Talk:2021 London mayoral election/Archives/2021/March

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021
The pictures of all three candidates should have the same size. Currently, one of the candidate's picture is significantly larger than the other two. This should be corrected. Thank you. Jpedrocp (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The ones in the infobox (Khan, Bailey, Berry) look the same size to me. Unless you mean that Bailey's image is zoomed out? ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 01:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On my desktop, the pictures of the 3 candidates in the infobox all look the same size. However, on my iPad, Bailey's picture is significantly bigger. I do not understand the details of how Wikipedia pictures display, but seems like something we should fix. Bondegezou (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. The Bailey picture could use some cropping, indeed; but that of course cannot be done here; somebody (you, me, anybody) needs to do the actual picture editing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  15:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is about cropping. This is something about how Wikipedia displays photos on different browsers/machines that I don't understand. Bondegezou (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Other candidates 2
We now have a long list of other candidates who have been reported as intending to stand. Undoubtedly, many of these will not satisfy the nomination requirements. When that happens, I suggest we retain a list (possibly formatted in a more compact form) of candidates who were reported as intending to stand but who don't make it to the ballot paper. Bondegezou (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea! It's amazing how much more compact a paragraph can be compared to a list. Ralbegen (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021
"Berrry said she would focus on LGBT rights, including makinng"

2 typos. Please change to "Berry said she would focus on LGBT rights, including making" Harry1453 (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Done, sorry about that. Ralbegen (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Mullins not standing?
It's the Daily Mail and it could be more explicit, but https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9288635/Britains-richest-plumber-tells-JAN-MOIR-hes-not-against-marriage.html has Mullins not standing. Bondegezou (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "That Mayoral ambition seems to have been flushed away down the plughole...": I think "seems" is the key word here, so I wouldn't call this definitive by any stretch. We will have to wait for a second source anyway because of WP:DAILYMAIL, so I don't see any harm in waiting (especially since the notice of poll is published in just over a fortnight). Best, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 09:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox inclusion (again)
The election is only a couple of months away, so it feels like an appropriate time to include an infobox here again. I think there are a few options for who to include, and it'd be nice to get some resolution. I'd consider the options to be:


 * 1) Khan, Bailey, Berry as the candidates for parties which retained their deposits in the previous election, following the conventional 5% rule.
 * 2) Khan, Bailey as the candidates for parties which progressed to the second round in (almost) all previous elections, and whom polls and coverage expect to progress to the second round.
 * 3) Khan, Bailey, Stewart as the candidates who receive the most reliable source coverage (based on looking at coverage since 1 January in the Guardian, BBC, Times, Financial Times, and the Evening Standard; where the coverage of Benita and Berry is trivial compared to these three); and the candidates who perform the best in betting odds; and as the candidates who perform the best in opinion polls.
 * 4) Khan, Bailey, Stewart, Berry, Benita as the candidates who are reported together in opinion poll headline figures.

I think my preference would be for Khan, Bailey, Stewart on the basis of the density of reliable source coverage of the election, though I'd also be happy with Khan, Bailey, Berry reflecting the result of the previous election. What are other editors' views at this point? Ralbegen (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with not having an infobox for longer. There is no requirement for articles to have infoboxes. The difficulty in deciding who should be included only demonstrates to me that we should err on the side of caution by ducking the whole question!
 * If we are to have one, I believe in being inclusive while elections are still going on. The most inclusive of your options is those reported in opinion polling, i.e. Khan, Bailey, Stewart, Berry, Benita. In terms of coverage, I concur Khan, Bailey and Stewart get most. But Benita and Berry get some: I don't think they're very far behind Bailey. No-one else gets anything significant. Bondegezou (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's nice to have an infobox where possible, though I appreciate that scorching the earth can be preferable to endless discussions (a la general election). If nothing else, I find it useful as a reader for navigating between successive elections. Across the publications I listed, Bailey was mentioned in 17 articles in the non-ES titles and 37 articles in the ES. Benita had 7 and 16 respectively, and Berry had 4 and 6. I think there's a noteworthy gap there, but I'd be happy with any arrangement that has a clear rationale! Ralbegen (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the election is now 14 months away, I've removed the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see the infobox returned and is now the subject of an edit war. I'm going to boldly re-remove it as we had some degree of consensus for that. Bondegezou (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this makes sense. How would you feel about including an infobox with no candidates that just links the previous election and lists the date and incumbent mayor? That would still fulfil some of the purpose of an infobox while also making navigation a bit easier. Ralbegen (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to try an infobox now, with six months to go? It appears that we have a steady roster of candidates now (Benita replaced, news coverage about Tory doubts about Bailey have dried up), and your inclusive criterion would imply Khan, Bailey, Berry, Porritt as a reasonable selection. As a reader I'd also appreciate having an infobox for easy navigation in the 20XX London mayoral election series; I'm not sure that's a convincing argument by itself, it's just the reason I keep raising the matter: when I use the page I usually want to tab between this election and previous ones, and the lack of an infobox impairs that ability! Ralbegen (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * One can have a minimal infobox with the easy navigation to the last election and not much else, of course. But I won't stand in the way of a Khan, Bailey, Berry, Porritt infobox at this stage. Bondegezou (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so accommodating, appreciate it! I'll put together a four-candidate infobox. Ralbegen (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Stick to the 5% last time rule so it should be a three candidate box. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

There is much that is attractive about the 5% rule. However, I think the 2016 result does illustrate the arbitrariness of it: Berry was just above 5% and Pidgeon (LD) was just below 5%, while the main 2 candidates (Lab and Con) were way, way ahead. Thus, I feel a Lab/Con/Grn choice is misleading. I think the 2016 article should have a box with just Khan and Goldsmith, tbh.

Ultimately, Wikipedia decisions should be based on reliable source coverage, not arbitrary rules. If we see lots of media coverage of this election that focuses on, say, Khan, Bailey, Berry and Porritt, then the infobox should include those four. If the coverage focuses on Khan, Bailey and Gammons, then it should include those three. Right now, we're still a few months out and there isn't that much media coverage, so it's hard to really say which candidates RS are focusing on. That's partly why I don't like having an infobox now. It's going to lead to lots of debate, lots of edit-warring... Do a zero-person infobox for now is my best suggestion. Bondegezou (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't want to enter into a protracted infobox inclusion dispute... I would prefer that we have an infobox on this page, and I'd prefer it to include candidates and portraits. I don't mind what the rationale for inclusion is as long as there is a sensible one; the four-candidate version here was based on the initial discussion under this header, except without Rory Stewart. I think that coverage of candidates other than those four is minimal, and there is nontrivial coverage of both Berry and Porritt, so I think that supports their inclusion. But I also think that the sanctity of the 5% rule is useful in it's oblique applicability: where it's applied it can be a cut-off that ends discussion. I am happy to be part of a consensus for a two-candidate, three-candidate, or four-candidate infobox. Ralbegen (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My first choice would be a zero-candidate infobox. If not that, I would rather err on the side of inclusiveness for forthcoming elections, so I'd prefer 4 over 3 over 2. But I am not going to stand in the way of a zero-candidate, two-candidate, three-candidate, or four-candidate infobox. I would suggest we review the matter once election coverage heats up. Bondegezou (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The 5% rule is good because it avoids individual election pages becoming battlegrounds of "my sources focus on these candidates" vs "my sources focus on these ones" let alone "what about my preferred candidate?" and is not a random figure but indeed the deposit threshold so marks the line where the system itself recognises significance. Infoboxes on forthcoming election pages are fine so long as the inclusion criteria is clear and enforced. The problem has been new accounts and ISPs trying to push particular candidates. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Simple to enforce and clear is good, but it isn't necessarily right. Had Rory Stewart not dropped out, we could've been in a situation where he was clearly one of the major candidates by RS coverage, but omitted from the infobox. That would have been wrong.
 * It appears we will have a more traditional election now, but it remains that WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV trump any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to use a 5% cut-off. I'm fine with 5% at last election as a rule of thumb to guide decision making. But it cannot be an overriding principle, however convenient it is: that would be a breach of WP:Policy. Bondegezou (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

February discussion

 * I think it's extremely arbitrary to keep Porritt out of the infobox at this point. In 4 of the 5 most recent polls, the Lib Dem candidate has been above 10%. In 4/5 polls, the Lib Dem candidate was also ahead of the Green Party candidate, who is in the infobox. Based on polling, the choice ought to be between including both or neither, but not one or the other. Domeditrix (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, keeping one candidate out of the infobox due to the fact her party received just under 5% of the vote in an election four years ago seems strange. I'd prefer to include both in the infobox, as they are both receiving well over 5% in consecutive polls and are gaining roughly equal amounts of media attention. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 22:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thought I'd notify you of this discussion seeing as you're active on the article page. Domeditrix (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have participated in these discussions over many,many years on Wikipedia and to be honest it gets very boring having to type out the same arguments all the time. We have a 5% rule for good reason. It stops every single editor with a need to "promote" their candidate from edit warring. It matches the election deposit rule in almost all UK elections so is a logical cut off point. It is a clear demarcation from one election to another. It simply works as a simple summary of the election article, and remember that infoboxes are supposed to be summaries. So I hope this doesn't come across as a bit harsh or grumpy but given I've been up and down this cul-de-sac before, and 5% always wins in the end, I'll just say that for the reasons I've set out an infobox should just be the 5% rule and leave it there. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The 5% rule is simple, a clear demarcation. Unfortunately, simplicity isn't a winning argument in and of itself. We have to respect basic Wikipedia policy, even if that makes for more complexity. If there's an upcoming election and a candidate has very extensive reliable source coverage, it would violate policy to exclude them from an infobox on the basis that they or their party (if they have one) didn't reach 5% at the previous election. So, 5% is a good rule of thumb. I'm happy using it most of the time. But I think it's important to acknowledge it is only a rule of thumb, not a real rule.
 * Right now, with the election still some way off, my preference would be to have no infobox at all, given the problems they raise and the lack of any requirement to have an infobox in the manual of style. The current infobox serves little purpose: it's not a good summary of the article. If we are having an infobox, I can live with the current 3. I can see a good argument for just the top 2; I can see a good argument for adding Porritt. So, fine, given uncertainty whether to have 2, 3 or 4 candidates there, I don't mind sticking with the rule of thumb, for now. Bondegezou (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The 5% rule also has no history of consistent application. Even looking at UK elections alone, it has not been applied to pages for the 2019 or the 2017 Parliamentary elections. Nor has it been applied to the 2019 European election page. And that took 30 seconds of searching to find. There is also no mention of a 5% rule in any Wikipedia policy I am aware of. There is however a very clear policy on neutrality, which this article is currently in very clear breach of.CAWyatt (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The 5% rule should be consistently applied and when I have the time I'll make sure it is. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * is right, but is not entirely wrong. 2019 United Kingdom general election and 2017 United Kingdom general election deviate from the 5% rule because the 5% rule is not applied to general election articles. The deviation here is that the SNP is included in the infobox despite getting less than 5% of the national vote. But the infobox, as agreed in multiple past discussions, is based on seats won, and the SNP came third in seats, well above some other parties that got more votes. There is no way to apply the 5% rule because the electoral system produces a disproportional result.
 * 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom also appears to be a seat-based decision: the infobox includes all parties that won >1 MEP, even though that includes the SNP who, again, were below 5% of the national vote. One could apply a 5% rule by just dropping the SNP from the infobox. That might be contested, of course. The current infobox has been stable and reflects past consensus.
 * However, the 5% rule is reasonably consistently applied to elections to a single office, like for a mayor or Parliamentary by-elections, which is where it makes more sense. Bondegezou (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I checked the first election that comes to mind that uses approximately the same electoral system as this one . Oh look, it didn't follow the 5% rule either prior to the election.CAWyatt (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That rule of thumb is for UK elections, not French elections, so doesn't really prove a point. I would however like to see addressed the point made in November by, that a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override the site-wide policies of WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. I think it is very difficult to argue that two candidates that are receiving practically identical levels of coverage and are polling very similarly should be treated completely differently. If we cannot justify treating them so differently, I'd lean towards removing the infobox entirely – it is not a requirement for articles of this type pre-election, and pre-emptive infoboxes of this type were not used in the 2019 United Kingdom general election article nor the 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom article. See: and . Domeditrix (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The 5% rule is a good rule of thumb. I don't think polling is helpful here, though it might be in some other situations where coverage is harder to keep track of, but it's fairly easy to look at the amount of coverage candidates get. Porritt does not get anything like the coverage Berry gets! Looking at Google News, in the last month, a search for Sian Berry London mayor gives eight articles which include her name or "Green mayoral candidate" in their titles, and so are about her rather than just mention her. By comparison, a search for Luisa Porritt London mayor only returns news coverage where she's offering comment for news stories about other candidates or events. There's enough coverage of Berry's campaign that I don't think there's a great case for a two-candidate infobox any more, which there has been in the past. I don't think there are any balance or NPOV issues here and would oppose removal of the infobox or removal of candidates from the infobox. Ralbegen (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

March discussion
Editing behaviour suggests the infobox remains a point of contention. I suggest again getting rid of the infobox (or having no candidates listed), as was the approach for a number of UK elections in 2019. Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal - the election is just two months away, and it would cause far more hassle when uninformed editors add it back in. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 15:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There will be some edit-warring over the infobox whatever we do. I believe there will be less with no infobox; that's been our experience before. I also think the infobox isn't adding much useful to the article and may be violating WP:NPOV by focusing on three candidates. (I understand there is a reason to choose those 3 candidates. That reason is not necessarily compatible with WP:NPOV.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think editing conduct should decide content. The infobox should stay, I think, with the agreed-upon cohort of candidates. Due weight is an element of NPOV, and the 5% rule is a due-weight heuristic. It would be undue weight to have an infobox that consisted only of Brian Rose and Piers Corbyn, and whilst I think there's scope for tinkering around the edges (Porritt and Berry's much-discussed status) I can't see that the infobox as it stands violates NPOV, much in the same way many other prior-to-election infoboxes include candidates. Ralbegen (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Problematic editing conduct shouldn't decide content, but good faith editing conduct should. If a lot of (good faith) editors keep coming back to a section, that can suggest that there is something needing fixing, that the existing text is not supported by consensus. Bondegezou (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The consensus of these good-faith editors seems to point towards adding Poirritt to the infobox, not removing it altogether. However I don't wish to go round in circles, so it might be wise at this point to start an RfC or similar to get some outside input. Either way, I have added a message in the syntax reminding people to discuss here before adding/removing candidates. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 15:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support proposal. As noted in a comment made earlier this year (on this topic), it is not standard to have pre-emptive infoboxes containing candidates. This ought to be especially true where there are potential WP:NPOV issues, as having the infobox at this point adds practically nothing to the article in and of itself. Domeditrix (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Another day, another poll with Porritt polling above 5% and ahead of the Green candidate. I really don't see how this current approach is consistent with WP:NPOV rules, we are failing to give equal prominence to one candidate because in an election five years ago a different candidate fell 0.4% below an aribtrary cut-off. She has been interviewed about her candidacy by Bloomberg News, The New European, Jewish News and other outlets. The Evening Standard and Metro, two of the highest-circulating newspapers in London, are including her responses to stories in their articles (and even including her in the subheading). The Independent and local news outlets (such as Kent Live) have also regularly included her responses to talking points during the campaign, again going as far as to view a response to a talking point as worthy of standalone coverage. Her policy announcements have also received coverage from local press.. The justification for non-equal treatment must be more than a mere house rule, which cannot override sitewide rules. Domeditrix (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

RfCs are slow and cumbersome. I wondered if we could reach a conclusion just by reviewing the discussion we've already had. Looking through that, it is clear we do not have consensus for the current 3-candidate infobox. Tell me, anyone, if you've changed your mind or I've misunderstood your position, but I note that... and  support 3 candidates. ,, and myself all prefer 4 candidates, although Domeditrix and myself also support no infobox (or a 0-candidate infobox). , sorry, I can't do justice to all of your considered thinking above, but can I summarise as saying you are for 3 or 4 candidates? 4:2 seems reason enough to move to a 4-candidate infobox. I certainly don't think the current infobox is justified under WP:CONSENSUS. Bondegezou (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the kind description of my fickle and rambling contributions! My preference is for a three-candidate infobox over a four-candidate infobox, though I think a four-candidate infobox is a reasonable option (as is a two-candidate infobox but I think I might be alone in liking that). I'm very much for an infobox though. If we want to go by polling and coverage to determine due weight I think clearly the two candidates come ahead (they get by far the most coverage, and in a two-round system every poll shows the second round between those two: there's no reason to believe anybody else could win). If we want to go by the 5% rule, which I think it's generally wise to uphold, three candidates are the best option, and there's a coverage element that supports that too as there's a clear dropoff in coverage between Berry and Benita. If we want to go by a more liberal approach to polling and coverage, then a four-candidate infobox makes sense because nobody else polls well enough or gets enough coverage to be a possible fifth candidate. I appreciate that doesn't help for your strawpoll, so maybe mark me down as 2 > 3 > 4 >> 0. Ralbegen (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Actually, just put me down for a four-candidate infobox so we can wrap this up. Ralbegen (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * CAWyatt has made very few edits and all but one are in relation to this one matter. This discussion has been quite staggered and not had the fullest input so a new consensus shouldn't be declared so quickly. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I remain supportive of a 3-candidate box using the 5% rule. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reigniting the conversation,, and for the record I still support 4 candidates. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 07:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. BBC News are also covering Porritt's campaign, with a focus on substantive policy points (marking her out as not being a novelty or perpetual candidate, like Lord Binface) ahead of her campaign launch today. I think it's a pretty useful indicator of the seriousness and notability of a campaign. I'd also like to add that I can absolutely see the rationale behind a 2-candidate pre-election, and wouldn't oppose that decision. The only format I take issue with is the current one, where candidates of an extremely similar statute are given unequal treatment. Domeditrix (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with : I'm happy with a 0-candidate infobox or no infobox, I'm happy with a 4-candidate infobox. I think those are better than a 2-candidate infobox, but, sure, fine with a the 2-candidate infobox. There is clearly not an existing consensus for the current 3-person infobox. we've been talking about this for a year. Discussion has been staggered, but let's face facts: discussion does not support 3. I WP:AGF about . Even if you don't, we're at 4:2 for a change. I also note that the infobox should be a summary of the article, and the article has sections for 4 parties and then lumps everyone else into "Other candidates". An infobox that reflects the article is a 4-candidate infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Max Fosh
A Wikipedia article has been created for Max Fosh, a YouTuber who is intending to stand in the Mayoral election. Further input on that article would be valuable. I'm not convinced he reaches notability criteria, but happy to see the article improved to demonstrate that. Bondegezou (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Brian Rose - "London Real Party"
A new addition to the Register of Political Parties it might be worth keeping an eye on. See  Brian Rose, for it must be he, registered as leader of a new party. Not sure London Real Party exists yet on here, and I'll decide what to do if it does appear. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think we need to be careful with these parties that in practice serve as nothing more than a description on the ballot paper for someone who is to all extents and purposes an independent. Better to redirect to the leader/candidate's article as we've done with some of the others in the past. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. It's why my deletionist tendencies come out against political party articles. If this "party" can prove its more than just a label, so be it. I'm ot confident. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If this party (or the Piers Corbyn outfit you mentioned below) stands any candidates on the Assembly list and gets media attention under the party name then we could consider a seperate article, but I agree with Timrollpickering above that it is most likely nothing more than an attempt to jazz up the ballot paper. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Piers Corbyn
Another potential candidate Piers Corbyn has appeared as leader of "Let London Live", see. Again we might see Let London Live appear either on this article or as an article, and a decision may need to be made about that. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)