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

Infobox inclusion
Hi. You've added Luisa Porritt to the infobox twice. There's a longstanding practice of only including candidates in the infobox when they keep their deposit, i.e. when they receive more than 5% of the vote. This received WikiProject consensus to become formal practice in this recent RfC. You're welcome to look back at previous articles where this is clearly consensus by practice and something which has been endlessly discussed. Of course, you're welcome to seek to establish local consensus on the Talk page in favour of your preferred version, but there is wider consensus and practice to overcome if you want to get there. Ralbegen (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The LibDems are not just another random candidate - they have 3 MPs in London and came second in a constituency (the Greens managed none of this). They are clearly an key part of the story of this election. I know you're obviously a Green activists upset by this, but it's silly not to include the LibDems as a part of this article. BarryNL (talk)
 * It is a long standing convention that we use a 5% cutoff for infoboxes. This ties in with the deposit limit in most elections so is a logical and fair decision. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As I've said, that may make sense for just another candidate, but the fact that the LibDems were scoring far higher than this in many constituencies, and are the only party besides Labour/Tory in contention in a constituency makes them a lot more relevant to this campaign than just another candidate. Just look at the coverage of the LibDems on the page overall to see how relevant the LibDem candidate is to this article. The removal is purely down to the Greens wanting to score points over the LibDems. Just look at section 3 - you have full coverage of these four candidates, plus 'others', but you think it's not relevant to have the candidate in the box? That's purely politically motivated.BarryNL (talk)
 * It is also clear that the user who keep reverting this is a Green activist (it was first done under the name GreenLadyEcoCamden, and they have now created a 5PercentOnly user to keep making these edits).BarryNL (talk)

4 users have been in support now of keeping the standard to 5%. Barry is the outlier. Where he disagrees he brings in insults refering to people as green activists despite him breaking convention for his own beliefs. Please stop spamming the page and follow the rules. 5PercentOnly (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a rule. It's a guide, and I've given clear reasons why it should not be applied here, any more than the separate sections on the LibDems should be removed. The LibDems have 3 London MPs and run 3 London councils (in each case 3 more than the Greens). They are clearly a major part of London politics and the page should reflect this.BarryNL (talk)

I do not think we should change convention to include candidates who lost deposit. this is a clear convention. 4 users have supported keeping it. Only you have an issue so may j suggest that is not sufficient enough to change the convention. 5PercentOnly (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You have yet to address the actual argument here.BarryNL (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

You have not changed convention and are now spamming the page with your own bias. This is deeply upsetting you think your opinion is worth more than the 4 other users who have asked to keep it. 5PercentOnly (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Barry, I'd recommend you put down the stick, leave the horse alone, and help us make the next year's election articles the best they can be. This article is very much done and dusted. We have moved on. You should too. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather a 'jobsworth' approach to the issue. I notice no-one has bothered to address the argument that as the LibDems are clearly a far more important party in London politics than the Greens (having MPs and controlling councils in the area) the consensus makes no sense. So, you say it needs a debate but won't engage in a debate. Spot the problem?BarryNL (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add my support to following long standing guidance of only allowing candidates who keep deposit in info boxes. Good to see a resolution has been made and hopefully this will be respected by all. Sad to see some have been banned from editing for 24 hours for malicious editing against group wishes. MushroomCup (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Barry this is about London Mayoral Election not about councils or MPs. No party that loses deposit is included in the info box I agree with that standard. I also note you edited page with false information stating only Lib Lab Con came 2nd in constituency when Greens did too in the North East constituency. I think you have a bias and hope you can move on. MushroomCup (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, that was a mistake then. Actually, the claim from the Greens that they are the 3rd party in London should simply be removed I think. It's clearly inaccurate as the Green Party has far fewer elected representatives and political power in London.BarryNL (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For reference, the LibDems have 3 MPs, 2 AMs, 3 Councils and 158 councillors. The Green Party has 0 MPs, 3 AMs, 0 Councils and 12 councillors in London. Can we remove the claim about them being the third party in London?BarryNL (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

From my point of view this is in the analysis and reaction section of article which clearly states that this is a claim by the green party after having come 3rd for the 3rd time. This is not reported as fact. However I would agree that does not make them the third party but I don't believe the article claims that. I would be interested in others opinions. MushroomCup (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The infobox's inclusion criteria are traditionally, and in my view entirely reasonably, about how candidates performed in an election rather than how notionally important a party might be to the city's politics. I don't think that material in the rest of the article is sensible for evaluating that now that we have results, though before the election I supported including the Liberal Democrats in the infobox on the bsais of the weight of coverage. That's a very different case though. I will also happily concede that prose material has been added to the article in recent weeks that doesn't necessarily meet our usual standards of neutrality and due weight, but that is materially unrelated to the question of infobox inclusion! Ralbegen (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for edit waring. I was just correcting page from BarryNL malicious edits but accept I should have got admin intervention earlier as I did in the end. Thank you admin team for fixing issue and ensuring high standards are followed. I am glad we are in agreement that only mainstream candidates who keep deposit are included in info box and not just all the minor candidates. Good outcome I am very pleased. 5PercentOnly (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)