Talk:2016 London mayoral election/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Eddie Izzard plans to run in 2020: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a468430/eddie-izzard-to-run-for-london-mayor-in-six-years.html

Here's another useful article: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/who-will-labours-2016-london-mayoral-candidate-be Bondegezou (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

And http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/george-galloway-considering-running-mayor-london Bondegezou (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

What to do... Paxman was first listed under Considering for the Tories, and has now been moved to Declined. The article cited quotes Paxman as saying 'no', but cites sources claiming he's still considering it. So I'm uncertain how to represent this. Ideas anyone? Bondegezou (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone come across a more authoritative source for Umunna potentially considering mayor? The Sun Nation source seems incredibly speculative and Umunna himself hasn't indicated any desire or intention to run himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabokovsky (talk • contribs) 13:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Should Michael Bloomberg be in the Declined list on the Conservative side? He wouldn't have been eligible to run even had he wanted to.

See http://www.londonelects.org.uk/im-candidate/nominations

I think he would fail to meet the second two parts -

He isn't as far as I can tell a citizen of the UK, Republic of Ireland, European Union or Commonwealth, and given that he liven in NYC, and has no London home (again AFAIK), he's unlikely to be registered to vote in London, or have lived, worked, rented or owned property in London for the past 12 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.227.178.100 (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think what matters here is what

reliable sources had to say on the matter. They considered the possibility noteworthy, so I suggest we follow that, questions of his eligibility notwithstanding. Bondegezou (talk

) 14:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

In elections, particularly high-profile elections like by-elections or with the London mayoralty, it is common for all sorts of individuals and groups to say they are going to stand. It is easy enough to stick such a claim up on the web. However, there's a difference between making a claim and actually meeting the nomination requirements (in this case, 10 nominees from each borough = 330 in total) and paying the required deposit (£10,000) [1].

Given that context, I think the best approach to weeding out those candidates who are actually notable and will be nominated from those who never get nominated is two-fold. First, we should be careful in the use of language. No-one is yet an official candidate, with the election not yet called. At this time, we should be talking of people "intending to stand". Secondly, we apply

I have removed Paul Tavares from Template:London mayoral election, 2016 for lack of any independent sources, and I've removed Upkar Singh Rai (National Liberal Party) from this article for the same reason. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bondegezou. If anything I would say the page is probably still over-reporting possible candidates, even after your work to keep it under control. I would think it is a good idea to include a note about the gap between announcements and real candidacies, in the way you do above, probably with reference to previous London Mayoral elections and 'declared' candidacies that didn't end up on the ballot paper. DrArsenal (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree that it appears to violate most or all of those policies. Perhaps User:Humberhawk can provide a rationale that eludes us, Bondegezou, but in the absence of such rationale, it shouldn't remain. I had just reverted it again before seeing this on the talk page. DrArsenal (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with the infobox image of Zac Goldsmith? Why is it raised? Does anyone know? AusLondonder (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's about its shape and how it is fitted into the box, but, yes, it does look weird, but I don't know how to fix it. Bondegezou (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, 75.173.108.101! Bondegezou (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

New image in the edit from User:Nub Cake does seem to be an improvement, but looks a bit large to me. DrArsenal (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering what editors felt about the following table:

I initially removed it but the editor who placed it in put it back. Fundamentally, I think it uses a lot of space to convey a minimal amount of relatively trivial information. If this was depitcting the numbers from a vote between multiple candidates then I could see a justification, but as it is the information could adequately by conveyed in the following sentence: "She was selected, against the option to re-open nominations, winning 90% of the 3669 votes on a 39% turnout, as announced on 17 September 2015."

The editor who inserted the content has only given the justification that "Labour have a whole article selected to their selection process so this is proportionate and reasonable". As well as there being clear differences in media coverage of the two contests - they fundamentally weren't votes of the same size or prominence -

The box used is also inappropriate. It contains blank columns for 'party' and 'turnout'. This could be fixed if we decide to keep the page of course, but at the moment it results in a table which is ugly. In addition, the numbers in it are not supported by any references (indeed this Guardian article would seem to contradict them). Again, though, these are more issues to fix if people want to have a table.

To conclude - I see that this brings some information to the page, but I really feel that it could be better included in a simple sentence. --

I feel the same information could be better displayed in a simple sentence, so I agree with SNC. We do not need a big table for such a simple vote. Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Well,

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 13:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Although I've looked around and I just can't find a citation for the numbers. I've tried various google searches ([4]; [5];) and looked at the Lib Dem website (http://www.libdems.org.uk/lib_dems_announce_candidate_for_london_mayor), but we need a reference for the numbers to include this table.

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 14:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I also can't find a source for those results anywhere. I wonder where the original poster got them? Brucejoel99 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I've managed to locate the Lib Dem nomination contest numbers - they're buried in a google drive folder accessible from the London party website - link here: [6] They match the numbers used above, but agree that it's far too big an election box for a fairly straightforward result. Given it was a one round outcome, it would be better to represent it by a traditional basic result box, if at all. Returningofficer (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

We have

Super Nintendo Chalmers and Bondegezou arguing for 'a single sentence', a position that I agree with. We haven't had anybody explicitly argue here for any election box at all: the closest we have had is Returningofficer saying "a traditional basic result box, if at all". On that basis, Brucejoel99, I think it is clear that the discussion here supports my action in deleting the box, and not yours in restoring it. However, thanks for your other edits, which have improved things.DrArsenal (talk

) 23:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I, Brucejoel99, am here to argue for the keeping of the LD selection box. My first reason we should keep it is the fact that other parties, in the instance of Zac Goldsmith winning 70% of the vote this time around (which, frankly, could also be represented by a sentence) OR the UKIP "undisclosed" selection box of 2012, are allowed to keep their boxes, even when those boxes take up more space as in the case of UKIP's 2012 box. Furthermore, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As editors, it's our duty to provide as much relevant information as we possibly can, & the selection box is definitely classifies as relevant information, so we must keep it. Brucejoel99 (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTEVERYTHING says "An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." - most of us who have commented so far take a view that the box for the LD selection goes beyond a summary, given that the sentence "She was selected, winning 90% of the 3669 votes on a 39% turnout, against the option to re-open Nominations, as announced on 17 September 2015" provides all the information. By contrast, to provide all of the detail about Goldsmith's selection in a sentence requires a long and complex sentence with four names and at least 7 numbers. Given the respective information that could be conveyed, a table summarises Goldsmith's selection, but it doesn't summarise Pidgeon's. As for UKIP's 2012 box: there is a good case for that to be deleted (lack of reliable sources). DrArsenal (talk

) 11:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[reduce indent] I agree with this. The table takes up more space, unnecessarily, than the simple sentence which conveys the same amount of info.

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 13:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This one calls him "John (Yanek) Zylinski", while this one this one uses "Janek Zylinski". This one goes with "Janek Żyliński". And so on... I've seen John, Yanek and Janek. "Yanek Zylinski" seems to be the most commonly used form. For now, I'd suggest using "Yanek (John) Zylinski". Comments anyone? Bondegezou (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The IBTimes can't decide for themselves as in the article they call him John (Yanek) but in the video just Yanek. I'd go with John (Yanek) Zylinski buy Yanek (John) seems acceptable too. Frinton100 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess we go with the references and for now and if he actually does stand, alter to whatever is on the nominations in March! --

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 09:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Frinton100 (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I like that display and agree with you about ordering. Bondegezou (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup, works for me. DrArsenal (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This is very well designed

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 13:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added this new box for the 2016 polling. I've also undone the changes that were made to the 2015 polling as I think it's better kept as a single table with only the headline figures, given that some polls didn't have a 2nd round question. I've also deleted the October Yougov as it wasn't a VI poll, it was "Who would make the best Mayor?" - not actually the same as "Who will you vote for"! Frinton100 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

original research. DrArsenal (talk

) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the ref - not intentional - I've put it back in. We certainly shouldn't reallocate the DKs ourselves, as polling organisations use factors such as past vote, declared likelihood to vote and socio-economic background to "guess" how those respondents will vote. We don't have that data available so we shouldn't start playing around with the figures. I have amended that poll in the table. I'm not sure where the figure of 37 came from for DK/Other - it's actually 2 Other, 5 WNV, 32 DK. Frinton100 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is great work, User:Frinton100. Totally support AusLondonder (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Re-calculating polling figures

DrArsenal, you have again added some "re-based" figures for the November YouGov poll - could you explain where these figures have come from and provide a reference please. If you have simply calculated the share for each candidate of those respondents indicating a preference (e.g. for Goldsmith (24/62 x 100 = 38.709...., rounds to 39)) this is completely wrong and should be removed. This is not how polling companies re-base their VI polls, as I explained above, and as can be seen from the Jan 2016 poll. Frinton100 (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I felt they should be in the main table, you didn't: I accept that these days most polling companies don't deal with don't know/won't say in this way any more, which is why I was willing to go with your argument that these figures should not be in the main table, but I thought inclusion in the note was a reasonable compromise and would give readers who were mystified by them figures that are closer to a consistent basis than the other figures in the table. The note is quite clear "If it were to be re-based on those who did express a preference alone" - which is the way all polling companies used to deal with don't know/won't say, even if some (including YG) don't any more. Their origin is a simple calculation by me along the lines you indicated to fit with

WP:CALC. DrArsenal (talk

) 09:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

In that case then they should not be included at all as we can't simply start playing around with polling figures - we have to use what is reported. CALC does not cover re-jigging scientifically collected data, whatever caveats are then placed on the figures presented. You don't even know what the exact figures are as all percentages will have been rounded - Goldsmith could have been anywhere from 23.5 to 24.5, and the total expressing a preference could have been anywhere from 61.5 to 62.5. Taking the extremes 23.5/62.5 x 100 gives 37.6 and 24.5/61.5 x 100 gives 39.8, i.e. 38 and 40 respectively when rounded. The figures should be left as they are reported, with DK and WNV figures given to explain why the poll only adds up to 62. Frinton100 (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have accepted that the figures "should be left as they are reported" in the table. We are talking about a sentence that begins with an "If" in a footnote, for goodness sake! DrArsenal (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

But the sentence is not true - "If" they are rebased they might give the figures you calculate, but they might not. We don't have enough information to come up with these sort of figures whatever caveats are placed on them. Frinton100 (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Frinton100 for the attempted compromise. I'll be interested to see what other people make of it. DrArsenal (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm feeling we are getting back to the situation Bondegezou had warned of: many candidates have "announced" who may, or may not, actually get on the ballot paper. It is cheap and easy to announce you want to be candidate, but getting the nomination signatures is a difficult organizational task for parties smaller than those with current MPs, given the larger number of signatures and the geographical constraints of how many from any one place. In addition, it is quite plausible that £ will be a significant barrier for some of these parties. I think we may be getting to the stage where we need to purge the list of some of the "announced" "candidates" where the evidence from reliable sources that they will actually stand is weaker. DrArsenal (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think everyone in the list has reliable source, secondary, independent citations, so I don't think we can remove them (and if they don't, we can). But we can be careful about wording: make clear that these are stated intentions to stand, note some may be out of date perhaps. Bondegezou (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fairly relaxed about this, as long as people are well sourced. If someone announces that they intend to stand and then doesn't get the signatures, then we can always delete them later on. Currently, listed candidates at the moment are referenced to one of the BBC, the Evening Standard, the Huffington Post, ITV News, the Independent - well established sources. The weakest is Winston McKenzie, whose candidature is referenced to the Croydon Adveritser, but due to his appearance on Celebrity Big Brother it's also one of the better known ones outside the big 5. People are easily deleted but we if someone intends to stand and major sources are reporting this, I don't think we can second guess it. --

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 09:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:The Proffesor has repeatedly removed text describing Britain First, which was as follows...

"Britain First have been described as a fascist paramilitary group,^[1][2][3]"

S/he first removed the sentence and the first two cites, saying in the edit summary "Unreliable source." The removed sources were to Politics.co. uk and The Guardian. I reverted.

S/he then re-removed the sentence, but just the first cite, saying in the edit summary "Hope not hate is not a reliable souce, and even if it were, the statement is also weasle words." The Politics.co.uk article refers to a Hope Not Hate report, but was written independently of Hope Not Hate. I reverted and suggested s/he come to the Talk page to discuss.

S/he has re-removed the sentence + first cite, saying in the edit summary "WP:LABEL Value-laden labels ... are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

To avoid edit-warring, I bring this to the Talk page. I am confused by Proffesor's claims that these are unreliable sources. I don't see a problem with the text myself. It has three reliable source citations. If the current text is too weaselly, we could replace with "Britain First are a fascist paramilitary group." Would others like to weigh in? Bondegezou (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion is, in the first instance, to hold off on any further edits to this before nominations are confirmed (which will be before the end of Monday). There's a solid chance, based on previous years, that Britain First, or any other minor party, may not actually stand. Following that, we can look at it, but perhaps the best option to is to replace the general description of Britain First with a sentence or two on Paul Golding's policies, actions and views, lovely chap that he is, if he is indeed a candidate.

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 16:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

When nominations close, I think it would be nice to retain a short sentence saying, "X, Y and Z announced their intention to stand, but were not on the final candidate list." rather than merely expunging their names entirely. Bondegezou (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but in that case we wouldn't need any particular description of them!

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 20:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No, indeed not. However, in the mean time, or if Britain First are properly nominated, can we stick with calling them fascist based on the entirely reliable sources given? Bondegezou (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Frankly, for the sake of the page for two or three days (or less: the statutory deadline is Monday but the aim is to list candidates today), I don't think it matters - I'd leave it in but if it's going to cause a bunch of reverts then I don't see it as an issue it being removed. @

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 08:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I've now added short text focusing more on the campaign and Golding.

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 13:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Awesome work,

London Assembly election, 2016? ;-) Bondegezou (talk

) 14:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ha! I'm focusing on one at a time... thanks for all the work you've done on these and the other election articles!

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 14:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I made this, feel free to edit it for the article when it's needed. JackWilfred (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. Very useful, although I strongly suspect several of those will not complete the nomination process. Bondegezou (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This is really good. Will be interesting to see how many formally nominate. Could be a very crowded race this time. AusLondonder (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Out of interest, I looked at the 2012 article at this point in the year, which is here. This has an infobox with Johnson, Livingstone, Paddick (LD), Jones (Grn), Cortiglia (BNP) and Webb (UKIP), while the article also mentions Wolfgang Moneypenny, Siobhan Benita and Femi Solola as independents. In the end, those all stood, except Moneypenny and Solola (with Benita beating Webb and Cortiglia).

So, outside of the major party candidates, 2/3 didn't make it to a successful nomination! Extrapolating unwisely, that could mean 6 of those listed above don't make it (and I note one of the above, Benita, has already withdrawn). Bondegezou (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not official yet, but I understand that NLP will not be standing a mayoral candidate. Rhialto (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Lindsey Garrett is also no longer standing for Something New. They've suggested they will replace her with another candidate but I don't think they're likely to make the final ballot. (talk) 20:29, 04 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice table. I notice that there's no column for change in the vote. Is this because mayoral elections are considered to be more about the individual candidate rather than the political party? Or could it be useful to show the change in vote share from 2012 like other election pages often do? SteveIkura (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

He is neither a "polish aristocrat", nor "prince". 82.13.233.46 (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide some reliable sources saying that? Bondegezou (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

With respect to the title of 'prince' - he may not be, but he's standing as a candidate with 'Prince' as his first name. --

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 08:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Policy so far has been to only include in the infobox parties who got at least 5% last time, i.e. only Con and Lab. I'm happy to stick with that, at least until we have serious polling suggesting any other candidate has a realistic chance of winning. Bondegezou (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Tentatively agree. --

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 09:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, however I do feel adding other parties could be a possibility on the future depending on polling, but considering past elections in London, with near enough all votes going to the Conservatives or Labour, I know it would be pointless to add other parties now. (Z2a (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC))

I am happy to review the situation if multiple reliable sources consistently start talking about a third (or fourth, fifth...) candidate as being a serious contender. Bondegezou (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I am personally of the opinion that this is incorrect and could amount to an unfair representation of the election, especially as polling has shown up to 40% of the London electorate are undecided on which candidate to vote for. I think not including the Green, UKIP, Liberal Democrat and Respect candidates on the infobox, the first thing readers of this page see, is tantamount to a gross misrepresentation of the facts. (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's an issue we're long wrestled with on both this article and many others. The usual approach is to base the infobox of a forthcoming election on the results last time, when no-one came close to Con and Lab. Some infoboxes for forthcoming elections have, however, included others based on polling and reliable source coverage. So far, while 40% of the electorate may be undecided, they show no signs of plumping for other candidates. Only one poll has anyone else on more than 10% (that's the UKIP candidate on 11% in the latest poll). Reliable source coverage has mainly been about Khan and Goldsmith, although I have seen a few bits for Pidgeon and Berry. (I note here a conflict of interest that Berry is currently one of my local councillors and I stood against her in the election.)

However, I am all for more inclusive infoboxes and I understand the concern about misrepresenting a forthcoming election.

So, is there a way we can make clear in the infobox that there are other candidates without actually listing the likes of Whittle, McKenzie and Benita? Bondegezou (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from but I suspect there is a better and more representative way than is currently being used. It is quite rare, from my experience, to see a British election infobox contain only two of the candidates standing. I think perhaps a better way to go about this would be to base the inclusion in the infobox on the information we have available to us. The Greens, Liberal Democrats, Respect and UKIP have all had parliamentary representation in the House of Commons and have had, between them, a large number of councillors elected across London. On top of this, as you say, polling has had UKIP as high as 11%, the Liberal Democrats around 5%, the Greens at 6 or 7% and the one poll including Respect had them at 2% without any reference at all to Galloway's name. With 40% undecided, those numbers are likely to go up and could impact the final result. I'd personally find it difficult to argue against the inclusion of Benita, she stood last time and performed relatively well, but the likes of McKenzie and the other independents effect on this contest is likely to be negligible in the extreme and none of them represent any party or grouping which has ever had parliamentary or local election success.(talk) 15:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Other UK election infoboxes for single posts have followed the same rule of thumb of including only candidates of parties who scored more than 5% last time. That's why the infobox is as it currently is.

The Greens and UKIP have seats in the Commons, but not and never in London.

Respect haven't had an MP since 2010, but at least that MP was in London. Respect do not currently have any local councillors. I don't think they've had any in London since 2010.

UKIP currently have 12 councillors in London, I believe. Not a large number.

To say the Greens are polling "at 6 or 7%" is misleading. Those are their best two performances: in the other polls in the article, they got 2%, 3% and 4%. Benita has made no impression in the polls whatsoever.

I think we should always consider what secondary reliable sources are saying and I can find almost no coverage of Benita being a candidate at all and there's more coverage of the possibility of Galloway re-joining Labour (at which point he presumably would not be standing) than there is of his candidacy.

So, these things are all debatable. We obviously shouldn't do anything until a new consensus is established. I still like my idea of keeping the infobox with Khan and Goldsmith, but having a clear note that there are other candidates. If we are to expand the infobox, I would support only add the Greens and LibDems, the only other parties in the London Assembly, the parties who were 3rd and 4th last time around. Bondegezou (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether previous infobox's have or not, it is still clearly misleading and a misrepresentation of the election - for me, that goes against everything Wikipedia is supposed to provide.

I don't think it's necessarily relevant that the parties have had parliamentary representation in London itself, more importantly they have had parliamentary representation and the name recognition that comes with that. Also, for clarities sake, Respect had an MP up until 2015, not 2010 - Galloway was the MP for Bradford West from 2012.

My main difficulty with this is the fact that the article as it currently stands, simple does not come anywhere close to offering an impartial view of the election. Anybody who landed on this page with no idea about the election would clearly assume there are only 2 candidates. That is simply unacceptable. To not include at least the Greens, Liberal Democrats, UKIP and Respect in the infobox is negligence of the highest order and simply referring to them in a small section at the very bottom of the page is suspicious in the extreme. These are political parties and candidates that have had representation in parliament and councils across the country and clearly have the ability to impact the result substantially. (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. I agree that just having Goldsmith and Khan in the infobox may mis-represent the election in a problematic way, but at the same time including parties that do not even have any current members of the assembly would be VERY odd, unless there were clear reports in reliable sources that they were making real headway in the London elections, such that there was a serious discussion of whether they could finish in the top two. I think Bondegezou's suggestion of a clear note in the info box that there are other candidates than just Khan and Goldsmith is a sensible idea in these circumstances, at least until something develops or consensus forms around another idea. DrArsenal (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

We need to bear in mind this election is simultaneously both for the mayoral post and for the London Assembly. As such, the criteria for an infobox listing should probably be based on a reasonable expectation of winning any of the London Assembly seats, not just a reasonable expectation of winning the mayoral role. Rhialto (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

We have separate articles for the mayoral and assembly elections, each with their own infobox, so I'm not certain that applies. Bondegezou (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that parties that have done well in the past outside London should therefore automatically get included here. That the Greens and UKIP have had MPs elected outside London does not necessarily mean they have any realistic chance here. Where do we draw the line? One could advance an argument that the English Democrats have won a mayoral contest outside London before now, something the Greens and UKIP have never managed, so why not include them? Bondegezou (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the line needs to be drawn so that the article offers a fair, impartial and balanced view of the election. As it stands currently, it falls well short of this. Certainly, the main point of contention is probably surrounding the minutiae of which candidates to include in the infobox. I'd be surprised if we couldn't all agree that the current infobox is a poor reflection of the contest. I suspect, perhaps, that the debate doesn't need to be quite so complex. Our job is to represent this election the best way that we can - surely that involves including at the very least the Green, UKIP and Liberal Democrat candidates. These are "major" political parties which deserve far more than a footnote at the bottom of the article. I'd personally argue that Respect should be included too, they've had parliamentary and local representation in London, and elsewhere, and their candidate has entered elections from a standing start in the past and won them. Hypothetically, I think, we, as editors, will look rather silly if in May 2016, for example, UKIP get 11% of the vote, or the Greens get 7% of the vote and they weren't even included in the infobox. (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd expect the infobox to include all the mayoral candidates that could be voted for and their parties, no matter how obscure. I'd have no objection if only the candidates most likely to win (under whatever criteria are agreed upon) got to go at the top, have large photos, take up a lot of space in the infobox etc. JMiall₰ 16:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

One issue is that we don't even know who are going to be the candidates yet. Various minor parties have talked of standing, but who knows if they will. It is far from clear that Galloway will stand. It is unclear if the BNP will stand. It's not very clear if the three listed independents will stand. One approach this far out from the election is thus not to put anyone in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to not mentioning anyone yet. I suppose even for the 2 favourites we're only one badly timed sex scandal away from them not being nominated. JMiall₰ 13:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Proving the point that we don't know who will stand, I see that Benita is now out of the race. Bondegezou (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup, very true.

wp:brd feels to me like the way to go from here (added to which I would like to see what the ideas you have suggested look like). DrArsenal (talk

) 20:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it absolutely isn't "far from clear that Galloway will stand" - he announced he would stand 6 months ago and has been touring London ever since on a Mayoral campaign. He isn't just doing that for the fun of it. Clearly, we can add the parties and candidates whom have *announced* they are standing; the ones we are not sure about can be added at a later date upon the confirmation of their candidacy. There are some candidates that are "very clearly" in this race - the vast majority of whom are not represented in the infobox, e.g Greens, UKIP, Respect, Liberal Democrats. I don't think Bondegezou's point stands up to any scrutiny whatsoever - Sadiq Khan could pull out of the contest just as easily as Galloway or Berry, should he be taken out of the infobox too? (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen Bondegezou arguing that Khan or Goldsmith are absolutely certain to stand, and he has also suggested an infobox without either Khan or Goldsmith. However, User:Total Dynamic, the idea that Galloway is as certain to stand as Khan doesn't stand scrutiny, when the £10,000 deposit may prove a significant barrier to Galloway, while it doesn't to Khan, and the 330 nomination signatures is an organizational problem for a party with less than 1000 members, but not anything like as bad a problem for one with over 300,000 members.

And no, we can't "clearly" add all "the parties and candidates whom have *announced* they are standing" - we should only add to the article those where reliable sources are reporting they are standing (otherwise we are relying on effectively self-published sources). Normal Wikipedia policies are not suspended. But Galloway does meet that threshold. ...however the question of whether to add to the infobox or not is a separate question.

You are right, though, that we should be wary of giving a misleading impression with the infobox that there will only be two candidates. DrArsenal (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

My point about Galloway is that we have reliable sources reporting that he's trying to get the Labour party to take him back, at which point he would not be standing as the Respect candidate (and presumably not as the Labour candidate either)!

DrArsenal, I'd love to change the infobox so that it has a clear notice that there are (will be) other candidates, but I can't see how to do that. Anyone have any ideas? Maybe need to go ask on the infobox template talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I really am struggling to understand Bondegezou's quite vehement opposition to this. I notice earlier you stated that you had a conflicting interest in standing against Sian Berry in an election, perhaps you could clarify if this conflicting interest is clouding your judgement in regards to the inclusion of candidates other than those representing Labour and the Conservative's. I have argued from the start that I believe the Greens, Liberal Democrats, Respect and UKIP should be included in the infobox and it seems there is a level of agreement with this argument. Also, for Galloway to rejoin the Labour Party, he would have to have his expulsion rescinded. This is highly, highly improbable occurrence and cannot be used as a bar against his inclusion in this election. As was mentioned earlier, any one of these candidates is one scandal away from not being involved in this contest - if that is the sort of parameter we are using here then nobody should be included in the infobox at all! Also, hypothetically, if any of the candidates did pull out for whatever reason, it would hardly require a moving of heaven and earth to remove them from the infobox, simply a few presses of the backspace button. I really don't see why there is such a brouhaha about this. The infobox, as it stands, is a gross misrepresentation of this election and a fix for this should be expedited promptly. (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Total Dynamic you mis-represent Bondegezou's position, as I understand it. He has said "I am all for more inclusive infoboxes and I understand the concern about misrepresenting a forthcoming election". Bondegezou, so far as I can see is willing for there to be an infobox that takes one of several forms saying "If we are to expand the infobox, I would support only add the Greens and LibDems" and "is there a way we can make clear in the infobox that there are other candidates without actually listing the likes of Whittle, McKenzie and Benita?". I haven't seen "vehement opposition", and I'm not at all sure what the "this" you think he is vehemently opposing is. However, it is true that he has never supported inclusion in the infobox of every party candidate that has declared, and I think he makes a fair case that English Democrats and Respect (and yet smaller party) candidates do not warrant inclusion until/unless there is reliable source coverage that they are making real headway in their campaigns. DrArsenal (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou 16:40, 9 January 2016 you said "To say the Greens are polling 'at 6 or 7%' is misleading. ... they got 2%, 3% and 4%." That was what was visible at the time on the page, but if we look at the correct tables, what we have is 5%, 3%, 7%, 6% and 4%. But the 3% itself is from a poll where don't know/won't say were not reallocated to parties. If we were to re-base the poll out of those who did express a preference (making it more comparable with the other polls and normal polling practice), the Greens would have been on 5% in that poll (Con 39%, Lab 42%, Green 5%, LD 5%, UKIP 6%, Others 3%). So we have two polls over 5%, one poll of 5%, one of 4%, and this poll of Nov 2015 without don't know/won't reallocated. The case based on opinion polling for including Berry is a little stronger than you were presenting (albeit without helping User:Total Dynamic's case for including Galloway one jot. DrArsenal (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The case I am making is not one of inclusion for Galloway, but one for the inclusion of all the candidates and parties that could realistically have an impact on this contest, thus including Respect. Now, clearly, the inclusion of Galloway and Respect appears to be contentious, I believe I have made a fairly convincing argument for Respect's inclusion above, especially given Galloway's track record of achieving election victories against what many thought were insurmountable odds, coupled with London's recent history in electing 'independent minded' Mayors (Livingstone and Johnson for example). Again, hypothetically, we will look rather idiotic if in May 2016 Galloway polls 9% of the vote and Khan wins on the back of second preferences. Theoretical, of course, but plausible nonetheless. Now, as for the other parties, it seems there is broad agreement to include the Greens and the Liberal Democrats in the infobox. Again, I'd argue that to not include UKIP is a significant oversight, they are consistently polling higher than the Greens and the Liberal Democrats and therefore must surely be included too? (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The correct response is almost definitely 2 or all. We could follow the approach we took at

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 14:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Spanish_general_election,_2015#Infobox:_Seats_vs._Votes

for example) and I see both sides of the argument here. I have sought to lay out some possible arguments against including, e.g., Galloway or UKIP, but I am not entirely opposed to the idea.

I think it is useful, as it often is, to fall back on basic Wikipedia principles. We should have respect for each others' views (

WP:RS

). So your argument, Total Dynamic, that Galloway/Respect can do well may or may not be convincing, but it is irrelevant. The question should be whether reliable sources think he will do well.

If we stuck with a 2-person infobox and Galloway got 9%, or UKIP got 11%, I don't think we'd "look rather idiotic". I think that sort of result would justify that the election always was about Khan or Goldsmith!

In terms of conflicts of interest, I live in London and intend to vote for Pidgeon 1 and probably Khan 2 (haven't made up my mind). I would personally, as a LibDem supporter, be happy if consensus was to include Pidgeon. As a Wikipedian, I am uncertain whether that's the right thing. Bondegezou (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Super Nintendo Chalmers

I think it might help us to know your reasoning.

To me, 1) including no potential candidates at all and 2)Bondegezou's suggestion of an infobox that concentrates on Goldsmith and Khan while mentioning that there are a range of other candidates may also be outcomes both look like routes that could also fit within Wikipedia policy, offering alternatives to your "two or all". DrArsenal (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Super Nintendo Chalmers, after the election, I'm happy to stick with the rule of thumb of including anyone who got over 5% (which might well just be Khan and Goldsmith, but might not). Before the election is more difficult and, I feel, should partly depend on what happens. If we start seeing lots of media coverage for someone and they're doing well in the polls, then I'd include them. Bondegezou (talk

) 15:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Could we not, therefore, have an infobox which has Khan and Goldsmith as they are, at the top of the box, with the other candidates from the more minor parties underneath them? This way, we show the election as it currently is, a close race between the Labour and Conservative candidates, but then we also show quite clearly underneath that that there are other candidates and who they are. It's interesting, I just showed an apolitical colleague of mine this page and asked how many candidates were standing in this election and he immediately said two. This is the sort of assumption I am very keen to ensure is not encouraged by the article. (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I was including the suggestion of an infobox focusing on Kahn/Goldsmith but including he others as well in the category of the 'all' options! I think that this format of infobox would work well.

Yes, I agree

Super Nintendo Chalmers, Khan and Goldsmith could occupy the top row of the infobox, while the other candidates could feature underneath them with perhaps smaller images. This could solve the issues. (talk

) 17:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The Evening Standard has announced the first major hustings with Lab, Con, Green, LDem, UKIP and Respect. I am very much in favour of following reliable sources, so I think that makes a strong argument for the infobox having those 6.

We do appear to be inching towards a consensus here. Bondegezou (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I favour only including those parties who received 5% last time or those consistently polling more than 5%. AusLondonder (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough AusLondonder, but begs two questions. What counts as 'consistently' (eg does it have to be an average of x polls comes out >5%, or some other measure of consistency)? Secondly how do we deal with polls like the November 2015 one (discussed below) that include the DK/won't say in all the figures reported? Do we just exclude them from the calculation? DrArsenal (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

So, long discussion... have we reached any sort of conclusion? I'm kind of leaning towards Con/Lab/Grn/LD/UKIP/Respect now. That view has some support, as does sticking with the current two. There also appears to be some recognition that this is an evolving situation and something we should review even if we don't change now. Does anyone wish to push the case that we should change now? Bondegezou (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you Bondegezou, I think the view of including Con/Lab/Grn/LD/UKIP/Respect is certainly the route I would support at this juncture. (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I note that, in addition to the trailed 6 candidates, the Evening Standard hustings were also attended by the newly announced Women's Equality Party. Bondegezou (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

By contrast, for perhaps the only time in my life I happened to see railse, the newsletter of Railfuture in London and the South East: they list four candidates – Con, Green, Lab, LD (in that order – “party alphabetical order”) DrArsenal (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

New infobox mockup

London Mayoral Election, 2016

←  2012 5 May 2016 Images only shown for parties that polled more than x% in 2012 2020  →

Candidate Zac Goldsmith Sadiq Khan Party Conservative Labour   Candidate Siân Berry Caroline Pidgeon Peter Whittle Party Green Liberal Democrats UKIP   Candidate David Furness George Galloway Paul Golding Party BNP Respect Britain First - - - - Candidate Ankit Love Sophie Walker Prince (John) Zylinski Party One Love Party Women's Equality Party Independent - - - - Candidate Lee Harris Party Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol

Incumbent Mayor Boris Johnson Conservative

The infobox template currently only allows 9 candidates. Here's a mockup using existing syntax of an infobox with the two main candidates on the 1st row with the rest without pictures below. Thoughts? JMiall₰ 10:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks User:JMiall. We are now in a very different position from when we were discussing the infobox, above. We have a complete and definitive list of candidates, no more speculation needed, and you have shown what looks to me to be an appropriate way to display them in the infobox, without either giving undue weight to minor candidates or ignoring any. I think it might be worth trying to replace the current infobox with it, and seeing what the reaction is. DrArsenal (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we get the grey lines between each row of 'others' and the removal of those dashes? If so then I'd be happy to have this. No need for the 'images only shown for parties that polled more than x% in 2012' sentence either: this is a retroactive justification for a simpler truth that we're showing images of the only two viable candidates. After the vote, a two-person infobox will remain suitable for this page as the final round of voting is a head-to-head contest.

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 12:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I'd have to properly edit the template to make it accept more candidates to do that. It looks pretty modular though so unless there's unforeseen complications it should be possible. I'll try to have a go this evening unless someone wants to do it first. Without the 'images only ...' sentence I suspect that people will come along and helpfully add in images for other candidates, but happy to give it a go without it. JMiall₰ 13:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes, hadn't thought of that with the 'images only' bit; how about simply "Images only shown of two leading candidates" or even "Images only shown of two highest polling candidates" or some such...?

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 19:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think this infobox is undue. Some of these candidates are going to get absolutely tiny votes. Using this is a move away from the long-established infobox usage at British election articles. AusLondonder (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is our job as an almanac to summarize the important information about this election so that readers can look at the infobox rather than read the whole article. There's not much more important at this stage than the list of candidates and when the election is happening. I'd agree that if there were such a large number of candidates that the infobox became extremely large that this wouldn't be useful, but who are we really helping by having an infobox with only 2 out of the 12 candidates? JMiall₰ 11:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

My perspective is that the current infobox is acceptable and doesn't need replacing, particularly because the nature of this election is that it ends in a head to head vote. That said, a nicely formatted infobox which mentions the other candidates would be better, but I don't think it's inherently needed.

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 18:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree all candidates should be mentioned, I don't agree that should take place in the infobox. The proposed version is not user friendly. AusLondonder (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly true that more than one of the candidates will get less than 10% - that is a mathematical inevitability. But I would have to agree with

due weight given to the leading candidates. DrArsenal (talk

) 22:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If the box is populated with 12 head shots, I think it's going to look ridiculously big and that's against style recommendations for infoboxes. Most election article infoboxes do not list every candidate, even for upcoming elections. If we look at forthcoming elections for individuals:

San Diego mayoral election, 2016

does, but there's only 3 of them. So, I question the need to include all candidates. From the point of view of an encyclopaedia, there is no reason to list the likes of Love or Harris.

Another option we don't consider enough is to simply not list any candidates in the election box until the election has happened. Bondegezou (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Rather than looking overseas, we can look at previous equivalent elections in this country. At this stage 4 years ago, the infobox had 3 candidates, and their photos, and it wasn't the candidates who finished 1, 2 and 3. The mock-up is better than an infobox that attempts

to guess

who will finish in top places and gets it wrong.

By contrast at this stage in 2008 there was no infobox at all.

In 2004 equally there was no infobox, but a list of all candidates very high up the page.

For other Mayoral elections, Bristol 2012 Bedford 2011 had no infobox, but a table of all candidates very high up the page.

I am convinced that an infobox that displays some candidates but NOT all at this stage is inappropriate. No infobox would be better than what is currently on the page, but the mock-up would be even better than none. [7][8][9][10][11]

The current position on the page is indefensible at this stage before the election, and needs to be changed until we have results to display the top few candidates in an infobox. DrArsenal (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

: I don't see that "the current position on the page is indefensible" - that is hyperbole. There's a clear rationale for having Goldsmith/Khan in the infobox: they are the two clear front-runners. The weight given to them, the claim would be, is not undue; it's reflecting the weight given in all reliable sources. Now we can disagree with that rationale, but the idea that it isn't following a reasoned, defensible approach is ludicrous.

That said, if we want to replace the current infobox for the next fortnight with a simple list of candidates, that's fine by me. The mock-up above, however, needs tidying before it becomes usable --

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 08:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the final decision, I agree that a list of candidates more prominently on the page would be useful. So I've created a table that's further up the page and have blanked the results section for now. The table is not yet the prettiest so I encourage those with the editing skills to improve it further! If we do then add an infobox listing all candidates, it could then go. --

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 09:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed about putting a full candidate list earlier in the article. I was going to suggest the same. Bondegezou (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I looked back through the links User: Bondegezou provided. My understanding of US presidential primaries, 2016 is that every candidate that is still in the race for either party is listed in an infobox. What the normally reliable Bondegezou says about Austrian presidential election, 2016 is not true. Six candidates submitted the required number of signatures (see the section on signatures) and so those six in the infobox will be on the ballot paper (by contrast de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundespr%C3%A4sidentenwahl_in_%C3%96sterreich_2016 has no infobox at all)

Missouri and North Dakota gubernatorial elections, 2016 don’t list ANY candidates in the infobox. The ‘’only’’ precedent I have found for listing some candidates and not others in the infobox at this stage before a Mayoral/Presidential/etc. election is the London Mayoral Election 2012, which itself doesn’t support the status quo on this page, since it included three – those that finished 1st, 2nd and 4th.

Unless someone can point to substantial and significant precedents of pages at this stage before an election including some, but not all, of the candidates whose candidacies are still live, I stand by my claim that the current infobox is indefensible. DrArsenal (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You can stand by it as much as you want that doesn't make your claim anything other than unhelpful, incorrect hyperbole. Is there a collection of infobox templates that we could look at to see if we can find a better one? What about our old favourite 'Israeli' style table?

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 13:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW - we should note that there is a technical issue that we don't have free to use images of Whittle, Zylinksi, Walker, Love, Harris and Furness. I tried to get one of Peter Whittle but failed in the face of Wiki bureaucracy.

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 13:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

In response to

Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016 for a host of minor people who have done the paperwork and are on ballot papers, at least in some states. Here's

last month's Alabama primary: there's De La Fuente, he got 814 votes, 0.2%. He's a real candidate. He's got no chance of winning, but neither does Ankit Love.

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016

shows Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich in its infobox. Rubio has suspended his campaign. Other serious candidates with pledged delegates, but who have suspended their campaigns, are omitted, like Ben Carson (who, I note, nonetheless beat Cruz in one New York district earlier this week). Minor candidates, the Republican equivalents of De La Fuente, are omitted.

You're right about

Austrian presidential election, 2016

: I misread that.

North Dakota gubernatorial election, 2016, but this time there's a Libertarian candidate. Bondegezou (talk

) 14:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

A big difference with US presidential elections is that minor candidates can appear on the ballot paper in some places and not others. In Mayoral elections in the UK you are either on the ballot paper for all voters or none.

My relevant point about the gubernatorial elections is that NO candidates are listed in the infobox. Yes, a couple of party names are, but this is also a lot further out from the election than we are from the Mayoral election, anyway. If in October we know the "3rd Party" candidates are on the ballot paper for the public election in November (presumably), I would argue that they should be as much in the infobox for those elections as the Dem and Rep candidates at that time. Meanwhile, they actually are anyway, since none has photo and name in the infobox. DrArsenal (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the Missouri gubernatorial election article shortly before the last election: infobox has the two main candidates, but excludes the Libertarian. Ditto for North Dakota. So, practice to date has typically been to only include the main candidates. That is an easier distinction to make in the US than in the UK though.

This is the 2012 French Presidential election article shortly before that vote: 5 candidates shown in the infobox, but 10 candidates standing (with a gallery of all 10 high up in the article). Bondegezou (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

:I'm still not overly keen on the above, but equally I don't think this is worth too much concern as the infobox will only stay for 2 weeks. Do we have a consensus for reverting to two candidate after the vote? I've also made a couple of changes to try and reduce the white space in it & that does make me happier.

I thought the consensus was to include everyone who retained their deposit, which happened to just be 2 people last time. Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

See

London mayoral election, 2004 for comparison. Although, as it's SV, there's an argument for just including the top 2, as done for French Presidential elections. Bondegezou (talk

) 10:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that 2004 & 2008 were different to 2012 after commenting... both versions look fine, and I think that the 'deposit' approach might work best. --

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 12:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem reducing dramatically the number in the infobox after the election - precise number of defeated candidates to be included dependent on what reliable sources indicate in the after-election reporting. DrArsenal (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that the inclusion of a newspaper endorsements section is useful (I previously deleted it on the grounds of having one entry, not in opposition to it). However, I don't see the value in an arbitrary list of celebrities, and have removed this. Thoughts? --

I agree. Even though I see that the previous mayoral election wiki page did have a list of individual endorsements, I think it opens up a real grey area about how important/famous/influential etc an individual needs to be before they're relevant enough to be included in the article. The previous election article, for example, lists 8 individual endorsements for Livingstone and 2 for Johnson. Considering the eventual result, I find it hard to believe that's a comprehensive or representative list. A complete list of all individuals who have made an endorsement is likely to be very long, nigh-on-impossible to compile, and probably wouldn't add any value to the article anyway. It would also be very easy for supporters of a particular candidate to bulk the section out with numerous endorsements, which risks adding significant selection bias into the article. SteveIkura (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Lists of endorsements are common. They often exist as separate articles such as

Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2015. I don't see how it opens a "grey area" - inclusion on the list has been determined by whether the individual has a Wikipedia article. AusLondonder (talk

) 05:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That article may exist, but it doesn't make it particularly good. It's an arbitrary list of people that editors have noticed making a comment in the press, which under its own very broad terms cannot be completed. Do we really think that only one notable person endorsed the Lib Dems in 2015? That only 4 endorsed UKIP (where's Mike Reed, for example)? Why is Ronnie O'Sullivan's endorsement of one candidate notable? Or the view of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party on the constituency of Windsor? 'Having a Wikipedia page' is also a very low bar for notability; it applies to the entire playing squad at

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 08:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Mike Reed isn't there because he doesn't have a Wikipedia page. AusLondonder (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Possibly my spelling mistake; I was referring to

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 22:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

A section should be created on the Barnet voting 'blunder' which occurred on polling day. SomewhereInLondon (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The figures for second votes are different from the source. E.g. Khan is shown with 161,427 compared with 388,090. This may be because the source at [12] includes people who voted for the same candidate first and second, but if so the source should be given. Also important details are missing, particularly the electorate and total votes. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The 161,427 would have been those among the 388,090 who could validly be added to Khan's vote in the second round, so some voters may have put Goldsmith 1st, Khan 2nd; their 2nd preference votes would not have been transferred to Khan as Goldsmith was still in the second round. Others may have voted for Khan with both their 1st and 2nd preference votes.

--Nick Barnett (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The source is on the page; but yes, I presume the 388,090 is not all which were counted for Khan. I think here we could use a clearer source: the BBC page looks better so I might shift it over. Good comments on turnout etc. --

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 21:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)