I do like the year instead of "Previous". The only outstanding cosmetic nit of mine is that "dissolution" is now much wider than either column on each side. Would a "Diss." header be clear enough in meaning to consider using instead? (Incidental point, it should be Dissolution with a capital, n'est-ce pas?). On the subject of consmetic tweaks, two other things that that mildy get my goat

The alignment of party leaders in the older elections seems to be centred in their column as opposed to left-aligned.
The N/A in the "Vacant" column for that merged cell under number of votes and so on seems a little needless. I'd rather just leave a blank white stripe there.

-The Tom 23:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The capitalization (or lack thereof) of dissolution is my fault, it had said "At dissolution" and I removed the "At" while neglecting to capitalize "dissolution". I agree that it would be nice if "dissolution" was not forcing a large column - perhaps if we made it "Diss." so that people could hover over and/or click on it to see what it was. - Jord 00:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My style

Party		Party Leader	# of cands	Seats				Popular Vote
Party		Party Leader	# of cands	1999	Diss.	After	% Change	#	%	Change Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Progressive Conservatives/row	Progressive Conservative	Bernard Lord	55	44	46	28	-39.1%	174,092	45.4%	-7.6% Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Liberal/row	Liberal	Shawn Graham	55	10	7	26	+271%	170,028	44.4%	+7.1% Template:Canadian politics/party colours/NDP/row	New Democratic	Elizabeth Weir	55	1	1	1	0%	36,989	9.7%	+0.9% Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Grey/row	Grey	Jim Webb	10	n/a	-	-	0%	1,550	0.4%	n/a² Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Independents/row	Independents	n/a	2	-	-	-	0%	415	0.1%	-0.1%
Total			177	55	54¹	55	-	383,074	100%	-2.8%

¹ One seat was vacant
² The Grey Party did not contest the 1999 election.

This is what I just hashed out... I like the change of popular vote + I hate the vacant line in the tables as there will never have been vacant in 2 of the 3 seat columns, so why not just a footnote instead of a colum which will have, at most, one out of ~10 values. Thoughts? - Jord 00:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like the Diss. solution. I found in my assorted work on the UK general election, 2005 chart that narrower colour swatches make it a _lot_ harder for you to distinguish between colours that seem obviously different in wider blotches. It's totally an optical thing.. the eye seems to like a certain amount of horizontal width before it can percieve colour subtleties. Considering how much sweat has been shed on colours already and how litle wiggle room there already is in terms of colour assignment, I'd hate to see us do something that might necessitate trying to diverge colours even more. I'm personally sorta fond of the Vacant column in terms of liking to sum things vertically, but I won't cry substantial tears if everyone else wants it gone. -The Tom 01:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The small colour blocks are not intential, it is the formatting problem, if you do a preview you'll see them as the normal size. This is the first time I've seen the templates create this problem :S - Jord 03:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My six cents:

Hmm... I'm not so crazy about "Diss." It doesn't explain what the column means -- you have to go somewhere else to figure it out. How about reducing the font on "Dissolution" so that it fits better?
Same for "# of cands" -- "cands" doesn't mean anything. Since that box takes up two rows, there is room for "# of<br>candidates".
I, too, like the vacant like for the purpose of summing up, but I can live with the footnote if necessary. I'm happy to leave out N/A and leave it blank.
I agree that we should make sure that the colour box is a decent size, otherwise it's not much use. I've found a way to force it based on the trick Jord taught me above. See the "Vacant" row.
I prefer "Elected" to "after", and putting the "Elected" numbers in bold since they are the most important figures in the table.
I've been leaving cells blank where the party did not contest the previous election. "n/a" adds to the clutter, although I admit that that goes against the principle I set out #1. Maybe an asterix instead?

It would look like this: Ground Zero 12:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Party		Party Leader	# of candidates	Seats				Popular Vote
Party		Party Leader	# of candidates	1999	Dissolution	Elected	% Change	#	%	Change Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Progressive Conservatives/row	Progressive Conservative	Bernard Lord	55	44	46	28	-39.1%	174,092	45.4%	-7.6% Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Liberal/row	Liberal	Shawn Graham	55	10	7	26	+271%	170,028	44.4%	+7.1% Template:Canadian politics/party colours/NDP/row	New Democratic	Elizabeth Weir	55	1	1	1	-	36,989	9.7%	+0.9% Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Grey/row	Grey	Jim Webb	10	*	*	-	*	1,550	0.4%	* Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Independents/row	Independents	n/a	2	-	-	-	-	415	0.1%	-0.1%
***	Vacant				2	*
***	Total		177	55	55	55	-	383,074	100%	-2.8%

* The Grey Party did not contest the 1999 election.

This looks good, but I have to admit that I'm not crazy with the idea of small blue text with a dark grey background, but this is probably better than "Diss." I'm divided over this one. --Deathphoenix 13:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You have a good point, Death, but I don't have any ideas on what to do about it. The only thing I can think of is to lighten the grey we're using, which would be a good idea anyway (improving leigibility and all that). Maybe someone else can come up with something. Ground Zero 16:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - I agree, Zero, this is a tough one. Lightening the grey's an option. Maybe we should make a template colour for the grey as well. :-P --Death phoenix 17:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Canadian_federal_election_results_since_1867"