Talk:1988 Canadian federal election

Untitled

With all due respect, this last edit doesn't seem to improve things. Adding "Party of Canada" after each of the party names makes the table more crowded and more difficult to read without adding any information. The compete names of the parties are just a click away since all of the party names are linked to the articles. Am I alone in thinking this? Or should I revert? Your comments, please.Kevintoronto 21:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since there was no response for two months, I feel free to change this back. The tables should be consistent across all years back to 1867, rather than the format changing from election to election. Kevintoronto 15:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seating

The Canadian Parliament after the 1988 election

Does this look better? This image is probably more accurate. MS123 22:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It looks better, but why do you say it's more accurate. (Im curious) - Earl Andrew 03:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this is completely accurate, however it MAY be more accurate just by looking at the way the house is currently layed out. I would like to find out if a seating plan exists though. MS123 22:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

could someone fix the overlap of the chart with the information box?

GBC 03:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ndp80s.PNG

Image:Ndp80s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lib80s.PNG

Image:Lib80s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The link to Charles McKenzie points to an article about a completely different Charles McKenzie. Can somebody fix this? JimmyVermeer (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

John Turner's photo

John Turner looks much older in this photo. Isn't there a more appropriate photo from 1984 or 1988? This one is at least twenty years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.120.107 (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Http://www.nndb.com/people/480/000111147/john-turner-1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.120.107 (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ontario on the map

Why is Ontario red? It voted more PC than Lib FollowerOfHank (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Including Reform

The Reform Party should be included in the infobox because parties with results in the single digits (see BQ in 2015) AND no seats have been included in infoboxes, for example the PPC in 2019 and, to a lesser degree, 2021. The difference here is that the Reform Party a got more percent of the vote than the PPC in 2019 and Reform is significantly more relevant to Canadian politics and Canadian political history as a whole. Their result is also slightly skewed because they only contested Western Canada. In addition, Reform was a major contender in 1993, but it seems that is basically "appeared out of nowhere", when it won a seat shortly after the 1988 election and was relevant years ahead of 1993. KamikazeMatrix26Juni (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

User:KamikazeMatrix26Juni thing is is that PPC had a seat when the 2019 election kicked off; Reform had no seats when the 1988 election kicked off. That's why we included the PPC in the 2019 election. They were also invited to the debates. Ak-eater06 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

My main point is that their relevance overall makes their inclusion worthwhile. They have their own few sentences in the "Election milestones" section. The PPC wasn't included in the 2021 debates but still ended up in the infobox even though they failed the 5-%-criteria because of their appearance in the previous infobox. So there is a precedent for including parties based on their previous, or in this case later infobox inclusion. Similarly, Reform should appear in the 1988 infobox. KamikazeMatrix26Juni (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I already explained why PPC is included in the 2019 election in my comment above. If Reform had seats prior to the 1988 election, it would be included here too. It's also important to note someone tried to make this change back in early 2020 (see revision history) with a user pointing out, "Reform does not reach the criteria for inclusion, crossing neither the 5% mark (let alone single seat), neither did it have a seat pre-election or inclusion in leadership debates that would warrant inclusion as the PPC did in 2019." Ak-eater06 (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Turner 1968 cropped.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

An alternative file that could be suitable: [1]
If that specific crop isn't 'good enough' than someone else can get a better screenshot from the source. PascalHD (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)