Talk:2023 Toronto mayoral by-election

Candidate list
Just to stick it on the talk page for a bit more visibility - Please stop adding "potential candidates" - because that is 1) WP:CRYSTAL and 2) in theory, is a nearly endless list. Wait until people declare or decline, there is no rush (WP:NOTNEWS). Turini2 (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, hadn't realized this was an issue before I made my edit (my mistake for not checking the history!). Thing is, most elections include potential candidate lists (for instance it's the norm whenever there's a party leadership election, like in the cases on the Ontario NDP and Ontario Liberals, it's the norm for the presidential primaries down south, it's been used in other Toronto mayoral elections, etc.) - personally I'm not sure why it should be any different here. Tholden28 (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Because "journalist adds person X to a list of people who could run" is very different from "Person x is actively considering running" [with citation]. (It's also just a mayoral election, we can wait until people declare one way or another) Turini2 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Dauphin I've removed the ones that are journalist speculation (i.e. Michael Ford in the National Post article), rather than actual cited "potential" one - e.g. Bradford "The former city planner said he’d received calls Saturday asking him to throw his hat in the ring, but has yet to decide". Turini2 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Potential candidate lists are fine as long it's verifiable to a reliable source, and are the norm for most prominent Canadian leadership election articles. That being said, to prevent bloat, I would limit it to either people mentioned in a reliable source as explicitly considering or being asked to run, or people mentioned in 2 or more RSes as a potential candidate to weed out individual pundit's longshot guesses. Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Patar knight Agreed - that's why I removed Matlow and Ford from the list, because there's no source backing up that they are considering it rather than journalist speculation. (You'll note all sources now have quotes backing up the assertion). Turini2 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Turini2. I am wondering if we should include candidates that are being drafted or have not been ruled out. This source from mentioned that there is a draft Saunders movement, and this source said that Chow has not ruled it out. Just seeking an opinion.  Hiyournameis (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think unless they are considering it (publicly) we shouldn't include it - everyone on the list has a decent quote at the moment. I would not be surprised if Chow, Ford or Matlow are considering it - they just haven't said so publicly. Turini2 (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough @Turini2. However according to the Globe and Mail, Saunders is putting a team. Here is the source:. Would that be ground for inclusion? Hiyournameis (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hiyournameis I can't read it, but that sounds good - can you add it with the quote? Turini2 (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Should this page even exist
Tory is saying to councillors that he won't resign until after the budget process is finished - which could take weeks. There's also requests to him from his allies that he not resign. Shouldn't we wait for him to resign before discussing a by-election that would never happen? If nothing else, there needs to be information in the article that makes it clear that there may not be a by-election. Nfitz (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point - I'll stick a bit in. Turini2 (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Have now done so. Turini2 (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've updated a bit further to reflect that election is not 100% guaranteed. Nor is McKelvie being acting mayor 100% guaranteed if Tory were to resign - remember there was a council discussion a decade ago, on who would take Ford's powers as acting mayor - before they chose the Deputy Mayor. Nfitz (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Tory as previous mayor
McKelvie shouldn't be listed as "acting mayor" in the infobox before Tory even resigns.

Neither the City of Toronto Act or the Toronto Municipal Code state the deputy mayor becomes acting mayor, but rather acts as mayor, in the office of deputy mayor.

As the office of mayor is granted to the head of council in provincial legislation, it would simply become vacant once Tory resigns. The deputy mayor does not assume the office of head of council and by definition is not the incumbent mayor. — WildComet talk 04:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Acting Mayor
"Under the Council Procedures (Chapter 27 of the Toronto Municipal Code), the Deputy Mayor automatically assumes certain rights, powers and authority given to the Mayor by Council following a Mayor’s resignation until the Declaration of Office for the successful by-election candidate is complete. The Deputy Mayor remains Deputy Mayor while the Office of Mayor is vacant. The Deputy Mayor does not become the “Acting Mayor” or “Interim Mayor.”

Any suggestions on rewording the background section? Turini2 (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * have had a go at rewording Turini2 (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. But Wikipedia bases sources on secondary sources (major news media), not just primary sources. The City says it is not an official title role, but as per the City official press release, “Under the Council Procedures (Chapter 27 of the Toronto Municipal Code), the Deputy Mayor automatically assumes certain rights, powers and authority given to the Mayor by Council following a Mayor’s resignation until the Declaration of Office for the successful by-election candidate is complete.” I recognize as per the official city press release the City does not designate the official title as there is no such formal title in the City of Toronto Act, but in theory this is what an acting mayor is. Save nomenclature, an acting mayor is a one who takes on the powers and duties in a caretaker capacity, and is the highest official at the time following the resignation of mayor. And importantly, what do we do when all official major mainstream news media say otherwise, despite the press release contradicting? All the major news refer as acting/interim/caretaker/temporary mayor. https://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/who-is-jennifer-mckelvie-what-we-know-of-the-scarborough-councillor-poised-to-take-over-as-acting-mayor-1.6269715

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/deputy-mayor-jennifer-mckelvie-to-temporarily-take-reins-once-tory-resigns/wcm/fc3d1cc6-dfeb-4736-9b3e-b2f5e5bfa598/amp/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-who-is-jennifer-mckelvie-toronto-mayor/

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/02/10/jennifer-mckelvie-john-tory-mayor-resignation/

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/who-is-jennifer-mckelvie-what-we-know-of-the-scarborough-councillor-poised-to-take-over-as-mayor-1.6269718

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/who-will-replace-former-toronto-mayor-john-tory/wcm/2267c7bf-9409-435f-ac15-ad9f15793bfc/amp/

https://thelocal.to/tory-resigns-toronto-mayor-by-election/ Yeungkahchun (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * To change it to "acting/interim/caretaker/temporary mayor" would be incorrect, as per the primary source. In this case, it means that the secondary sources using wrong information, and we have a source that confirms that's the case. As an example, "McKelvie... poised to take over as mayor" is clearly wrong! Turini2 (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Mike Layton
I don't see why Layton was removed from the list of potential candidates. The heading is "potential" not "actively considering" - if you want a list of people who have said they are considering than make that a separate section as a number of listed "potential" candidates haven't said theyre considering but have simply been named by others. 199.119.233.209 (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @199.119.233.209 Everyone on that list has a quality source (with a quote!) - there was nothing I could find regarding Layton other than journalist speculation. Turini2 (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Layton is leading the poll posted in the article. Until and unless he actually declines or the nomination deadline passes he's a "potential candidate". 199.119.233.209 (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It's a CBC News article citing "multiple sources", not "journalist speculation". On the other hand Twitter, which you have cited, is not an acceptable source. 199.119.233.209 (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Globe and Mail: Some in the NDP have been urging former councillor Mike Layton, son of the late NDP leader and city councillor Jack Layton, to run.

Reached on Friday, Mr. Layton was non-committal. Asked if he was considering a bid, he replied that it was ”probably a little too early to say." - so he's being encouraged to run but says it's too early to comment. This is evidence he's a "potential candidate". 208.98.222.117 (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The very same article that is used as a source for Wong-Tam as a potential candidate also lists Layton and he's listed again two days later No reason to list Wong-Tam, Bravo or others who have been non-commital and not list Layton. 208.98.222.117 (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This is unrelated, but should we add Layton to pre-campaign polling as he was leading if he would run? Rushtheeditor (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Polls
I'm not sure if mainstreet or forum has the better approach for including or exlcuding undecided in their percents, but the data in the table should be consistent one way or the other. For now i've added the undecided column and adjusted forum numbers by the fraction of respondants leaning or decided because mainstreet has completed more polls. 2607:FEA8:C2:1100:D568:5576:CE6C:C32B (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe we should remove undecideds from the list. This is typically how these lists are done for most Canadian elections. It also helps reduce fluctuations because different pollsters use different definitions of undecided. Humberland (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

However, User:Humberland, are some of the e polls seem to be treating undecided differently. Something looks really hinky in this. Nfitz (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Candidates in infobox
How is the list of candidates listed in the infobox determined?

I feel like we are getting ahead of the election has not happened yet. No one has any idea how the number will look this early on and the list right now is arbitrary.

In the interest of saving space (since this now takes up half the page) and not favouring/overemphasizing 8-9 candidates, can we remove this until after the election has been held? After which we can add the top 3, or set a vote cutoff (10%)?

I'm not familiar with this template so if there is a way to collapse it, that could also work. But as it stands now, it seems premature to select 9 from 50 people a month out from the election. — WildComet talk 06:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think anyone polling above 10% is reasonable grounds for being in the infobox - I think that removing candidates from the infobox until May 12 is a reasonable compromise. Any thoughts? Turini2 (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * We usually include the major candidates running in the infobox during the campaign period, so I would prefer them to stay. I also think it's important for the reader to know who the main candidates are, especially considering how many are running. I don't mind discussing who should be in the infobox though. Standard practice is usually to include anyone who gets 5% of the vote, so cutting the polling threshold off at 10% seems rather high. Personally, I think we should limit the box to the main six candidates, though someone kept adding Gil in, so I expanded it to nine, as there is a clear secondary group (Giorgio and Brown) according to polling. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking we remove Brown and Mammoliti, capping it at six. — WildComet talk 03:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The ordering at the moment seems a bit odd. For example, Bradford (top row) is fairly consistently polling below Matlow and Saunders (bottom row). At a glance, readers will think Bailao, Bradford and Chow are frontrunners in that order. I'd echo @Turini2 that we should at least wait until May 12 before putting candidate photos there, to save having to frequently reorder them or potentially mislead readers of this article. Alexwaolson (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is currently in alphabetical order, which is the fair way of doing it. I don't think there is any reason to "save having to frequently reorder" the list, it takes like one minute to do. And, at this point it's fairly obvious what the top six candidates are. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears that it is time to make some changes to info box. The last few polls have Furey above Bradford and above 5%. That would qualify him to be in the info box. Rather than remove Bradford, I think we should add Furey as a 7th spot in the info box.Humberland (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Let's wait to see if any other pollsters show Furey over 5%. It's just Mainstreet so far, and their polling seems rather dubious so far (compare Bailao's numbers with every other pollster). Plus, we don't even have a photo of Furey. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I think waiting to see what a few polls say rather than relying on one/two. The debates also will show us who the "major candidates" are - TBOT have invited the 6 in the infobox and no one else, who will TMU invite? Turini2 (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with in so far as I think the debates are crucial in determining major candidates. Therefore, I think Chloe Brown should be included in the infobox. Every other candidate who has been in a debate is in the infobox so it would be a major outlier to leave out one sole person who was in a debate from the infobox when every other one is included. Helper201 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We're now faced with the situation of a candidate polling at 2% being invited to a single debate out of 8. Does this warrant adding to the Infobox?  My take is it doesn't.  Others? Greenwalnut (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that reasoning would make more sense if they weren't the only outlier. I think we should look at this on the balance of whether or not it harms the infobox to add one missing candidate who has been in a debate. I don't see how including this one candidate harms the infobox. It’s safer and more inclusive to just keep them than exclude them, especially when their inclusion causes no harm to the page. Helper201 (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Anthony Peruzza, a sitting city councillor, participated in the first debate. He's not in the Infobox.
 * Some quick examples, debate participants in:
 * 2023:
 * Sarah Climenhaga, Jack Yan: https://www.carp.ca/2022/10/13/the-carp-toronto-mayoral-debate/
 * Stephen Punwasi: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/debate-mayor-toronto-region-board-trade-1.6618811
 * 2018:
 * Sarah Climenhaga, Saron Gebresellassi and Gautam Nath: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mayoral-candidates-arts-debate-toronto-artsvote-toronto-tiff-bell-lightbox-1.4835409
 * 2014:
 * Ari Goldkind: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ari-goldkind-spells-out-criticism-of-doug-ford-1.2786033
 * Morgan Baskin: https://toronto.citynews.ca/2014/09/29/teen-candidate-morgan-baskin-on-campaign-mayoral-debate/
 * None of these above were in the Infobox for their respective years.
 * Toronto has a long history of including candidates who are very low in the polls in a debate, just for another voice.
 * The Infobox is intended for the 'leading candidates'. It is not a measure of "who participated in a debate". Greenwalnut (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that the leading candidates are "Bailão, Bradford, Chow, Hunter, Matlow, Saunders" - not Brown, Furey, Peruzza or anyone else. They've been invited all debates (not just some) and are clearly the leading candidates by the polling data. Invited to debate =/= they should be in the infobox. Turini2 (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There have now been several polls from two different pollsters showing Furey ahead of Bradford. As much as I despise his politics, he should also be in the infobox.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Earl Andrew fair enough, haven't seen the polls yet... wonder if he'll be invited to the remaining debates? Will have to see. Turini2 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Polling table colours
What are the colours indicating in the polling table? I thought they were showing the largest % in each poll, but that's not the case? 4 of the candidates are coloured in the most recent one. If it is supposed to be that, it should be fixed? Turini2 (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume it's all the candidates who are within the margin of error of the leader.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In which case - Bradford on 11% shouldn't be shaded. Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

There should be some explanation or legend by the chart to show what the colour shading means. It appears to be "10% or higher", which is somewhat aligned to the inclusion in the InfoBox.Greenwalnut (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The shading in the opinion poll table makes no sense. For the April 21-22 poll the #1 and #3 candidates are shaded. For April 12-13 the #1 candidate is not shaded but #2, #3 and #4 are. It's completely nonsensical. Just shade the lead candidate and that's it. 208.98.222.124 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. After all, that's how the actual election will work. Alexwaolson (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and shaded the lead candidate Turini2 (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you change Matlow's shading to something darker? It is barely visible on my browser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.222.74 (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Fixed many inconsistencies and errors in the polling table
Hi all, I noticed that there were a number of inconsistencies and mistakes in how the polls were being reported in the polling table here. In an effort to prevent the need for an 'undecided' column, someone was re-weighting just some of the polls, leaving others untouched, and selecting different sub-samples in some cases than in others. Here are all the edits I have made, which were cross-referenced with the original poll sources in every case. If someone has a disagreement with this, I'd appreciate discussing it here before reverting my edits, since there are so many and some of them are unequivocally errors.

Added undecided column, to improve clarity and remove the need for scaling reported figures on just some polls

February 14th MSR Poll:

- Bailao listed as not included in the poll, in fact polled at 5%

- Bradford listed at 6%, was actually 4%

- Matlow listed at 10%, should be 6%

- Correct value for other candidates re-calculated.

February 19th MSR Poll:

- Bailao corrected from 16% to 8%

- Bradford corrected from 8% to 4%

- Hunter corrected from 14% to 7%

- Matlow corrected from 12% to 6%

- Saunders corrected from 12% to 6%

- Correct value for other candidates re-calculated.

March 19 MSR Poll:

- Number of participants incorrectly listed as 981, was 985

- This time, Bailao and Davis had the correct percentages while others were incorrect.

- Bradford corrected from 6% to 4%

- Hunter corrected from 10% to 7%

- Mammolitti corrected from 6% to 4%

- Matlow corrected from 15% to 11%

- Saunders corrected from 7% to 5%

March 23 Forum Research Poll:

- Corrected MoE from 3.1% to 3%

- Listed 8% for “other candidates”, despite Forum not actually saying whether this was for other candidates or for undecided voters.

April 12 MSR Poll:

- Matlow listed at 16%, should be 15%

- Saunders listed at 11%, should be 10%

- Other listed at 11%, should be 9%

April 19 MSR Poll:

- Bailao listed at 19%, should be 13%

- Bradford listed at 7%, should be 5%

- Hunter listed at 7%, should be 5%

- Matlow listed at 18%, should be 13%

- Saunders listed at 14%, should be 10%

- Chow listed at 23%, should be 16%

- Other listed at 12%, should be 7%

April 22 Liaison Strategies Poll:

- Bailao listed at 9%, should be 5%

- Bradford listed at 11%, should be 6%

- Furey listed at 2%, should be 1%

- Hunter listed at 9%, should be 5%

- Matlow listed at 21%, should be 12%

- Peruzza listed at 2%, should be 1%

- Saunders listed at 19%, should be 11%

- Chow listed at 23%, should be 13%

- Other listed at 5%, should be 3%

April 26 MSR Poll:

- Incorrect poll data used. Someone added the data for only decided voters, while every previous poll listed in this table used all adults.

- Corrected percentages accordingly.

Alexwaolson (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your contribution on this. Greenwalnut (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All mainstreet polls had been using just decided voters, so that's where your discrepancy of "should be x..." for previous mainstreet polls are coming from. I added the April 26th and used only decided, because I noticed that is what had been used for previous mainstreet polls (and from prior commentary on the talk page that decided voters is standard). Isaacberman (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I went through each previous poll and there was a real mix of "all adults" vs. "Decided voters". I am happy with the decision being only to use decided voters, but in that case the old version was still wrong. Should it be switched to that? Alexwaolson (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this might be confusing for readers who aren't poll enthusiasts (including myself). here's just one example (sorry for CP24 link, but at least it's not paywalled) showing how the media typically reports these poll numbers. In context, the poll format we had here before was not strictly incorrect. See page 9 of Mainstreet's releaser (PDF). Now we seem to have a mix of both going on, which is not helpful. I think it's perfectly reasonable to use "Decided voters" only. --Hadal (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that it's reasonable to use "Decided voters" only. The issue was that the previous version had a mix of polls from "all adults" and "decided voters", in addition to multiple outright errors. If the consensus is that we should only display polls of decided voters, I'm more than happy to support that decision. Alexwaolson (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we can also trim any polls done prior to Chow entering the race. I don't know if there's a 'standard practice' re: how stale the data should be before trimming, but this list section is going to get massive if we don't prune old data. --Hadal (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a vote for decided voters. In addition, I think candidates who have max 1% (like Peruzza/Davis) can probably be added to "Others", as horizontal space is running thin as well. Isaacberman (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've tried to include everyone's comments in this version (plus, I moved Olivia Chow to alphabetical order). This is only polls of decided voters. There is a separate discussion about colouring, but that is being discussed in a different thread so I didn't change it here.
 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size:90%"

! rowspan="2" |Polling firm ! rowspan="2" |Source ! rowspan="2" |Date of poll ! rowspan="2" |Sample Size ! rowspan="2" |MOE !Ana Bailão !Brad Bradford !Olivia Chow !Mitzie Hunter !Josh Matlow !Mark Saunders ! rowspan="2" |Other ! style="background:#DFFF11;" | ! style="background:#D0DB51;" | ! style="background:#4700B8;" | ! style="background:#104C81;" | ! style="background:#2ABFC6;" | ! style="background:#E0A30B;" |
 * - style="text-align:right;padding-right:1em"
 * Forum Research
 * IVR
 * April 25-26, 2023
 * 1,022
 * ± 3%
 * 10%
 * 7%
 * style="background: #E5CEFD" |32%
 * 7%
 * 14%
 * 13%
 * 16%
 * - style="text-align:right;padding-right:1em"
 * Mainstreet Research
 * IVR
 * April 25-26, 2023
 * 996
 * ± 3.1%
 * style="background: #FCFDCE" |22%
 * 9%
 * style="background: #E5CEFD" |26%
 * 5%
 * 14%
 * 11%
 * 14%
 * - style="text-align:right;padding-right:1em"
 * Liaison Strategies
 * IVR
 * April 21-22, 2023
 * 1264
 * ± 2.75%
 * 9%
 * 11%
 * style="background: #E5CEFD" |23%
 * 9%
 * style="background: #CAFEF2" |21%
 * style="background: #FFD8C5" |19%
 * 9%
 * - style="text-align:right;padding-right:1em"
 * Mainstreet Research
 * IVR
 * April 19-20, 2023
 * 1082
 * ± 3%
 * style="background: #FCFDCE" |19%
 * 7%
 * style="background: #E5CEFD" |23%
 * 7%
 * style="background: #CAFEF2" |18%
 * 14%
 * 12%
 * - style="text-align:right;padding-right:1em"
 * Mainstreet Research
 * IVR
 * April 12-13, 2023
 * 785
 * ± 3.5%
 * style="background: #FCFDCE" |17%
 * 7%
 * style="background: #E5CEFD" |16%
 * 7%
 * style="background: #CAFEF2" |18%
 * style="background: #FFD8C5" |13%
 * 22%
 * - style="text-align:right;padding-right:1em"
 * Mainstreet Research
 * IVR
 * April 2-3, 2023
 * 1,306
 * ± 2.7%
 * style="background: #FCFDCE" |23%
 * 8%
 * style="background: #E5CEFD" |24%
 * 7%
 * 9%
 * 13%
 * 16%
 * - style="text-align:right;padding-right:1em"
 * Forum Research
 * IVR
 * March 23, 2023
 * 1,009
 * ± 3%
 * 11%
 * 5%
 * style="background: #E5CEFD" |24%
 * 12%
 * style="background: #CAFEF2" |18%
 * style="background: #FFD8C5" |8%
 * 8%
 * - style="text-align:right;padding-right:1em"
 * Mainstreet Research
 * IVR
 * March 19, 2023
 * 985
 * ± 3.1%
 * style="background: #FCFDCE" |22%
 * 6%
 * style="background: #C9CAFF" |11%
 * style="background: #CAFEF2" |18%
 * 8%
 * 35%
 * - style="text-align:right;padding-right:1em"
 * Mainstreet Research
 * IVR
 * February 19, 2023
 * 1,701
 * ± 2.4%
 * style="background: #FCFDCE" |17%
 * 9%
 * style="background: #C9CAFF" |16%
 * style="background: #CAFEF2" |13%
 * style="background: #FFD8C5" |12%
 * 33%
 * - style="text-align:right;padding-right:1em"
 * Mainstreet Research
 * IVR
 * February 14, 2023
 * 1,947
 * ± 2.2%
 * 10%
 * 7%
 * style="background: #CAFEF2" |12%
 * 70%
 * - style="text-align:right;padding-right:1em"
 * Forum Research
 * IVR
 * February 14, 2023
 * 1042
 * ± 3%
 * style="background: #FCFDCE" |11%
 * style="background: #F0FFBE" |11%
 * 66%
 * }
 * Please let me know what you think. If this looks good, anyone can feel free to replace the current live version with this :) Alexwaolson (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! --Hadal (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me too, I'll replace it. Isaacberman (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 66%
 * }
 * Please let me know what you think. If this looks good, anyone can feel free to replace the current live version with this :) Alexwaolson (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! --Hadal (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me too, I'll replace it. Isaacberman (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * }
 * Please let me know what you think. If this looks good, anyone can feel free to replace the current live version with this :) Alexwaolson (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! --Hadal (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me too, I'll replace it. Isaacberman (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It may be my colorblindness or my browser but Matlow's highlight is almost impossible to see on the poll chart. Can the color be changed to something that shows up better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.222.74 (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * In pending changes, I've removed all colours but 1st place, so this should solve that problem for now. Turini2 (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've accepted the revision. I think it's a good idea to only shade the lead. Thanks for your help! --Hadal (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Endorsements
I've removed a few endorsements (mostly from Furey) because they were not notable people without wikipedia pages.

What makes Progress Toronto notable for a Chow endorsement? There's no secondary source of their endorsement to establish notability of them - i.e. The Star or CBC reporting "Progress Toronto endorses Chow" etc Turini2 (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Progress Toronto is one of three organizations currently registered as a third-party advertiser for the election, if that is helpful. Alexwaolson (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The article for "2022_Toronto_municipal_election" is full of endorsements by Progress Toronto. They're notable enough as a group for a mention, despite not having their own wiki page. As such, I've added the endorsement in. Greenwalnut (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, they may not be immediately recognizable to people who don't follow GTA politics closely; but they do seem to be relevant for their endorsements/recognition of progressive candidates. It might also be worth noting that their executive director has taken a leave of absence to manage Chow's campaign. Hadal (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification - hopefully there can be a nice secondary source for them. Turini2 (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but for the time being: This Toronto Star article from April mentions both Progress Toronto and the exec director's intent to be Chow's campaign manager. --Hadal (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Threshold for polls
I undid the addition of Furey to the polling table - given that he only polled above 5% (which I understand is the agreed threshold) once, and previous polls had him at 2/3%. The most recent poll (Liaison Strategies, May 12-13) has him on 2%, so I believe he should remain excluded from the table at this time. Turini2 (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we have rules about who should be included in polling tables? I thought that threshold was for the infobox. If we do have said rules, I know that certain pollsters have a habit of having some weird results for fringe candidates, so it's best to have a wait and see approach about including other candidates, and corroborating with other polling firms.-- Earl Andrew - talk 15:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Should it be based on percentages or based on frequency of inclusion? I think we should include candidates who are included as an option in a significant number of polls. Alexwaolson (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that would be just the 6 present - most polls are just using the 6 plus "undecided" and "another candidate" Turini2 (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that someone added Furey back without adding any discussion to this thread. Alexwaolson (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed - Furey has averaged about 3.25% when you average his 8 poll figures, Chloe Brown has similar. Have removed him from the table. Turini2 (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is there an actual policy about poll thresholds? I've never seen one. Most election articles include anyone who is included in polling.-- Earl Andrew - talk 19:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We didn't agree on a threshold, but we seemed to agree on candidates that were in a significant number of polls - imo Furey and Brown haven't crossed that line. Turini2 (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Furey's being included in 2/3 of the major pollsters, one of which has him higher than Bradford (though, as a pollster myself with no skin in the game, I have my reservations about those numbers to be honest). 2/3 seems significant to me. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't feel that I have a strong opinion on whether or not he is 'significant' enough to be included. My main concern is that we avoid slipping into edit war territory with people adding/removing a given candidate without discussing it first. @Earl Andrew, if you had to suggest a specific threshold, what would it be? Alexwaolson (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't base it on percentage of the vote, but a minimum of two pollsters including them in their reporting.-- Earl Andrew - talk 18:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So at present, Furey is in the 2 most recent Liaison Strategies & Mainstreet Research polls. (as per this edit)
 * What do others think? Turini2 (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this criteria makes sense, although I'd word it as "at least half of pollsters", in case anyone else starts to poll in the future. Alexwaolson (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You removed Furey from the table, but didn't update the values in "Other". They need to be re-edited to account for Furey now being included in "Other". Isaacberman (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Isaacberman (that's my bad, apologies) Turini2 (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

With Furey returning to the table, I think the Notes section at the bottom needs some clean up. I haven't been managing the Polls table, so will let one of the other editors manage that housekeeping - tx! Greenwalnut (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This appears to be fixed now. Greenwalnut (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Anthony Furey Head Shot.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Anthonyfurey.jpg

Opinion Polls Table - Sort by Date
It's not sorting properly. Instead of sorting by date, it's sorting in alphabetical order by month (April - June - May). 70.29.86.63 (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks to Template:Opmdrts — Kawnhr (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Colour proposal
OK, I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here, but: looking at the infobox and polling tables, I think the colour scheme we're using could use some adjustment. Bailão's and Bradford's colours are very close, and Furey's and Hunter's are also too similar. I understand that these were picked from their websites, but when this results in an overlap of colours, we ought to be making adjustments for our own purposes (because the candidates use their colours for different purposes than we do… and they're not limited to one, like we are). This is actually happening to some extent already: Bradford and Matlow both use shades of blue, but — presumably because there are too many blues — editors opted to use a tertiary yellow; meanwhile, Saunders actually uses blue and yellow for his campaign, not black.

Here is a table showing the colours on wiki, the colours used on their websites, and my own suggestion:

The main thing here is adjusting the shades/tints of the primary colours to be further apart, allowing for more duplication while still being distinct. This freed up space to put Matlow in his primary blue, and in turn move Saunders to yellow. I left Bradford with his secondary colour because there's really no way to fit a fourth blue in, and yellow does show up in his campaign material more than in Matlow's. Meanwhile, Bailão moves to green to add more colour.

Here's how the infobox would look with these colours (hidden for length):

Comments? — Kawnhr (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thumbs up from me! Colour choices are always going to be limited when candidates don't want to use PC Blue, Liberal Red and NDP Orange (or similar colours)... Turini2 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I made some changes recently to the colours to reflect the candidates' election signs, which I think is a better indication of the campaign's proper colours than their websites. This is why I changed Saunders' to navy blue. Having said that, because he doesn't use navy blue on his site, I'm fine with changing it to gold. However, I oppose your choice for Bailão's colour. The only colour used on her signs is lime yellow (or as she is calling it "Bailão green"), which is a unique enough colour among the candidates. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that perspective — I don't live in Toronto so the websites are really all I have to go off of. I am OK with keeping Bailão at lime yellow, though I have to admit I find the colour a bit eye-searing. Would a paler shade be acceptable? Something like or . — Kawnhr (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't live in Toronto either, but it was really easy to find their signs on social media. I don't mind the paler colour for Bailão if necessary, as it's common for us to use paler colours for Canadian parties anyway. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with your perspective on Bailão's colour. That bright yellow/green colour is her identifying mark on the website and signs. The rest are all suitable adjustments.Greenwalnut (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Since everyone seems to be in agreement, I went ahead and changed the colours (using a paler Bailão green). — Kawnhr (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that there's now only three candidates in the infobox, would anyone be opposed to me changing Saunders' colour to blue? That was his primary colour during the campaign, but we went with orange because so many other candidates were also using blue. Also, it makes more sense for him to have blue as the candidate with more conservative connections. Orange is an NDP colour of course, and some media outlets were using orange for Chow. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * sounds good to me! Turini2 (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also sounds good to me. I would prefer a paler blue than the primary one colour-picked from his website, though I suppose it's a bit moot since he's not going to be on the map. — Kawnhr (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I went with the secondary colour from your table. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Number list of candidates
I'm wondering if we should number the candidates from 1 to 102, matching the number on the ballot. I'm seeing at least one candidate who is now campaigning with his number in the election materials. Nfitz (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any pattern on wikipedia articles for this. I've seen the same, but one outlier out of 102 isn't quite a standard practise.  I'd suggest we hold off on this. Greenwalnut (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The candidate list on the ballot is also in alphabetical order... just like our list. We should leave it tbh. Turini2 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"Prior to campaign period" polls
I think that some of the percentages in the "Prior to campaign period" polls table might be incorrect. Also, notes should be added in the "other" boxes for either all the people not listed in the table or just the people not listed in the table currently registered as candidates. 198.96.85.24 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right, thank you for catching this! I tried to fix some of the errors that I found. Alexwaolson (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Gong
Gong should be added as a major candidate, he already spent tge most campaign money. 2A02:3030:805:1AFA:1:0:9172:1222 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Special:Contributions/2A02:3030:805:1AFA:1:0:9172:1222 Spending money ≠ major candidate. As above, the consensus for being a major candidate has been using the available polling data. Turini2 (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Gong is not a major candidate. Polling is the agreed upon standard for inclusion. Greenwalnut (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Chloe Brown
Today a user (with IP address), added Chloe Brown to the Infobox. Prior discussion has circled around 5% being a threshold for inclusion, and we're kind of there. A few polls. How many is enough? In recent weeks, attempts to add Brown were reverted due to not meeting the standard.

Also, should we have consistency in the candidates in the Infobox, as the Opinion Polling table? Right now, Brown's polling is all in the Notes, and if we have consensus, could be its own column.

Just starting this topic here for some opinions. Thoughts? Greenwalnut (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Mainstreet is still the only firm including her, I think Furey wasn't added to the polling table until 2/3 main firms polling this election started including him. Isaacberman (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your points are fair. Also Mainstreet has been peculiar with their numbers, quite out of step with the the other pollsters. Greenwalnut (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with adding her to the polling table, but she should remain out of the infobox unless another pollster confirms she is polling at 5%+.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning that way also, and have just added her back to the Opinion Polls table. She's scoring higher than Bradford in several polls, albeit by the same polling organization.
 * If polling organizations are collecting data on a candidate, then we can reflect that. And concur that we need more polling org's to put her at 5%+ for infobox inclusion. Greenwalnut (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with her inclusion on the basis of her polling numbers, but the fact that she is almost never included as an option in opinion polls means we now have a column with hardly any entries in it. I'm not sure that we should include her, as a result. Alexwaolson (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Anthony Furey article
Should we create a separate article for Anthony Furey? Thoughts on this? Rushtheeditor (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Is his journalism work prior to this election sufficiently noteworthy? I’m not well informed on him to offer guidance.
 * As for this election, he’s polling to come in well below the runner-up position. This election alone doesn’t make him noteworthy in my opinion. Penalosa didn’t have an article during last year’s election.  It was placing 2nd that made him noteworthy, and the article was created post election day. Greenwalnut (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not on the basis of this election, certainly. I don't know if he's noteworthy based on his previous work as a journalist. Alexwaolson (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, he was a prominent Toront o Sun columnist. But I understand waiting for after election day. Rushtheeditor (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think if he'd got more than 5% (and therefore got into the infobox), I'd be positive about an article creation. But he got 4.96%... Turini2 (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Platforms
Quick question: Where are we putting the various candidates’ platforms? Thanks! — Spike  Toronto  10:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * "List of registered candidates - major policies" Turini2 (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oy! How could I be so blind?! Thanks . — Spike  Toronto  11:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

City of Toronto politicians endorsements
Hi all - I don't feel the table by @MiltonC is an improvement - it's very hard to read / understand, and the colours are very bright (MOS:ACCESSIBILITY). It also mixes existing and previous city councillors, MPPs and MPs in the same table. Furthermore, I don't like that it "calls out" politicians that haven't made an endorsement of a particular candidate.

The existing table follows an established pattern for election articles, as far as I recall. What do other people think? Turini2 (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * (if we are going to keep it, it needs a substantial fix - clarifying acronyms, use of bold text (MOS:BOLD), correcting the spelling of endorsement...) Turini2 (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This new Endorsement table isn't helpful. Moreover, now there are two tables which is confusing. The article has gotten much longer as a result. The prior table was working quite well in my estimation, and this new one introduces a lot of confusion.
 * I suppose this new table is attempting to demonstrate political alignment from ward to ward, but I'm not sure that's a problem we need to solve for here on wiki. Naming the politicians who didn't make an endorsement isn't an established practise anywhere. This is seemingly an attempt to 'shame' them.
 * I support reverting to the single table. It seems that the action can't be undone due to other editing, so the Endorsement table may need to be rebuilt, if we go this direction. Greenwalnut (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and reverted the original table - and have ensured that everyone is in it! Turini2 (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. A large change like this warrants some discussion here and consensus, with mock-up layout drawn up here on the Talk page for review. Especially  in a situation where there is a community of active editors as we have on this page.  None of that was present for this change.  Greenwalnut (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the map by @ JaacTreee a good idea? It takes up a lot of space in the article, leaving acres of white space - and has similar issues to the above table in that it "calls out" politicians that haven't made an endorsement of a particular candidate.
 * Also - endorsements and councillors are spelt incorrectly on the map. Turini2 (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, the graphic as it is needs to be removed. Councillors is spelled wrong, and if we are going to use the titles, then MPP and MP should be used.
 * Also, if we were to do such a graphic, then it should be limited to city limits and the rest of Ontario MPs and MPPs should be removed.
 * But generally speaking, I’m not a fan of this. Office holders aren’t obliged to give endorsements as part of their role, so a null value isn’t a miss. If it was a council vote on a matter of significance, then there is a proper data set which is complete.
 * I suggest we don’t do any graphic of this sort for endorsers.
 * (I do like the ward by ward graphics for the vote results!)Greenwalnut (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * howdy! sorry for the typos, I have fixed the spelling and reuploaded it to Commons. Would the public endorse bringing it back?
 * I have arguement in favour other than A) its my map so I would love to see it used and B) it does provided some visual indicators as to where candidates might regionally be supported.
 * Thank you for the consideration. JaacTreee (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My points regarding "calling out politicians that haven't made an endorsement of a particular candidate" remains, and I would not support adding it.
 * If you did a similar map with the final results, that would look great. Turini2 (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes agreed on all points, I don’t support an endorsement map of any sort really.
 * Historic Toronto mayor elections have a nice results graphic with 40/50/60 percent colour thresholds. I think we need a volunteer for that. Greenwalnut (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to volunteer. I'll throw something together for that tonight and post it here in for review JaacTreee (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @JaacTreee You'll have to wait for the results first! :) Turini2 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Past elections seem to follow a standard format. I don’t know what the source is of those.  Did someone freelance those or is there a standard, or a tool?  That is its own research item before assembling a graphic. Greenwalnut (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The official results have 'who voted for who' by ward https://open.toronto.ca/dataset/election-results-official/   Turini2 (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a handy link for the data.  I have found the author of some of the graphics from past years to see if they have any interest in using their template to generate an image. Or they may have guidance on a graphical template.

Greenwalnut (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Mark Saunders's photo
He retired in 2020 I think. That's 3 years. I am sure there could be a photo on the box on the right without his police uniform. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Someone who owns a photo as original work would have to provide one to the commons. That hasn’t surfaced yet.74.15.11.27 (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

5% infobox threshold
As in previous Toronto elections - the consensus has been that anyone achieving 5% gets to be in the infobox (so that's Chow, Bailao and Saunders). Have reverted.

Talk:2022 Toronto mayoral election (6.3%)

2003 Toronto municipal election (5.2%) Turini2 (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox
I thought the practice was to not name the previous office holder at the bottom of the infobox, if the office is already vacant before the incoming official takes office. In other words, we exclude John Tory's name & just use Vacant. Anyways, I've put Tory's name into a footnote. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Furey and Matlow in infobox
Should Furey and Matlow be added to the infobox to make this article consistent with 2021 Canadian federal election? 205.189.94.9 (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The consensus in previous Toronto elections has been anyone achieving 5% gets to be in the infobox, as per above. Mayoral elections are very different from multi seat, multi party federal or provincial elections. Turini2 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we generally follow the five-percent rule for election infoboxes. While that can be (and often is) bent for parliamentary elections (due to oddities that can arise there), it's applied more strictly for direct elections, such as presidential or mayoral elections. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The PPC didn't gain any seats in 2021 though 205.189.94.8 (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What happened in a parliamentary election is not relevant compared to this direct election - where we have a consensus that 5% is the threshold, as above. Turini2 (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that the PPC got under 5% and had 0 seats both before and after the election and was still included in the infobox for 2021. 99.230.241.31 (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not relevant to this discussion. Different electoral system, different dynamics. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Very detailed maps of the election
Here are some very interesting maps of the election that may be able to be incorporated into the article:

https://walkitect.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=80b3c1d7d1b1447f86254c75ae7d6254

https://cinycmaps.com/index.php/international/t-o-mayor-2000s CGP05 (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)