Talk:2021 London mayoral election/Archives/2020/October

Sue Black WEP candidate

No mention of Sue Black WEP candidate. See: https://sueblack.co.uk/tag/wep/ and https://bcswomen.bcs.org/womens-equality-party-announces-interim-leader-and-london-mayoral-candidate/

File nominated for deletion on commons

file=c:File:Rachel-Johnson-01-1.jpg|patten=No permission indicated subpage= 

Message automatically deposited by a robot on 07:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harideepan (talk • contribs)

Osborne

Should Osborne be listed as publicly declared interest? What I can see of the paywalled article cited merely has him not ruling it out, which would be reason to list him as speculated, but he's not said anything as clear as Campbell, has he? Bondegezou (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The relevant section is 'Asked about running for London mayor, he added: “When I said returning to politics that would include city hall politics.”'. Whilst that's about as much a declaration of interest as you can expect, it's a bit of exegesis to list it as a public expression of interest. I'd support moving him to the list of potential candidates. Ralbegen (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Portraits

Does this article benefit from having portraits of "potential" candidates? There's a very low threshold for inclusion in "potential" lists, and it means most of the article is pictures of people whom newspapers have mentioned might stand. It feels to me like it might give better emphasis to only include portraits for candidates who have expressed interest? Ralbegen (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

As there's been no objection voiced here, I'll remove them for now. Ralbegen (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe the portraits should be on the page as they are for other election pages for positions such as mayor or president. On the US election page there are portraits for potential candidatesWolfaliddtk (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Portraits weren't used on the article about the 2016 mayoral election, and nor for any UK mayoral or metro mayoral election. So I don't think there's a close precedent. Separately, I think editorially putting portraits for half a dozen potential candidates gives undue weight to media speculation compared to the smaller number of candidates actually declaring intent. Ralbegen (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Nimco Ali

From here, Nimco Ali has applied to be the Conservative candidate, which I'm satisfied of the truth of from Ali's Twitter feed. Is there any reliable source coverage we can use to include her? Ralbegen (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Here mentions her. Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! Ralbegen (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Conservative long list

I'm not sure the ConservativeHome blog is sufficiently reliable to add now but I expect the papers will pick it up.

1. Shaun Bailey
2. Andrew Boff
3. Duwayne Brooks
4. Alison Cork
5. Kevin Davis
6. Simone Finn
7. Ruby McGregor-Smith
8. Joy Morrissey
9. Kulveer Ranger
10. Andrew Rosindell

Cavrdg (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added the longlist on the basis of the ConservativeHome post. Personally I'd consider ConservativeHome and LabourList reliable sources for procedural matters about the parties they respectively cover - they have editorial policies and are generally well-regarded as far as accuracy is concerned. When a preferable source picks up on the longlist, though, we should use that instead. Ralbegen (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Conservative election box

I've put an election box in for the Conservative selection. It would benefit from losing the party field, but I don't know of a suitable two-round template that excludes the party. Is there an obvious replacement? The Labour tables the previous mayoral election used separate election boxes for each round but that seems like it'd be a cluttered approach for a single-electorate two-round selection. Ralbegen (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it works well. Bondegezou (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Rob Blackie picture

Can someone better at handling images than I trim the Rob Blackie picture (in the LibDem candidate gallery) so it has a similar width to the other images? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox inclusion

Practice on UK politics articles is normally that inclusion in the infobox for a forthcoming election is determined by how well parties did at the previous election. We often use a 5% cut-off for the infobox. Thus, we have had for some time an infobox with Khan (Labour; 44.2% last time), Bailey (Conservative; 35% last time) and Berry (Green; 5.8% last time). There has been repeated pressure to add Benita (LibDem; 4.6%) to the box. Most recently, BitterGiant added and then re-added Benita, while Ralbegen had removed her. Jwslubbock previously added Benita. Previously, there was also discussion about just having Lab and Con, excluding the Greens: the 5% cut-off flatters them when they got just above it, while the LibDems were just below it. An IP editor and earlier Susiloto had removed Berry, who was re-added each time by Doktorbuk. The only other declared candidate at present is independent (ex-Tory donor, current LibDem donor) Charlie Mullins.

Personally, I'd happily drop the infobox for now. If we are to have one, then I feel most comfortable with Lab/Con/Grn on the usual last-time+5%-rule, but I acknowledge that there are arguments for just Lab/Con or Lab/Con/Grn/LD. Whichever, let's try to find some consensus here. Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we drop the infobox please? I came on to see who the candidates are and it makes out there are only three candidates which is not true. Also, the blue of the London boroughs makes it look as if all of London is Conservative. Very confusing. ixo (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Consensus has always been 5% at the previous comparable election and I can't see why that should change. doktorb _words^deeds 11:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The 5% threshold makes sense to me as a nice standard. If we start seeing coverage considering Benita as a serious contender for the mayoralty then I think it's something we can re-evaluate, but I haven't seen anything like that. I think the case to include just Khan and Bailey exists too: 5% is a very low threshold when you're talking about the single office of mayor and the lowest ever first-round result that saw a candidate reach the run-offs was Norris in 2000 with 27.1%. My preference remains for Lab/Con/Grn, but as something we can re-evaluate if new evidence comes to light. Ralbegen (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The consensus, from what I've understood it, was to also offer some leeway, rather than a hard set 5%- if I am wrong in that, please by all means point my in the right direction, but if we also look at precedent, then it would be a strictly Lab/Con box, and while this would be reflective of the likely outcome of the supplementary vote, it would also be something of a disservice, especially as this is not a legislative election, but instead an executive one. If we decide to not limit it strictly to Lab/Con, perhaps as something of a compromise, we only include those in the infobox if they are being individually polled/to what level of support they are garnering in their polling? BitterGiant (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The consensus has been firm on a 5% cutoff, not endlessly arguing over leeway.
Oh and there is another declared candidate, Winston McKenzie, who these days is part of his own "Unity in Action" party. [1] But it's a self-announcement from the leader of a very obscure party and history has shown he hasn't always been successful at getting the nomination paperwork in correctly. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please point to where this 5% consensus is supposed to be? So far it has been asserted that there is consensus on 5% but I can't see anyone pointing to where this consensus is meant to exist?

Secondly, a comparable situation (at least in the UK) is how the BBC and Ofcom define balance when it comes to elections - they use a combination of performance in elections and performance in current opinion polls to determine the significance of a candidate or party in terms of meriting coverage.

When it comes to opinion polling the most recent London specific polling (as referenced in the article itself) shows four candidates polling well in excess of 5% - Khan (Labour), Bailey (Conservative), Berry (Green) and Benita (Lib Dem). Additionally, there has already been one significant election in London this year (the 2019 European election) and in that election the Liberal Democrats topped the poll in London with 27% of the vote versus Labour on 24%, the Brexit Party on 18%, the Greens on 12% and the Conservatives on 8%.

Based on this, and on national polling at present, all the indications are that at the next election the candidates likely to get more than 5% are Khan, Bailey, Berry and Benita - with the Brexit party also likely to top 5% if they stand a candidate.

As such it seems odd to me that the candidate of the party that won the most votes in London just a couple of months ago is being treated as a minor candidate in the infobox. Antonine (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There's discussion about the 5% inclusion threshold in another topic below. It's local consensus from previous articles, and is something that's consistent across a lot of election articles across Wikipedia. Following the previous election is a good principle to take because it's grounded and straightforward to implement. After the election, candidates who get more than 5% of the vote will be included in the infobox. I'm really not sure of the value of trying to guess which candidates will get 5% of the vote or more ahead of the election. Following the results of different types of elections or opinion polls seems like a rabbit-hole that could only lead to even more time being spent editing and talking about the infobox rather than improving the article, which I don't feel is a great use of editors' time.

I think that any case to use different criteria would have to be based on reliable source coverage. If reliable sources describe the candidates with a chance of winning as Sadiq Khan and Siobhan Benita, then I think there could be a compelling case to readdress the issue. I don't think reliable sources saying that Siobhan Benita would keep her deposit would justify changing the infobox in the same way. Ralbegen (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Umunna in the polls

So YouGov has ran a hypothetical poll alongside they normal polling asking how many would vote for Chuka Umunna if he stood. Firstly, The source cited doesn't include this alternative poll, If a source isn't found I'll delete that row. Second, if a source is found, this should be greyed like what has been used for post-referendum opinion polling on Europe. Third, I don't think it really belongs here unless Umunna declares himself. Jonjonjohny (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jonjonjohny, I included the wrong source, sorry. Here is the correct one. I thought it'd be a bit overmuch to create a new table for hypothetical polls to end up with three tables with one poll each. I think a note makes it clear enough, but if you think it should be highlighted differently, by all means go ahead. I think it is worthwhile including hypothetical polls, but I'm certainly open to hear your thoughts. Ralbegen (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking something like what I've put below this for the opinion polls. On second thought, I think the hypothetical polls should be underneath the original. Also perhaps put the 2018 poll in the same table, as there was only one for 2018. I don't expect the polling go beyond 20 polls. I've havent noticed Umanna suggest himself as mayor, not have I heard it suggested so its intiging that YouGov used this scenario, perhaps it would be a bit early to include him in the graph? What are you thoughts?

Date(s) conducted	Polling organisation/client	Sample size	First preference					Final round
			Khan	Bailey	Berry	Benita	Others	Khan	Bailey
7–10 May 2019	YouGov/QMUL	1,015	43%	23%	16%	10%	8%	64%	36%
7–10 May 2019	YouGov/QMUL	1,015	43%	23%	8%	16%	10%	64%	36%
3–6 December 2018	YouGov/QMUL	1,020	55%	28%	7%	4%	6%	62%	38%

Jonjonjohny (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think in the absence of other reliable source coverage or evidence that this (Umunna standing) is a likely event, I think we should just exclude the hypothetical and cover the regular poll. Bondegezou (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking over the tables, I think there's a clerical error in the numbers YouGov give for the hypothetical poll anyway... Happy to see it struck for the time being. Ralbegen (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree personally, ill update the tables and merge into one too Jonjonjohny (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

YouGov have issued a corrected version of the tables; if we choose to include Umunna in the future (!) the figures would be:

Date(s) conducted	Polling organisation/client	Sample size	First preference					Final round
			Khan	Bailey	Berry	Benita	Others	Khan	Bailey
7–10 May 2019	YouGov/QMUL	1,015	43%	23%	16%	10%	8%	64%	36%
7–10 May 2019	YouGov/QMUL	1,015	39%	24%	14%	7%	11%	64%	36%
3–6 December 2018	YouGov/QMUL	1,020	55%	28%	7%	4%	6%	62%	38%

For reference! Ralbegen (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, lets include it. Jonjonjohny (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Notes

5% rule

Hi All,

Can we discuss the inclusion of Siobhan Benita (Lib Dem) in the info box here, rather than edit war it? Timrollpickering mentions a 5% rule. Is this documented somewhere?

Am I right in thinking that there is a rule that we only include people if they poll above 5% in opinion polls? The latest such poll mentioned in the article has Benita at 10%, which would imply that she should be included. Am I missing something?

Yaris678 (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The policy is based on the previous election result - see Talk:2016 London mayoral election#Infobox for the equivalent rounds on this - and has been thrashed out over many successive elections rather than individual discussions on individual elections. It's a good firm measure (it's the level for retaining the deposit) that doesn't descend into subjective arguments or debate over what other elections should be considered or fluctuating polls. The rule has been in use on Wikipedia for many years now. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I see:

• This is based on what the candidate's party got on the last London Mayoral election (not on opinion polls, which is what I had thought)
• This is a local consensus, over articles for previous London Mayoral elections (not a WP:POLICY or guideline).

When enforcing this rule, I think it would be sensible to make the above clear.

I also think that there is more scope to challenge this rule than their might have been for previous elections. The Green candidate now qualifies, since Green got more than 5% last time, but Lib Dems did better than Green in the last opinion poll. I can see the desire to focus on actual elections and not opinion polls, so as to avoid having to update the article every time there is a new opinion poll. But if the Lib Dems consistentlty do better than Greens and above 5%, over the course of several opinion polls, there is an argument for including them. I don't think that has happened before. e.g. before the 2008 mayoral election Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and UKIP would have been shown in that election's info box and some other parties may have scored more than UKIP in some opinion polls, but none of them would have consistently score more than 5%.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The 5% rule is applied over many UK election articles: Mayoral, but also, e.g., by-elections. If the election has happened, 5%+ gets you in the infobox. If the election is forthcoming, 5%+ last time gets you in the infobox. It is a well-used, but not hard and fast rule. It is not always applied precisely. I have, for several years, argued that the guiding principle remains that we should follow what reliable sources do. If reliable sources before a vote describe X, Y and Z as the leading candidates, then so should we. However, in many situations, what reliable sources do is not clear and subject to much partisan argument. In those situations, 5% is a convenient rule of thumb that reduces edit-warring. In other situations, it is apparent that the 5% rule agrees well with what reliable sources do anyway.

Ergo, as I said above, I'm comfortable with Lab/Con or Lab/Con/Grn or Lab/Con/Grn/LD, but would plump for the middle option (5% rule). I tried reviewing RS coverage of this election: it was patchy. It seemed to me to suggest the two main candidates are Lab and Con, with Grn and LD being the next two most covered. But there wasn't enough to be conclusive. I would suggest waiting until nearer the election and, if then, most RS coverage mentions Benita as well, or more than Berry, then I think she should be added. Ditto any other candidate.

I have not mentioned polling. I am wary of making a determination based on polling: that seems like WP:PRIMARY. Bondegezou (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Interesting point about primary sources. I guess the argument for an opinion poll being a more of a primary source than an election result is that an opinion poll needs some interpretation - it is an approximate attempt to predict an election, whereas the election is the election. Of course, the last election is not the next election, so I can see why you say the rule is not hard and fast... although I think others might be arguing that it is. Yaris678 (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see my comment under Talk:2020 London mayoral election#Infobox inclusion which is essentially the same discussion as this one. In the last election in London (the 2019 European elections in June) the Lib Dems topped the polls in London with 27% of the vote. I can understand the logic that opinion polls may not be a reliable reflection of the future result, but it seems bizarre that actual recent election results aren't taken into account at all. Antonine (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The counter argument is that those were different elections for different positions, so doing well in those elections does not necessarily translate to doing well in these elections. That said, I agree with your analysis above. That said, I would feel happier with an argument based on what RS are doing, which will have to wait until we get nearer the elections and start seeing significant amounts of RS reporting. In the mean time, there's an argument that we should just dump the infobox, as per the debate at Next United Kingdom general election. Bondegezou (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been mentioned elsewhere, but I thought it would be worth mentioning it here: The 5% rule either does not exist, or has no history of being applied, for upcoming elections. If anyone can provide examples of elections where candidates were polling higher than 5%, but were excluded from Wikipedia on the basis of previous election results, please do. This rule was not applied to the 2017 British general election, to the 2017 French parliamentary election, to the 2019 European parliamentary election, or to the 2016 London mayoral election (where the rule was applied for candidate photos, but not for inclusion in the infobox, leading to a very messy layout).

Until someone provides evidence otherwise, I can only conclude that no such rule exists. I would also argue that this is a good thing, given that such a rule would have a strong pro status quo political bias, which Wikipedia should definitely not have.

I have also made the point that we should seek to reflect primary sources as much as possible. There is a worthwhile discussion to be had over which sources should be taken into account when summarising information, and in what way. But the 5% rule as interpreted here goes clearly against that principle. CAWyatt (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

How do I add my name as an Independent Mayoral Candidate?

Why is this site locked? Surely this is not good for democracy? I want to add my name as an Independent London Mayoral candidate 2020 Vreadhead (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It's locked against brand new accounts and anonymous non-account editors because of the edit warring that's been happening. If other candidates are standing, please can they provide links to coverage of their candidacy in reliable third party sources. Self-published announcements are insufficient (hence the Unity in Action candidate isn't yet listed.) Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Vreadhead. Because anyone could turn up and claim they intend to stand, we don't let people do that. You need evidence that the candidacy is real and serious. That evidence usually comes in the form of someone else, like a newspaper (see WP:RS for rules on what counts), covering your candidacy. If that has happened or happens, post a link here and someone will add it.

Wikipedia also discourages people writing about themselves, as that is a conflict of interest. It is safer to let us know, here on the Talk page, about anything. Bondegezou (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is an article quoting Rosalind Readhead as an Independent London Mayoral candidate 2020

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/23/nissan-refuses-government-request-on-qashqai-emissions

I've added Readhead as a candidate. Bondegezou (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Benita bewilderment

We're back to a back and forth on whether to include Benita in the infobox. I understand the current reasoning, but I've always maintained that 5% is a rule of thumb that must come second to basic Wikipedia rules of following RS coverage. If RS coverage unambiguously presents the race as being one way, we need to recognise that in the article, and surely therefore in the infobox.

The election is some way off, so I'm not pushing for any final conclusion now. However, the coverage I've seen of late has been much more about Benita than about Berry. Indeed, I've seen more for Benita than Bailey! In the betting odds, while Khan is very much the favourite, Benita is again ahead of Bailey, while Berry is behind several people who haven't even declared any interest in standing (e.g. Heidi Alexander, Justine Greening). At some point, should that continue, is that an issue?

One solution is not to have an infobox before the election. There's no need to have an infobox. Other articles don't. Many editors have been arguing for no infobox on the Next United Kingdom general election article.

I don't have answers. I do think this is potentially a test case for the usual approach. Bondegezou (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

There is little to gain from Benita being in the infobox, I am astonished at the commitment to keep putting her in the infobox when she doesn't even make the cut of the 5% threshold. Her inclusion in the infobox isn't going to damage her campaign, most people come on wiki will read she is standing and she's mentioned a few times already. Jonjonjohny (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

As in previous discussions, I think we'd need something fairly explicit in reliable sources to justify going contrary to the 5% rule-of-thumb. If we don't have RS coverage that explicitly pits the election as between Khan and Benita, then I don't think it'd be useful to change away. The 5% rule makes sense and would ideally mean that we wouldn't need to spend so much time discussing infobox inclusion. I don't know that removing the infobox would be a useful solution in this case, though I agreed with it in the case of Next United Kingdom general election. It might be worth running a more general request for comment about pre-election infobox inclusion on the UK politics WikiProject? Ralbegen (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? She's at 10% in the most recent poll (which is itself seriously out of date). She's also second in gambling odds, ahead of even Shaun Bailey. I don't see what possible grounds there could be for not including her. CAWyatt (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@CAWyatt: I note that this^^^ is your only edit to a page you repeatedly assert via edit-summary to show a consensus for your additions. It clearly does not. Your edit-summaries are disingenuous, and you are edit warring. ——SerialNumber54129 13:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I have not claimed there is consensus for my actions, I have claimed there is no consensus either way. CAWyatt (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@CAWyatt: please revert your last addition: you are over the three-reverts bright line. This is the place to establish the consensus sought, not by blind reversion. Per policy: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 13:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. My proposal is to follow the format given to us by YouGov, the only primary source for polling on this election. As I understand it, the rule of thumb for Wikipedia is to mirror primary sources. Specific reasons should exist to deviate from that. The main reason given in this talk page to not include Benita is that she does not meet the 5% requirement. That is clearly untrue, as shown by the poll referenced in the page itself. Having read this talk page, it is also clearly untrue that there is any consensus either way on this issue. Given the lack of consensus, we should revert to just mirroring whatever our primary sources say. That is either following YouGov and including those 4 candidates, or including every candidate that has put themselves forward. I favor the former, but have no strong preference. CAWyatt (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@CAWyatt: as I said at your baloney DRN report, you are to revert your last edit until consensus is established here, not impose your preferred version and then discuss. ——SerialNumber54129 14:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think people should use civil language here. And instead of claim and counter-claim, please will everyone address how the current version of the article should be improved. And edit only with an edit summary with an explicit rationale. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@CAWyatt: you appear to be misunderstanding the 5% rule. It is based on performance at the previous election, not in polling. The LibDems did not get over 5% at the previous Mayoral election, so by that rule, they're not included in the infobox for the next election. Your comments above and at your (premature) DRN report are thus mistaken. You also need to take WP:3RR much more seriously.

That said, I think there is an issue with basing the infobox on the result last time when it is very possible that Benita and now Stewart could be significant candidates. They are both at better odds of winning than Bailey at present, and way, way ahead of Berry. The 5% rule works when parties standing and results are fairly stable from election to election. That is not the case now.

Best solution I have... get rid of the infobox. It's not serving much purpose, it attracts endless edit-warring, and we can't decide what it should so. Dump it. Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: I see what you mean about my understanding of the 5% rule, but I suspect that my understanding is what the intention of the rule was always meant to be, for the reasons you have alluded to. The interpretation used by others here would lead to very strange results, like the Brexit party not being included in the 2018 European elections, or Macron not being included in the 2017 French elections. 5% in latest polling makes a lot more sense.

As to your compromise solution of getting rid of the infobox, I think that would be reasonable. But I would still prefer to just have it mirror primary sources.

Either way, while these things are being discussed, the default state should be to just mimic what primary sources say. If someone thinks a different primary source than YouGov should be used, I would be happy to hear the reasoning.

As for your suggestion that there is no hurry, I strongly disagree. This is a front page issue on the BBC right now, and the Wiki page in its current form is misleading. This is as we speak potentially having a direct effect on the British political situation. CAWyatt (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been in discussions around this rule of thumb for many years. It is as I said. The rule applies to future elections: once an election has happened, then obviously what parties are included is determined by the results of that election. If we're discussing legislatures, then the rule has been interpreted to acknowledge defections: so the Brexit Party was listed in the run-up to the recent European elections because they had several MEPs through defections. They had 19% of the UK's MEPs shortly before the election.

While I support the article, and thus the infobox, reflecting reliable sources, the way to do that is to consider the weight of multiple sources. I am uneasy about taking a single source, the most recent YouGov poll, and basing infobox inclusion on that and that alone. If lots of reliable sources were saying the election was between Khan and Stewart, say, then I think the article would have to reflect that. We should certainly monitor what happens on that front, but I am unconvinced by your reasoning.

There is no hurry because Wikipedia is not trying to be a newspaper. That's not how it works. Bondegezou (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide me with some examples of where there was debate over who should be included, and the 5% rule was applied? I'm looking now, and I'm yet to find an example where there was conflict between polling and previous results, and the rule as you have described it was applied. It was broken in the 2017 French presidential election, and in the 2017 British General Election. So it seems to be more of a general guideline at best, rather than an actual rule (and yes, I am looking back at version histories for those elections to before the results).

I'm not asking Wikipedia to be a newspaper, I'm asking Wikipedia to have accurate information on current issues. At least not information that is 4 months out of date! And I don't think things should generally be based on a single source. If someone wants to provide even a single primary source to justify the three in the info box being Khan, Bailey, and Berry, I am very happy to discuss the merits of that. CAWyatt (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment: My own personal preference for what should be in a TIE is basically "Ofcom major parties", but with the Brexit Party substituted for UKIP. However, the Greens are in a relative position of strength in London that they aren't elsewhere in the country, so there may be a NPOV problem there. We also have a bit of a problem going by other criteria:

• A party has at least one Assembly member – excludes the Brexit Party, includes UKIP;
• A party has at least one London MEP – excludes the Tories;
• 5% rule – excludes the Lib Dems.

I think a blind adherence to the 5% rule is a bad idea when the Lib Dems are consistently polling much better than they did in 2016; after all, the Lib Dems did top the last London-wide poll, and their Westminster VI figures for London hover at about 20–25% these days. My gut feeling is to include both Berry and Benita; and defer the decision on including the Brexit Party candidate until they are selected. Sceptre (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

If Ofcom make a "major candidates" statement about the London elections, I wholeheartedly support following it. There is an additional problem now, beyond just including Benita as the LD candidate, in that we have Rory Stewart standing, and he'll probably do well. Any criterion about parties having Assembly Members or MEPs can't work for Stewart as an independent. Results last time around can't work for Stewart standing for the first time. To handle Stewart, you have to look at RS coverage and/or polling.

I am increasingly of the view that the solution is not to have an infobox (or to have a candidate-free one). There is zero requirement for articles to have infoboxes. Lots do, but policy is clear that they are not mandated and it's fine to choose not to have one. Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I think asserting a major candidate status to Stewart is premature at the moment; c.f. Galloway 2016. In the two YouGov polls, were Benita and Berry behind the second screen? I know that, when it comes to YouGov Westminster polls, both the Greens and the Brexit Party are now prompted for without the respondent saying "another party". Sceptre (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I think almost anything is premature at the moment. But, soon, I suspect we will have RS coverage and/or polling that creates challenges for our decision making here, in terms of the relative standings of Benita, Berry, Stewart and a Brexit Party candidate. What we have had so far shows more RS coverage for Benita and Stewart than for Berry, and the betting odds currently go Khan, Stewart, Benita, various others, Berry, Mullins, Farage. Bondegezou (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox deletion, pro tem

I'm deleting the infobox, because contentious infoboxes are no good. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Oddly, the community decided not to give people who don't like infoboxes such a veto. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Andy, this is not a "veto". The point here is that the box is contentious because it is premature. No doubt consensus can be reached, on this page, for the return of the box once the mayoral race is somewhat further on, polling is clearer and so on. I was asked on my user talk page to intervene in an edit war, where 3RR had come up. My intervention was pragmatic rather than based on any personal position. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately Charles Matthews has decided to give up his right to perform admin actions wrt this page. A shame, because there was a politically-motivated edit-warrior that required administrative attention. Such is life! ——SerialNumber54129 09:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

No; it is contentious because some people feel it is premature, and some do not. Removing something on the basis of contention allows one side an advantage over the other: this is a veto. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

For heaven's sake Andy. Take it to my user talk. The talk page guidelines apply to you, as to everyone else. WP:BATTLEGROUND too. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Please note where it says at the top of this page "Avoid personal attacks". I'm an admin but have not performed any actions here that involve admin powers. Above where it says "Avoid personal attacks" it also says "Assume good faith".

As it happens I have been thanked by both Bondegezou and CAWyatt for removing the box. This suggests to me that I'm on the right track to restoring orderly editing of an article about politics. What change to the article are you seeking, in commenting in that way? Charles Matthews (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• When one has neither assumed bad faith nor made a personal attack, the intimation that I have done so is a blue-all-caps aspersion. Please desist. For political motivation, please cf. the last line. Happy Saturday! ——SerialNumber54129 10:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: My first involvement in this page was to add {{talk page}}. Your style of talk page discussion illustrates well why. As it also says, "For disputes, seek dispute resolution". If there is a content dispute about 2020 London mayoral election, please raise it here. For comments about me, please use my user talk page. As it says at WP:TPG, article talk pages "are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." Charles Matthews (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Campaign section and Candidates section overlap

There sems to be to be quite a lot of commonality between these two sections. In the article for the 2016 London mayoral election, the candidates section came before the campaign section, which is more chronological. Perhaps the current order of the two sections in this article could be reversed and then everything about candidate selection put in the candidate section, with the campaign section focussing initially on campaign promises and issues. Jontel (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not see a lot of commonality between the two sections. The candidates section goes into detail on intra-party decision-making, whereas the campaign section just says when candidates were chosen. As time goes on, the campaign section will expand further.

I can see there is a debate about the ordering of these two sections. I prefer having the campaign section as being the more important, relevant section first, with the candidates section like an appendix later, rather than sticking to a chronological order. I've seen a range of approaches on other election articles. Bondegezou (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Candidates

How are candidates defined before nominations open? This seems a little bit like WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot guarantee any of these people will still meet the criteria to appear on the ballot paper when nominations open.

Then they're candidates who've withdrawn, and that can be noted in the article. The article doesn't say "these candidates will be on the ballot", it just lists them as candidates. Which is absolutely fine. Ralbegen (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

So what is the definition of a candidate?

Someone who is described as such by reliable sources. That's the rule that we're applying, as should apply to all Wikipedia content. Bondegezou (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Which evidence is enough

Would a party website and a press-conference video on Facebook by the party count as a reliable source to add a new standing candidate from that party to the list? --RC (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Usually we prefer third-party sources for things like this (news articles, verified by notable blogs). If we use first-party sources then a blog/webpage from the party is acceptable. We don't use conference videos as its not easily verifiable. It will be verified by the electoral commission (or in this case London Elects) when it draws to a close anyway. Jonjonjohny (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.renewparty.org.uk/renew_london_mayor_announcement

https://www.renewparty.org.uk/kam4london

Here we go. He was nominated by the party and he is standing as a mayoral candidate for London.--RC (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This won't be included until we see some independent reliable source coverage. That is standard practice for articles on forthcoming UK elections. Bondegezou (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Opinion Poll table

So I've seen the Lib Dem candidate Benita has dropped out, the second (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/siobhan-benita-quits-london-mayor-election-lib-dem-a4509106.html). The first thing that came to my mind is the disagreements about how the table of opinion polls will look. Might I recommend that we have a new table for polls after this point for the different names? Jonjonjohny (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. Stewart's out now too. Bailey might be replaced by the time there's a new poll too, more speculatively. There's no point messing up the table when a second table would be a straightforward solution. Ralbegen (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree with a new table for new polls. Bellowhead678 (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Another thing, do we really need to have the hypothetical second round outcomes? The only mathematical possibility is Khan vs Bailey. Jonjonjohny (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)