Talk:2021 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council election

Removal of retiring councillors and local party leaders
Just moving this discussion here so other editors can participate, concerning a disputed removal of material by in this diff. Also pinging, who's done a lot of work on the article, and might have relevant contributions. YorkshireLad ✿  (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to why Sparkle1 has been removed it. Plenty of Local Election articles include the leader of individual politicial parties and it is part of the infobox. Brianbbrian (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , According to the discussion on their talk page, they considered that the individuals weren't notable. I explained that that doesn't mean they can't be included on the page, but they didn't reply.  I think it should be there, but we've had one revert each, so I think it would be contributing to edit warring if I added it again without having a discussion first. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. When is it appropriate to restore the article? Brianbbrian (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll be honest, I was hoping you would know the answer to that! Perhaps worth waiting a little longer to see if  replies, at least. If not I could try posting at WT:POLUK. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipeidia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and these positions and this information is the epitome of information being on Wikipedia for the sake of it. The second thing is has the notability of this information been established. In most cases WP:GNG is not met and that is the case with the information here. The third issue here is the verifiability of this information in particular the "leaders" this is in some cases WP:OR. Claiming a sloe councillor for a party is a "leader" is misleading. This is seen with Westminster Leaders not being party leaders. I.e Ian Balckford and Nicola Sturgeon or Caroline Lucas and the Co-Leaders of the Green Party. It is also false to claim this is a common inclusion. Plenty of articles do not iclude this information and the information will never be included on these articles e.g. |2017 Nottinghamshire County Council election, |2013 Bristol City Council election, |2019 Sunderland City Council election. There are many more this above is just a sampling.

I welcome the inclusion of information as long as it is within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Not violating what Wikipedia is not. Meeting the General Notability Guidelines. Being Reliable and Verifiably sourced.

As such the information was removed to be inline with more standard articles covering Local Election results. Tat is not to include individual leaders of groups and their seats, not to include duplication of results over and over and to make the information as easy to access as possible. Until the issues I have pointed out are no longer a barrier then feel free to include until then Wikipedia is not the place for this information. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Okay, I'll address the first two points. Since  added the material I'll let them address the point about whether claiming them as a "leader" is WP:OR.
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, you're right, but leaders of parties within a given election seems pretty relevant to me.
 * As I've said now, WP:GNG  to information within a single article.  It is for determining whether an individual should have an article of their own, which nobody is suggesting here.  This is explained in the section of the page called "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists".  Are you thinking of a different policy or guideline? YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can address the WP:OR point as well, if Brian doesn't mind. If you look at  (the material I re-included) the fact that each councillor is the leader of each group is cited to a reliable source.  That makes it not original research. <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 17:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said now, WP:GNG  to information within a single article.  It is for determining whether an individual should have an article of their own, which nobody is suggesting here.  This is explained in the section of the page called "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists".  Are you thinking of a different policy or guideline? <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 17:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can address the WP:OR point as well, if Brian doesn't mind. If you look at  (the material I re-included) the fact that each councillor is the leader of each group is cited to a reliable source.  That makes it not original research. <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 17:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

GNG applies in this context as is being asserted that this information should be included across a broad number of articles. It is clearly being asserted that the inclusion of the information of party leaders is generally notable and should be generally included in articles for local election results. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Also seeming pretty relevant is does not eliminate the fact the information is noting more than there for the sake of it. What exactly is added by the inclusion. The inclusion of the information makes the results harder to understand, elevates these posts and individuals to degrees that are unwarranted, and reduces the ease of understanding the articles. Take the retired leader being council listed as the Labour Leader is this actually the case. Is he actually the Labour leader? Also with the other parties such as the green and the Liberal Democrats etc. are these individuals actually the leaders? or is it claimed they are? This information has a lot of problems with being included. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , I'm sorry, I'm sure I must be coming across at patronising, but WP:GNG really does not apply here. Firstly, I'm not asserting anything about any other articles: if you think it should be a blanket rule that council election articles not include the leaders then I'd suggest discussing it at some centralised place, like WT:POLUK.  Secondly, WP:GNG doesn't apply  to what content should be within articles, even if there's some sort of blanket rule being determined.  It is a guideline about.
 * As for the there for the sake of it point, I'm not sure exactly what you mean; I don't think adding information to an article makes it necessarily harder to understand, especially as the results are clearly separated. I will say that elevates these posts and individuals to degrees that are unwarranted sounds like your POV: as I'm sure you know, removing material because one doesn't think a person deserves attention isn't really a WP:NPOV approach.
 * It is claimed that they are, in the sources given in . <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b> ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 17:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is claimed that they are, in the sources given in . <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b> ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 17:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is claimed that they are, in the sources given in . <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b> ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 17:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Are these reliable secondary sources, or are a single local paper, twitter, facebook, the party website etc. The local paper as a single source is not enough. Also group leader is not the same as leader. wirralleaks.wordpress is not reliable as it appears to be a blog.

this source is used to claim the green party individual is the "leader" yet it doesn't say that.

Green View is additionally not a useful source as it is a primary source a secondary source is needed.

source has no date for the elction or instilation of the Liberal Democrat as group leader.

this source gives no exact date it only gives a date of an announcement being made which is not the same thing.

this source is the only one giving an exact date, assuming the paper was published the same day as the annual group meeting.

I will grant you that the local press has covered these individuals, but that does not mean the information is note worthy. Also where is the foundation for leader since, being extrapolated from the information in there sources. also single sources should be avoided. multipele reliable secondary sources are required. Wikipedia needs more than single sources for information. I have also yet to have the information regarding theLabour Man answered. it is claimed he is standing down, so he therefore at the election cannot be the leader. This information has a lot of problems and getting over the hurdles of this information being there for the sake of it has not been met. The mass number of twitter, facebook etc. sources are not acceptable for Wikipeida ad should be removed this means most of the people listed as candidates need removing.

This article has so many issues, the information on people is poorly sourced and that is being generous. This discussion is though getting overly heated and I will be back some point tomorrow to let this cool and come back with a fresher perspective. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , What do you mean that The local paper as a single source is not enough and multipele reliable secondary sources are required. Wikipedia needs more than single sources for information? As far as I know this isn't true; could you point to where that comes from?
 * People can be the leader of a party at an election without standing for re-election. If the sources claim him as the leader, he's the leader.
 * You're right that we're going around in circles, though I don't think it's getting heated. I think maybe it's worth getting an outside perspective here, so I'll post on WT:POLUK to see if anyone has any useful opinions. <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 18:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right that we're going around in circles, though I don't think it's getting heated. I think maybe it's worth getting an outside perspective here, so I'll post on WT:POLUK to see if anyone has any useful opinions. <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 18:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right that we're going around in circles, though I don't think it's getting heated. I think maybe it's worth getting an outside perspective here, so I'll post on WT:POLUK to see if anyone has any useful opinions. <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 18:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

In terms of Party Leaders, the articles cited give the date elected but there are plenty of places on the official council website which mention their leadership. All these fields are included in the election infobox and are relevant to the election. Some candidates are announced on social media and that is confirmed when the nomination papers come out. Brianbbrian (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not every field in an infobox is necessarily meant to be populated. MOS:INFOBOX applies. The infobox is meant to be a short summary of the article content, not anything more. Announcements on social media may not meet WP:RS: they are WP:PRIMARY and only then if they come from a proven official account. Bondegezou (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sparkle1 in this instance, that the inclusion of party leaders for an event that won't take place for well over 12 months is unnecessary. We don't know who will be the group leaders in 15 months time, or who will become group leaders following the results of the election. Political jostling such as that, will take place at the time of the election. the information should wait till the election result before inclusion. Sionk (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Over-reliance on primary social media sources
As if proof was needed that the 2021 Wirral election is not a major issue yet, the info about the 2021 election is almost entirely cited to Twitter, Facebook and primary sources. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a primary source of news. I've added back the clean-up template, which was mysteriously removed. Sionk (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)