Talk:2000 Canadian federal election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Canada: Governments High‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.

Untitled

I will add a province-by-province result to this page. Pellaken 13:22, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't Quebec be a light blue, since the Bloc won two more seats than the Libs?

Colours

I've made some changes to the colour scheme, and would like to know what people think before I carry it back to previous years. The old PC Party colour is very dark, and it makes the text difficult to read.

old Progressive Conservative colour: mediumslateblue

I've changed it to a lighter colour:

new Progressive Conservative colour: powderblue

I've also changed the Bloc Quebecois colour in order to make it more distinct from the new PC colour:

old Bloc Québécois colour: lightskyblue

new Bloc Québécois colour: turquoise

I've also changed the Canadian Action Party from powderblue - a colour that has nothing in particular to do with that party - to

red

.

Any objections?

August 9 Changes

So The Tom has now changed the colours back on several of the pages, and reinserted 'Party of Canada' or 'Party' after the party names. What do people think of this? I don't want to get into a revert war, so I'll pose the questions here. I think my colour combo is easier to read, particlaurly when it comes to the Communist Party's indianred in Tom's colour scheme, which is very difficult to read. I'll let others make that decision, though. I really don't think, however, that adding 'Party of Canada' after each party's name adds anything beyond more clutter to already-crowded tables. Is anyone with me on this? The full names of the parties are always available by clicking on the short form and going to the party's article. Comments please? Kevintoronto 15:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So there was no response from the Tom, I've changed the names back to the short form so that there is consistency back to 1867. I'm going to do the colours some time when I have a moment. Kevintoronto 15:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 24, 2004 changes

We now have consistent colour-coding of the Conservative Party (historical) and the Progressive Conservative Party from 1867-2000. The "powderblue" should make the data legible on most if not all monitors, unlike the previous colour, which was almost the same colour as the text on both monitors that I use. I really hope that we won't have someone go in and randomly change a few years' elections to different colours and mess up this consistency. After 2000, there is no need to adjust colours, I think, since the new Conservative Party is the result of a merger, and therefore warrants a new colour. Kevintoronto 22:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Results table

The tables have been converted to the new format that was developed by consensus at Talk:Canadian federal election results since 1867 over a period of months. Eventually all federal elecitons tables will be converted to this format. See Talk:Canadian federal election, 2004 for more explanation. Kevintoronto 19:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

May 13, 2006 changes

I have changed simply the top row of the page, where it says "hose of commons", I changed it to its proper spelling of "House of commons"

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian federal election, 2000. 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/20060314142216/http://www.egwald.com/statistics/canadianelections.php to http://www.egwald.com/statistics/canadianelections.php

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) 02:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph of lead

User:G. Timothy Walton I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just wondering if it's notable, considering Harper and Trudeau won very close to 40%. Ak-eater06 (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider it notable. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]