Jump to content

Talk:2021 New York City mayoral election/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

List Yang

Per NYT, is considering a run --MangforYayor (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I am removing this from the page again. You have not made a valid case that this is anything more than an offhand remark as per my contention, moreover you have not even acknowledged let alone addressed the problems with your username and edit behavior. JesseRafe (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Note The user in question has been blocked indefinitely for promotional editing. We should be on the lookout for a return or further socks. JesseRafe (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Note Mang has been identified and blocked as a sock using User talk:ImpartielEditingRef to re-add Yang using the NYT link. The current additions are less spurious mentions. JesseRafe (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

AOC's Decline to Run

According to the cited source in the article, people close to AOC thought she should run for mayor, but they decided against it. This doesn't seem like the same thing as someone making a statement that they won't be running, which is what I feel like the Declined section is normally about in most elections. While I agree that it's unlikely she will run for mayor, it seems misleading to include her in this section. What are other editors' thoughts? Brooklynpedestrian (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

She's said she's not running, it's basically clickbait to even mention her. The only source was an op-ed by the publisher of C&S which was itself a clickbait article and speculation. JesseRafe (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Nice, so it sounds like we have consensus to remove her from the list? Brooklynpedestrian (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I think so, but I say the same about Yang and Trump Jr, even Jeffries. High-profile people get asked questions by the press (or randos) and due to the nature of everyone's constantly trying to get them on a "Gotcha!" moment, they give non-committal answers. Regularly. It's silly to think they'd actually run. JesseRafe (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I totally agree with you, Jesse. I'm fine removing AOC, Trump Jr., and Jeffries (for Jeffries in particular, I can't find any sources seriously considering discussing a mayoral run for him since 2017 - the source that cites him in the article doesn't actually mention him), and will go ahead and do so. Yang I'm less sure about since he has officially said he's "looking at" running (link). Brooklynpedestrian (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I came to terms with including Yang (see above) though the original happenstance of the serious reporting on his consideration still stemmed from an unprompted leading question with a casual response. Alas, this is not the place to discuss the merits of such inclusion given the appropriate RS bylines are now attached. Thanks for your removals and checking the dates (should have been obvious!) and copyediting my add to the lede. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, and no problem! Thanks for your continued good work in editing New York political articles. Cheers. Brooklynpedestrian (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2020

Add Kevin P. Coenen Jr. Retired F.D.N.Y. Lieutenant to declared Democratic candidates on your 2021 New York City Mayoral Election page to make it accurate. You can check the CFB NY website for proof. https://nyccfb.info/follow-the-money/candidates/ Reliable source. Good day. 96.232.205.86 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not doneThank you for contributing to the conversation in a productive way. We do not want to block the page for editing, but when the protection expires, please do not resume edit-warring when you don't get your way. You provided a link that Coenen is registered as able to receive campaign contributions for mayor, as are over two dozen others, not all of which are listed here. It's a first and procedural step, and it's not significant enough on its own merits, many of these people are not, in fact, running -- they're just registered with CFB - maybe not even for this year, or ended their campaigns but are still listed, e.g. Ruben Diaz Jr. We'd need a better source specifically detailing his intention to run. If Coenen is you or someone you know, which seems likely given your zeal and his lack of notability, you should not be editing in a space where you have a conflict of interest. Thanks, JesseRafe (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

independent Quanda Francis is an Independent Politician Reboot40 (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 06:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

References

  1. ^ QuandaFrancis [@Quandafrancis] (November 21, 2020). "I am truly honored to receive my first endorsement from civil rights icon and lawyer, the Honorable Henry Marsh III who served as Richmond City's first African American mayor" (Tweet). Retrieved November 21, 2020 – via Twitter.

Andrew Yang: "Declared" or "Filed paperwork"?

I'm following precedent, in cases such as the 2021 special election for Ohio's 11th congressional district, where we just had Nina Turner listed in "Filed paperwork" after she filed paperwork, but before her announcement. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Ohio%27s_11th_congressional_district_special_election&oldid=994355731. Another example is the 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election, where we currently have Lee Carter under "Filed paperwork" and not "Declared", and where we previously had Terry McAuliffe under that same categorization. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Virginia_gubernatorial_election&oldid=993072747. I believe that we should do the same here and follow precedent. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Francis

Does she have enough coverage to be in the major category? Or should she be in the less major category? --2603:7000:2143:8500:C5CE:2DC3:2A6C:8159 (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The very source used refers to her as a minor candidate. She also has no Wikipedia page, has been in no polling and has not held previous office. Clearly a minor candidate who won't win. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree. So .. does someone want to move it to the other category? 2603:7000:2143:8500:9D0F:6A81:4224:6C2A (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah .. I see it was done. 2603:7000:2143:8500:9D0F:6A81:4224:6C2A (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Kathryn Garcia

FYI, there is a new article at Kathryn Garcia. Though, despite its many RS sources, an editor just tried to delete it today, claiming it did not meet GNG. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9D0F:6A81:4224:6C2A (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Ensdorsements and WP:OR

A lot of the endorsements for indivduals are sourced to personal tweets from Twitter. I am worried though that some of these fall afoul of breaking WP:OR. For example Joel McHale's 'endorsment' of Yang is a tweet of him saying 'Amen' in reponse to his annoucnement or take Ed Helm's 'endorsment' of Yang where he simply says "Hell yes! Go Andrew!". Do these really count as official WP:NOR endorsements?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above and the IPs' post earlier this week: they have to be explicit endorsements. There's a variety of reasons people would be happy to see one running without endorsing that candidate. Pending further discussion, I am going to boldly remove such tweets as elsewise it would quickly get out of hand. JesseRafe (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Scaramucci's source literally reads "BREAKING: @Scaramucci just endorsed @AndrewYang live on the Nerds for Humanity show for NYC Mayor and is willing to pitch in and support!" That's an endorsement. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Then source Scaramucci saying it, not some random twitter account, that's clear hearsay. JesseRafe (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Political endorsements cannot be sourced solely to tweets per WP:ENDORSE. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Yang Endorsements

I was glancing at 2021_New_York_City_mayoral_election#Endorsements today, and it looks like several people listed under endorsements for Yang are people who said something positive about Yang in an interview once. In general endorsements, especially from other politicians, are formal statements e.g. "I am endorsing X for Y.". 66.108.45.233 (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair point, I think .. though I have not checked how this compares to our other listed endorsements. --2603:7000:2143:8500:7913:1C16:7EF2:49A9 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
See my relevant comment in the section "Endorsements and WP:OR." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Dianna Morales page

FYI-As to the Dianne Morales page, which I created here (in addition to the Kathryn Garcia page that people also tried to delete - see above), an editor protested its creation. (On the basis that an earlier article on Morales months ago, when she did not meet GNG, was AfDd.)

I have opened up discussion at Deletion Review here.

Asking for its creation to be allowed, now that it meets GNG. Linking to the article I created, with many more GNG-satisfying refs. 2603:7000:2143:8500:7913:1C16:7EF2:49A9 (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Revert

As suggested, I'm bringing this revert of another editor to this talk page.

The editor has now twice made a number of changes to the lede. For example:

1. Changing "By 2021, a number of candidates had declared themselves for one of the two major parties" to "By 2021, however, while many candidates have declared themselves for both major parties..." But that is clearly incorrect. No candidate declared themselves for "both" major parties. Nor has the editor in his edit summaries explained his insistence on saying they have.

2. Changing "Notable candidates included ... and a number of other members of the New York City business and political communities" to "Notable candidates include ... and a large number of other prominent members of the New York City business and political communities." Two problems with that.

First, the reason we say "included" rather than "include" is because articles are written as though someone in the future (here, a year or more from now) will read it. Just as an encyclopedia does. That gets rid of the need to go back to articles and update such sentences.

Second, the lede is supposed to reflect what is in the text below the lede. This is not in the text below. But most disturbing is that "prominent" and "large" are not in the text below; nor are they clearly the case; nor are they supported by a ref - and the same with other such assertions this editor insists on inserting without any ref support at all. They are only the subjective view of the reverting editor.

None of the reverting editor's changes to this sentence were explained in his edit summary.

3. The lede, as mentioned, is supposed to reflect what is in the text below. And is supposed to serve as a "summary of its most important contents". "Journalists and political commentators predicted several potential candidates, including ..." is a) first of all not in the text below, and b) not important enough at this point to be lede-worthy; it is not one of "its most important contents". We now know who as of January 2021 has declared. It is less important to us that before people entered the race, pundits guessed that person x and person y might do so. Ok to reflect, imho, but not in the lede.

But the reverting editor had now twice rejected that view, insisting that these crystal forecasts of pundits be in the lede.

Thoughts? 2603:7000:2143:8500:DC79:4CC3:DC44:71FA (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is bad faith and cherry picking. It's also, as a point of order of your miscategorization, not my reverting to include it, but your reversion to remove it, as this has long been in the article. Without this context it would not be notable the number of "Declined" entrants, only there because the pundit class assumed they'd run. These were the candidates discussed for years prior, and that is in and of itself notable. It's only a sentence, so it doesn't need to be repeated. Thousands of articles contain content in the lede that is not repeated in the article body, if the lede is a better place for it. This lede is not in danger of being over-long, so it can go there without creating extra tedious sections. As you say, this is content for posterity, not only the latest version of point-in-time who's who. Are we going to start deleting candidates when they drop out and claim they never ran, too? It's rather difficult to address the rest of your points because your formatting is poor, but it looks like you have some minor subject-agreement copyedits, which you are encouraged to correct yourself as you see it, without wholesale deleting sourced content. JesseRafe (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea why you assert "disruption" and "bad faith." But whatever your reason, it is baseless and a knee-jerk unwarranted assumption of bad faith.
Also, "cherry-picking" has nothing to do with this at all.
As far as what the lede should contain, supporting the very words I used above, I point to wp:lede.
As to you reverting me - yes, you reverted my edits, which were to prior language. As to my "removal" of language from the lede, it would be more accurate to refer to my moving language that did not belong in the lede (see above) to the text below.
As to the other comments on moving the content of one sentence to the text below in accordance with the clear language of wp:lede, arguments such as "It's only a sentence, so it doesn't need to be repeated" are without basis. And arguments such as "Thousands of articles contain content in the lede that is not repeated in the article body" is not a good argument; the fact that they do not accord with wp:lede is not reason to clutter the lede with a non-lede-worthy sentence. And as you can see in the prior election article, we have a "Background" section there, so it is not something new and shocking (though admittedly the "pundits crystal balled that x might run" is not something editors have typically chosen to include in all such articles; but I have no problem with it here, other than in the lede). 2603:7000:2143:8500:DC79:4CC3:DC44:71FA (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that we are supposed to write articles from the perspective of people reading this a year from now. The article currently begins, "The 2021 New York City mayoral election will consist of Democratic and Republican primaries on June 22, 2021, followed by a general election on November 2, 2021." By that logic, we would have to change it to say, "The 2021 New York City mayoral election consisted of Democratic and Republican primaries on June 22, 2021, followed by a general election on November 2, 2021" -- as though the election had already taken place. For that matter, people reading this article a year from now will want to know who won the election, and we can't put that information into the article now because it hasn't happened yet. In reality, this article will get lots of updates between now and November, and the edits are likely to slow down only after the general election results are available. When it comes to "the need to go back to articles and update such sentences", I don't think we will have trouble getting editors to do that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Metro - we had worked out everything here but one point. The question that remains is whether it is ok to move from the lede-to the first text of the article-the following sentence: "Journalists and political commentators predicted several potential candidates, including ...." Under wp:lede. For now, it is one of the few sentences in the lede, and comes before a discussion of the actual candidates (some of those named did not run), and I would think is less significant than who is actually running. The thought as mentioned is not to delete it. Only to move it. To the text directly below the lede. Under wp:lede. Which says: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." 2603:7000:2143:8500:7DF6:ACCE:ACD8:5C94 (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I am okay with de-emphasizing the potential candidates who have announced that they aren't going to run [edited to add: by taking them] out of the lead. I should note, though, that there is still time for additional candidates to join the race. If some candidates are speculated as going to run, and there is still time for them to join the race and they are still being speculated as going to become candidates, please consider them as being relevant. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Metropolitan90. Yes, that makes sense. If they are notable, and the speculation is strong. As I guess it would have with Yang right before he declared. 2603:7000:2143:8500:5051:8E5:1B15:55B (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Question

Should we have a section on fundraising? Lots of good information here - https://citylimits.org/2021/01/18/major-financial-disparities-among-citys-large-mayoral-field/ So, for example, as of mid-January 2021 Cash on Hand: 1) Adams $6.6 million; 2) Stringer $5.8 million; 3) $McGuire 3.75 million; 4) Donovan $913K; 5) Iscol $485K; 6) Wiley $316K; 7) Garcia $277K; 8) Morales $127K. None of the other candidates have $20K or more on hand. Including a couple we note are major candidates - Sutton and Menchaca.

2603:7000:2143:8500:78DF:F29F:225D:4F36 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I (same editor as above) propose adding this information to the article's Background section. The subject of this article is the election itself. And this is background to it. We can update it (deleting past information if appropriate, so as to not make the section too long) as updated information comes in. 2603:7000:2143:8500:31B5:246A:5626:EDCA (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Results sections

I tried to comment out the "results" tables, using the <!-- ... --> notation (see Help:Wikitext#Invisible text (comments)) because we will need those tables or something similar when the primary occurs, but not before then. However, it didn't work properly (see [1]). Does anyone know what went wrong? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Results

Democratic primary results
Party Candidate Round 1
Votes %
Democratic Eric Adams
Democratic Art Chang
Democratic Eddie Cullen
Democratic Shaun Donovan
Democratic Aaron Foldenauer
Democratic Quanda Francis
Democratic Kathryn Garcia
Democratic Gary Guerrier
Democratic Max Kaplan
Democratic Barbara Kavovit
Democratic Raymond McGuire
Democratic Carlos Menchaca
Democratic Dianne Morales
Democratic Paperboy Love Prince
Democratic Stacey Prussman
Democratic Stephen Bishop Seely
Democratic Scott Stringer
Democratic Loree Sutton
Democratic Ahsan Syed
Democratic Joycylen Taylor
Democratic Maya Wiley
Democratic Isaac Wright Jr.
Democratic Andrew Yang
Total active votes 100.0%
Exhausted ballots -
Total votes 100.0%

Results

Republican primary results
Party Candidate Round 1
Votes %
Republican Cleopatra Fitzgerald
Republican Abbey Laurel-Smith
Republican Bill Pepitone
Republican Curtis Sliwa
Republican Sara Tirschwell
Total active votes 100.0%
Exhausted ballots -
Total votes 100.0%

Sliwa

The ref we have for Sliwa speaks of his intent to throw his hat in the ring, as of 11 months ago - but has he still not done so? If not, should he be put in a lower category, than his current "declared candidates" category? --2603:7000:2143:8500:C0AD:9D65:5166:A244 (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove Ivanka Trump

There have been news reports in recent weeks that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner are going to move to Florida from Washington, D.C. rather than back to New York City. I say she should be removed from the list of potential candidates for the Republican nomination. —⁠172.58.224.210 (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

If a source has suggested she may run then just keep her listed. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Major" candidates

Are Menchaca and Sutton "Major" candidates? Menchaca didn't even meet the criteria to be invited to the debate. And both are polling super low; below 1% in the most recent poll. And as of mid January had only $14,500 and $398, respectively, in their campaign chests. I think it would be appropriate to move them out of the major category.--2603:7000:2143:8500:9966:FAFA:7B10:5321 (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Please Add Mayoral Candidate to Democratic List

Dear Team Hello:

I am Cleopatra Fitzgerald a Mayoral candidate 2021. Please be aware that I was on Wikipedia's 2021 New York City Mayoral election under the Republican Primary but since I recently switched parties to DEMOCRATIC I kindly had myself removed from the Republican section by contacting a Wikipedia staff. Now, I am requesting to be added as a Democratic Mayoral candidate. My party affiliation can be found by going to the State BOE website: https://voterlookup.elections.ny.gov/ My zip code is 10036, Manhattan (New York), birth date:02/16/1984 My name Cleopatra Fitzgerald

Thank you so much and stay safe out there ☮️🌹☘️

CF --2603:7000:2F01:CC6C:E4F2:C440:C881:C831 (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


https://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=483439

https://www.newyorkcountypolitics.com/2021-election-whos-running-for-what/

https://ipsnews.net/business/2020/12/22/cleopatra-fitzgerald-nyc-is-making-an-impact-with-new-sensations/


2603:7000:2F01:CC6C:E4F2:C440:C881:C831 (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

"Ourcampaigns.com" as a source, and loops

Hi, I looked at "https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=896331" and many of their endorsements cite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_New_York_City_mayoral_election as the source (https://xkcd.com/978/) 2603:7000:8E40:7C5F:C29:BFD2:EA0B:D971 (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Considering the current discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC - ourcampaigns.com seems to be concluding that ourcampaigns is an unreliable source which should not be used, we probably shouldn't be citing them here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

RCV Endorsements

Should we actually be including second choices for endorsements? Thoughts? Pennsylvania2 (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there was one source that specified a first choice in the endorsement, which was removed in a subsequent edit (perhaps the editor was unfamiliar with RCV and thought it tautological). I think the default should just be "endorsed" and any ranking should be added in parenthesis after. In the City Council article some orgs endorsed multiple candidates in a single district, so after that listing I wrote (co-endorsed with X) on each. For first, I'd suggest (ranked first) and for second (ranked second after X) to reduce clutter? JesseRafe (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

Add green party candidates and remove donald trump jr Nat3679 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – robertsky (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Curtis Sliwa endorsement

Would an endorsement from the Staten Island Republican Party for Curtis Sliwa be considered notable? The Island's GOP is arguably the strongest of the local Republican parties, and this endorsement could be important. BigCheese76 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed we have a bit of an issue over the endorsement of Curtis Sliwa by the Staten Island Republican Party. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so I'm sorry if I'm giving the impression of someone who is very inexperienced (which I am). After reading WP:ENDORSE twice (I read it once passing before I added the endorsement), I feel the endorsement meets the qualifications.
1. (the validity of whether #1 is met is most likely the endorsement supposedly breaks WP:ENDORSE, so we can discuss that here.
2. The endorsement is covered by reliable sources.
https://www.silive.com/politics/2021/02/local-political-committees-announce-endorsements-ahead-of-staten-islands-june-primaries.html
https://wabcradio.com/2021/02/21/staten-island-republican-party-endorses-curtis-sliwa-for-nyc-mayor/
The New York Post also covered it, but the reliability of it is in dispute.
3. It is explicitly worded as an endorsement.
I hope we can work out an agreement on this, @Devonian Wombat and Pennsylvania2: BigCheese76 (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:ENDORSE specifically says that only notable organisations are listed in endorsement sections. In the context of Wikipedia, "notable" means that it has a Wikipedia page, which the Staten Island Republican Party does not. It is very clear about that too, the text is bolded. I don't even really know if I agree with that, but rules are rules. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I just looked at WP:Endorsements, and you are correct, sorry to have bothered you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigCheese76 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I'm mistaken, but WP:ENDORSE says ″1. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable organizations. Whether or not it is necessary for the person to also have a Wikipedia article can be determined at the article level", which to me does not read as "'notable' means that it has a Wikipedia page". 2603:7000:8E40:7C5F:C169:4BCD:BF14:8A92 (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Endorsements from neighborhood organizations

Hi, I added a bunch of missing endorsements from https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/campaigns-elections/endorsements-nyc-mayoral-candidates.html . There were some neighborhood political groups there, e.g. "West Side Democrats". City&State NY felt they were relevant enough to show, but they don't have Wikipedia entries. Thoughts? 2603:7000:8E40:7C5F:A8DE:872A:E6EF:3A7F (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

2603:7000:8E40:7C5F:A8DE:872A:E6EF:3A7F here. In absence of any discussion, the neighborhood organizations I added were removed (that's fine), but others were added. I don't have an opinion either way, but to the editors please make a decision, and either don't include neighborhood organization endorsements or include all of the ones in the CSNY page. 2603:7000:8E40:7C5F:D0F7:3612:C75:2552 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is defined as "significant media coverage"?

What exactly are we considering the threshold for "significant media coverage"? I bring this up because Paperboy Love Prince, Isaac Wright Jr. and Art Chang have all received quite a bit of coverage based off a search I performed. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think to be included in the box that they should have a poll at 3-5%. Maybe there can be a separate box including candidates who have Wikipedia pages or significant coverage? In reality, the race is probably going to come down to Yang, Adams and McGuire. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
You shouldn't edit to confirm with your pre-existing opinion, but approach the facts with neutrality. Omitting Stringer and including McGuire in the above statement shows a bias, when almost all press coverage mentions Stringer as one of the front-runners and comparatively few take McGuire seriously. Moreover, the question was of media coverage, not polling, and your polling figures are just arbitrary and your own. We definitely do not need more boxes and categories separating the candidates here. To DW, I don't think they've received "significant" coverage as mayoral candidates independent of other coverage, from my casual review, not telic coverage seeking. 15:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd actually say that Paperboy Love Prince has managed to achieve that, funnily enough, they somehow managed to get a write-up in The New Yorker [2], as well as articles in AM New York Metro [3] and Patch.com [4]. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

fernando Mateo

Can someone add Fernando Mateo to the Major Candidates section of the Republican Primary. He just won the endorsements of two of the five county Republican parties (two others went for Sliwa), and he, as a result, is getting major media attention in the primary, many of which is from reliable sources. I'd do it myself but I don't know the wikitext. I would also put in the endorsements for the candidates but they don't match WP:Endorse, which although I may add them anyway because WP:IAR, but I don't know about that yet. Anyway, can someone add Fernando Matteo as a major candidate? BigCheese76 (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be interested if, without a wp article (not clear has wp notability), and without polling support(?), he falls into the Major Candidates category, in the opinion of others. --2603:7000:2143:8500:C575:4149:C023:3136 (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"Missed ballot deadline"

It says John Catsimatidis "missed ballot deadline", is that true? And if the ballot deadline has passed, why are there still "potential candidate" sections? SecretName101 (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The source states "Petitioning to get on the ballot is March 2, so he’ll have to decide soon." Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Republican Debate

Can someone add the template/infobox for the Republican Debate on May 26 and June 6. NYC Votes is sponsoring a Republican Debate for the two dates, the first on May 26 and June 6. It has been covered in reliable sources.

BigCheese76 (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Media Predict Poll

I've got some concerns about the Media Predict Poll by Univision 41 Nueva York. The citation listed goes to a tweet, and the tweet only shows support divided among Hispanics and Non-Hispanics. It doesn't say anything about NYC Primary Voters as a whole as they are listed in the article. I also can't find this poll anywhere online. Does anyone have a better citation for this that shows the actual poll results, because otherwise these numbers could just be estimates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.152.242 (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Among those with a named candidate preference

Under the FPTP polling is another graph titled "Among those with a named candidate preference". What does that mean? 81.167.60.142 (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It removes the answer "undecided" from the graph. I don't think it's needed, but it shouldn't be too confusingly phrased, do you have an suggested alternative? I believe it's intent is to demonstrate a front-runner, and not mislead someone into a glance where they think Yang or Adams were in 2nd or 3rd to some other candidate. JesseRafe (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

New Kathryn Garcia Picture?

Is there a better picture of Kathryn Garcia? The current one isn't very good quality and seeing how well she has been polling rather recently, I think we should use a better quality picture of her. SuperGoldfish (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Matching Funds?

Should we add which candidates have received matching funds? I noticed that it is on the 2021 New York City Comptroller election page that it there and though it needs to be here also. Hiyournameis (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
It does not "need" to be here. Nothing in Wikipedia "needs" to be here. But it would imho be appropriate, with an RS source. --2603:7000:2143:8500:5146:8732:655B:4E69 (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Candidate table

Someone has continually deleted the table because they do not like the photos and the way the table looks. That said, there is no consensus to say this format can not be used. Particularly, there is no restriction upon the use of this format. Reverting without any consensus violates WP:OWN. The page has been in this format for MONTHS and someone can't just come in and revert it because they don't like it. Clear violation of WP:OWN. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a matter of not liking it, it's literally standard across the entire project. The tables are large, bulky, don't add anything of value and arguably violate our policies on accessibility. Toa Nidhiki05 00:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Pennsylvania2, the matter of whether the tables should be included is a matter of editorial consensus that has no set standard, and continually edit-warring to remove it while refusing to start a talk page discussion is a clear WP:BRD violation. Since you are the one attempting to make changes, you are the one who has the responsibility to take it to the talk page, Toa Nidhiki. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The Candidate table need to include all the candidates that are on the ballot. Democracy is not a two tier system. Each candidate that qualified on the ballot deserve to be heard. Anyone has a problem with that concept? 2001:470:88CD:0:0:0:0:938C (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You bring up a separate issue. The table is separated because the article is organized by primaries, which are party-specific in NY. For that reason, I do not think all candidates should be combined into one table. Shoestringnomad (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

gothamist reliable?

I tried to use it in the past, but Consensus was it wasn't a good Wikipedia source at the time. Has that changed? Sucker for All (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong yes. This should be brought up elsewhere, no? And could you please show where consensus was that Gothamist was unreliable? Nowhere is it listed on WP:RSP. Gothamist is owned and run by NPR, a reputable source, so this shouldn't be an issue. Furthermore, I had already replaced Gothamist, per your complaint, here on the page for Eric Adams.
The endorsement has had more press coverage than most, so it's unclear why you're pushing this. Shoestringnomad (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
When just a blog or an opinion, maybe, but it's reliable for original reporting. They're actual journalists. I welcome seeing diffs SFA can provide showing when they tried to add Gothamist as a source, when they were rebuffed, and where the discussion about its use came to a consensus against, until then please stop removing it. Further, complete removal instead of tagging or replacing the source is editing in bad faith. JesseRafe (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
If the "endorsement" has multiple sources that actually mention *Espaillat*, by all means add them. And, you are correct in saying it isn't explicitly stated as a "good source" by WP:RSP.. But inside of RSP, Nypost is considered "unreliable" despite it having the same owners as Fox News and WSJ. That source spells the name "espillat". Can't consider that reliable. Give it up. As it is Shoestringnomad has gone far above the WP:3RR limit, so it's surprising you haven't been banned. Sucker for All (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I've lost patience with this user, who is acting in bad faith, misrepresenting edits, and appears to be tending to their own agenda. Shoestringnomad (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
This is further bad faith attack on Shoestringnomad, and you should retract your statement. Your greivance was with the AMNY source, which was replaced. Now your grievance is an imaginary misspelling which isn't in the current sourced material. Which seems to indicate you are personally unhappy that Adams has this endorsement, which is not an acceptable rationale to edit from. I also can't help but notice you are echoing the same sentiments as the IPs in this regard. We don't add multiple sources where one will do, just to suit your whims. It was covered in all the press, replace the source if you fancy -- something you haven't done even once. You've also moved the goalposts vis-a-vis Gothamist as a source as you apparently failed to discover any "consensus" you claimed to have against it. JesseRafe (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Every major new outlet in New York City has covered the endorsement - just put in the Times or the News or NY1 or literally any of them. But deleting the information over which source is cited is borderline disruptive. Jd2718 (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
You all claim that this has been covered in other sources, yet you have provided no links. The only other link that has been provided literally misspells Espaillat's name. If you provide a credible source here, such as the daily news, that would follow wikipedia's standards. Until then, it is simply wrong to say that Espaillat endorsed Adams. It's just false. Furthermore, you opened an unfounded sockpuppet investigation into me because wikipedia *READERS* recognize that that gothamist article was sponsored by Adams. Are we going to allow infowars next? Sucker for All (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Intentionally ignoring evidence is dishonest. Sucker for All is being dishonest and disruptive. I don't know how to format links. You can do that. Here are 10 naked links. Choose one. Jd2718 (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Since Gothamist is not the only source, sure. And yes, amny with "espillat" at both the link and the headline isn't credible, yeah. Why wouldn't we just use politico everytime? Sometimes these sources are just left wing equivalents of Breitbart Sucker for All (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"Libertarian primary" and "Conservative primary"

Are these parties holding primaries? If not, these sections be renamed "Libertarian nomination" and "Conservative nomination"? SecretName101 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

No. @SecretName101 Conservative Party has ballot access so in theory there could be a primary. The Libertarian Party does not have ballot access, so they cannot have a primary.Yousef Raz (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
How does the Libertarian Party of New York not count as a party as you say in your latest edit? Also, their Wikipedia article states that they do have ballot access. Were you saying they won't have ballot access for the mayoral election or never do? Shoestringnomad (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Cleaning up endorsements with Notes

Mahir256 had a good idea when he used footnotes to remove some of the extra language from the endorsements section. (See his edit here.) While the edit wasn't viable and was reverted, it motivated me to find a solution to a grievance I shared with Mahir256. The extra details, especially for Stringer, reduce the ease of understanding, and the notes for Morales are just long.

Instead of moving all notes, such as "first choice", I thought it made more sense and would be more intuitive to only add notes to withdrawn endorsements. I found a way to include a notes section for each candidate so they aren't buried, are actually immediately visible to readers, and notes are fairly easy to distinguish from in-line references. With that said, my proposal is only to add the sections to endorsement boxes that have withdrawn endorsements, i.e., those of Morales and Stringer.

I started with Morales before taking on the more time-consuming job of updating Stringer's section because I wanted to bring this to the talk page to know if there are any objections (or votes of support) for this change. Here's a static copy of the changes.Shoestringnomad (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Dianne Morales photo?

What happened to it? Someone trace who deleted it please. So sexist and annoying, however she dealt with her campaign workers.--A21sauce (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it might have been uploaded without a license. Think that's why it was deleted. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

.
Her campaign website has plenty of photos, such as:
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/600ef2a3d675964c7d21fd17/1612302772437-83JJQWTDMRP0691SK2W5/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kJKo3YTR7zgUvInmXMbZ6zZ7gQa3H78H3Y0txjaiv_0fDoOvxcdMmMKkDsyUqMSsMWxHk725yiiHCCLfrh8O1z4YTzHvnKhyp6Da-NYroOW3ZGjoBKy3azqku80C789l0geeCvn1f36QDdcifB7yxGjTk-SMFplgtEhJ5kBshkhu5q5viBDDnY2i_eu2ZnquSA/Dianne+Morales_Rebrand+Photoshoot_Rodriguez_013021_016.jpg?format=750w
which is embedded on:
https://www.dianne.nyc/about
Since it's on her 'About' page and shows just her (and unmasked) I would think it's about as good as any you might find.
jg (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
.

@Jgog2: We cannot use images that have not been released under a public domain license. SecretName101 (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


I'm uploading one that is explicitly part of Dianne Morales' website press kit, as that is definitionally public domain. Denzera (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that the Democratic Primary section be split into a separate page called 2021 New York City Mayoral Democratic Primary. The content of this section is large enough to make its own page and significantly hinders page navigation. While there could be issues with neutrality, there are separate pages for presidential primaries and the Democratic primary is widely seen as the biggest contest of this race. Stormy160 (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Polling Table - Can it be reformatted?

There are now so many ranked choice polls for the democrats, with so many lines, the reader can no longer see the headings when looking at the earlier polls. Jd2718 (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jd2718: I think that each column should be a round and each a row a candidate. We could make each poll its own collapsable table. That would make a lot more sense than the current mess. Stormy160 (talk)
Sample (I only did the top four candidates in the most recent poll):
Poll source Date(s)
administered 		Sample
size[A] 		Margin
of error 		Candidate
BA[a]
1st round
2nd round
3rd round
4th round
5th round
6th round
7th round
8th round
9th round
10th round
11th round
Public Opinion Strategies (R)[B] June 9–13, 2021 500 (LV) ± 4.4% Kathryn Garcia 20% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 23% 25% 28% 33% 52%
Eric Adams 21% 21% 24% 24% 24% 25% 25% 26% 27% 29% 38% 48%
Maya Wiley 18% 20% 20% 20% 20% 21% 21% 22% 23% 25% 29%
Andrew Yang 13% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 15% 15% 15% 17%
Weak support: I would support this, but not because it would shorten the table (there are parts where it would actually increase in length for polls tracking more candidates than rounds. My support stems from the more intuitive presentation. Caveat: The intuitive presentation might be steamrolled by the inclusion of all polls vs. just one in the proposal above. Shoestringnomad (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure about how I feel about transposing the table in general but I have added floating table headers now. Stroopwafels (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Once I saw the transposed tables, I realized I'd seen some similar, before. The results from contested presidential conventions are often arranged like that, with the candidates on the left, and the rounds on top. See this: 1940_Republican_National_Convention Jd2718 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
But I can't see the ranked choice tables at all now. Was there mis-editing? Jd2718 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

AOC Inclusion?

Hi, current U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is included under the "Declined" heading. This seems like an error, as I don't think she was ever even considering a run for NYC Mayor, considering her current occupation. It does mention her endorsement, but this could be moved to the "Endorsements" section. Patr2016 (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Try checking the sources next time. From CNN: "People close to her discussed a possible run for mayor of New York in 2021 but decided against it". --Pokelova (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
AOC's endorsement for Wiley was already listed under Endorsements. Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Contentious content added on day of election

@Newyawkah99: Please bring any issues here instead of repeating edits that have already been reverted. Shoestringnomad (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Paperboy Prince in the section "major candidates"

The "Major candidates" section leads with "The following candidates (listed alphabetically) appear on the Democratic primary ballot and have held office, have been included in polls, or have been the subject of significant media coverage."

Paperboy Price is on the ballot, has been included in polls, and has more instances in Wikipedia of cited sources describing their mayoral campaign as compared to other candidates listed here. Because of this, I moved Prince from the "other candidates" section to the "major candidates" section.

I added Prince earlier today and a user reverted it. I think the reversion is fine because Prince previously was not part of some polling and there has been the surprising development of Prince not having as much media attention at the start of the election but gaining a lot toward the end of the election. Now that Prince meets the stated inclusion criteria, we should include this person until and unless someone has a good reason to do otherwise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a stronger argument here that the preceding paragraph to the table should be changed. Paperboy Prince is not seen as a serious contender by the media. He is notable in that he sticks out in the race, but not as a serious or major candidate. Shoestringnomad (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Shoestringnomad: They meet the current criteria. I think it would be odd it to shift the criteria for the purpose of excluding a candidate who meets them, but I can propose a compromise: if you or any other registered user feels bold enough to change the criteria right now, then I will accept Prince's removal, seek dispute resolution, and respect an outside judgement. While the current criteria are in place, and unless someone disputes that Prince meets them, I insist on their inclusion and I am adding them for my third and last time today per WP:3RR. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: I'm not going to enter this edit war you "insist" on. There are no official criteria for inclusion, besides consensus. I believe the consensus would be not to include him as a major candidate. Per WP:BRD, you shouldn't have added PLP back again until it was discussed and consensus reached. Posting a section to the talk page is not a substitute for discussion. Shoestringnomad (talk)
  • Oppose inclusion as major candidate: As stated above. Shoestringnomad (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, while Prince has received a level of coverage more extensive than the other minor candidates in the race, he has received far less coverage than the 8 candidates currently listed as major. The difference between Prince and McGuire is far greater than the difference between Prince and Chang or Prince and Taylor. As such, I do not think it would be WP:DUEWEIGHT for Prince to be in the major candidates section. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Devonian Wombat: Okay, I am seeing that the 8 candidates listed as "major" do have in common that they all qualified for the televised official debate, which also means that they all raised more than US$250k for their campaigns. Those debates did get a lot of coverage, even though I perceive that as mostly group coverage rather than individual coverage, and I do not think I see media about the debate in the Wikipedia articles.
Can you tell me how you determined that the 8 in the debates got more media coverage? I just added citations to Prince's article, and I have not developed the other candidate's articles, so I did influence the citation count in Wikipedia which I am about to present. However, I still feel that Prince has at least equivalent coverage to the 8 debate candidates and significantly deeper coverage than the non-major candidates. Here is what I see:
The media attention does not surprise me because Prince has an obvious advantage of being highly attractive to media, including less political media. What are you seeing here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Morales and McGuire all have vastly more coverage than prince, McGuire, for example, has received numerous articles about him in The New York Times see: [8] and [9] for just some examples, as well as coverage in national media such as Politico [10] [11], the same is true for Dianne Morales, [12], [13], [14], etc. This is a level of coverage that Prince simply does not have. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@Devonian Wombat: I agree with your line of argument to count the number of articles about specific candidates, but I disagree that that gap is large and obvious. Prince has comparable coverage in Rolling Stone and The New Yorker. Maybe this is moot if there is a restructure coming up. Thanks for putting the effort into this conversation. I take it seriously, and I appreciate that you do also. I recognize that Prince is fringe here but sometimes the fringe candidate does have a case for reclassification. Thanks for hearing me out. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Just another comment... won't this be rendered moot in a matter of days when the article is restructured post-primaries? 2013 New York City mayoral election doesn't have a comparable table. Not that that's precedent that has to be maintained, but I would imagine significant changes. Shoestringnomad (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@Shoestringnomad: Is that how this works? I am unfamiliar with political articles, but in general, I did not think that Wikipedia articles changed to follow trends or a news cycle. Is it common that Wikipedia election articles talk about primaries, then get wiped after the primary is over to cover the election? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Green Party

User JesseRafe removed my attempt to add a section detailing the Green Party's lack of a candidate in the NYC Mayoral election on June 10, 2021 by saying that it's not relevant. This is ironic, as was the entire section that was written, and this irony may have been lost on the person who removed the section. First, the Green Party fielded a candidate that was on the ballot in New York State for the federal level Presidential Election in 2020, Howie Hawkins. But, only in New York City, aparently, is the Green Party not relevant enough to field a candidate edit: for mayor /edit. Additionally, as state in the section before it was removed, one of the Green Party's presidential platforms was campaigning for ranked choice voting so that third parties would have a bigger voice in elections. And um, then you removed information on a major third party. So I would ask here, in this article's talk section, that the Green Party's candidates or lack thereof be restored. Because what was the point of having ranked choice voting if it was a Democratic Party exercise in monopoly? Thanks. Smellyshirt5 (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

A few thoughts: First, it's fine to state that the Green Party advocated for rank-choice voting where it makes sense to do so and can be backed by reputable sources. However, the inclusion of that information here does not make sense. If there's an appropriate way to include mention of the Green Party that improves this article, I don't think it would receive pushback. Second, this edit of yours is getting close to original research, given the sources you cited (see WP:SYNTHESIS). Finally, remember to remain civil on Wikipedia (see WP:CIVIL). Your summary for this edit was uncalled for. Shoestringnomad (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't tell which edits you are talking about. Also, I didn't bother to read that only the primaries are ranked choice voting. So, I guess I don't really care too much about this topic anyways... because... yeah. Also, you forgot to sign your post above. You sound smart. Thanks.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Smellyshirt5, whoops, added too many tildes to the signature. The edits you're unsure of are linked in my initial response. The first edit I mentioned was your addition of the section in question; I updated it to show your edit instead of its edit revert, in case that was confusing. The second edit was the addition of this talk section today. In the summary, you wrote grammar. there's more grammar error's but what's the point when the dem dong is attacking. I may have misconstrued what you meant by "when the dem dong is attacking," but it seemed in reference to another editor and in bad taste. Your response above isn't helping you appear any less uncivil. Shoestringnomad (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

What exactly were the circumstances of the GP not fielding a candidate? Had there been people attempting to be their candidate? Did they have ballot access, or were they making an effort to have ballot access? Can you fill me in? SecretName101 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hotel Trades Council notability, larger discussion on WP:ENDORSE guidelines?

Putting this here to expand your thoughts on this @Shoestringnomad, given your edit descriptions. I want to hear your thoughts on how this specific endorsement (or others like it) is/isn't following WP:ENDORSE.

In my opinion, this is following WP:ENDORSE. As I mentioned in my edit description, the Hotel Trades Council is a notable union of over 30,000+ members in North Jersey and New York area, and is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. It is a long running labor union, dating back to the 1930s, and is considered one of the local institutions of labor for the area and a sought after endorsement, supporting Bill de Blasio in both his mayoral campaigns and his failed presidential campaign (HTC even threw down almost $500,000 to run ads for him in the 2020 primary), in this specific election cycle HTC has endorsed dozens of other positions all over the city, and outside of New York HTC has endorsed Steven Fulop in his upcoming re-election campaign in 2021 in Jersey City. The only item this union doesn't have, which some unions and union locals have, is a Wikipedia page at the moment, but per WP:ENDORSE this left up to the per-article level. Despite this, I believe this specific union is large and notable enough to warrant listing it here. For right this second though given the lack of a dedicated page made up of secondary sources, per the general WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, maybe the article from the Post that I had linked in the more recent edit covering this endorsement rather than the union's press release, is more fitting?

Happy to hear your thoughts as to why this may not meet this guideline. If ultimately creating a page for the HTC would resolve this issue, I'll start work on that since it's surprising they still don't have a page when many smaller locals that represent fewer workers have articles or at least stubs here. Cmahns (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment: You're correct: my and other editors' interpretations of the endorsement criteria for organizations have emphasized organizations (or affiliates to inter/national organizations) that already have Wikipedia articles. This has prevented what I called the "slippery slope" of allowing organizations without a Wikipedia article and then needing to defend/challenge the merits of notability here on the talk page. I would fully expect large amounts of reverts and debate. That we should include the Hotel Trades Council was discussed by another editor I respect in an edit summary, which is why I was more inclined to accept this instance and redlink it to demonstrate it is worth having a separate Wikipedia article, at least. However, it's my own personal preference to stick to requiring a Wikipedia article, as it is impartial to the candidates, as well as consistent with regard to application towards their campaigns. Furthermore, it prevents editors from getting wrapped up in proving and disproving notability. Just my thoughts. There are others with better ones. Shoestringnomad (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Update: Sorry, I didn't respond to your question about the source. The website is fine, once notability has been established. The New York Post per WP:RSP is generally unreliable, so if another and more reliable source exists, I prefer to use it, but there are instances where using the Post makes sense. The Post endorsed Adams, and WP:COMMONSENSE prevented me from removing it as a source for obvious reasons. Shoestringnomad (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I guess the actual solution here given this should be starting the HTC article, I can get something started when I get more time. For now, I'll change the article out to the Daily News since that's undisputed that it's more reliable than the Post and it meets secondary source criteria for this one line for now. I had grabbed the Post since it came up first, and the article was very much more in line with their "just reporting on a press release" articles and not their usual beat of opinionated articles they pass as news. Cmahns (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
No: Doesn't matter that they have 30,000 members. If they don't fit the criteria of WP:Endorse then they shouldn't be listed. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
As per Shoestringnomad's comments above, my take is that they feel that once the union has their own article, it's fine to add here. Is this your take as well? If so, I'll get he other article started. EDIT: for transparency I've started this draft here: Draft:The New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council Cmahns (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
This is incorrect, it does fit the criteria because it would pass notability. It's not just a bluelink only, brightline, as bluelink is sufficient for notability, but not necessary. Same goes for the Building Trades Council, which I discussed on one of these pages, which is a labor council of several different local locals of notable unions, though it doesn't have its own page. HTC is kind of inbetween as it operates like a union in some ways and like a council in others, some members are organized into other unions and are cross-membered. Also, they have 40K members. This is a different situation than the dozens of political clubs spread throughtout the city, that are not notable. They tend to have 10-200 members and almost invariably just a $25 to join and attend one meeting per year to vote in the endorsement. Some door-knock and mobilize, others just talk, but none are notable for WP. JesseRafe (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with JesseRafe that it would pass notability. The more targeted question I have is whether to list organizations that are likely notable but do not yet have a Wikiepdia article OR draw a line in the sand that all organizations must have a Wikipedia page (or could be appropriately piped to one)? WP:ENDORSE clearly gives us the option for either at the article level. My concern was that going with the former option could add time spent in discussing each contentious case. Shoestringnomad (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks like it's 3 in agreement that it's notable. As for Shoestringnomad's discussion so we reach consensus on how we should handle notability on this page, my overall opinion is a case by case basis should be fine for this. Gives flexibility for instances like this, and it's likely not too many organizations with this specific edge case will be found in the remaining eleven days of the primary, or until November for the general. For HTC specifically, as mentioned above I started the skeleton of a draft for it, so if the decision is made to only allow article having orgs/unions, it should be resolved once that draft is in Article space. As an aside, I'm honestly more surprised by the FDNY Officer's Union having a page (albeit one that's a stub), which has a lot less members, than the HTC. Cmahns (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Political endorsements very clearly states "Whether or not it is necessary for the organization to also have a Wikipedia article can be determined at the article level". We can decide here whether or not an organization needs a Wikipedia article to have their endorsement mentioned in this election article. I say they should not. Plenty of orgs are pretty notable and consequential at the city-level, but do not/will not have Wikipedia articles. SecretName101 (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Table for Results

The table could be better. It records Adams as eventually getting 51.1%, but his final total of 358,521 votes is only 43.7% of the total number of votes cast, 819,614. May I suggest you re-jig it all, to include what we call (in Ireland) non-transferable votes. Thanks - Peter Emerson www.deborda.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Emerson (talk • contribs) 09:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I see a pretty good table - added by Artoonie (talk · contribs) is getting reverted by Tartan357 (talk · contribs) because "we have a template for this and it was already in use. You deleted it and replaced it with your custom table." but I do not see any template deleted by Artoonie, and the multi-round results table that IS there is pretty hard to read. In any case, the current results have been withdrawn by the NYC Board of elections. But if Artoonie's table is being replaced, it should be replaced by something as good or better - and I'm not seeing that yet. Jd2718 (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Jd2718, They deleted it with their first edit. If there's a problem with Template:Election box ranked choice begin, then we should improve the template since it will be needed for future ranked choice elections. It's important that the width be kept manageable, and I think the existing template does that. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Jd2718, Also, I see no evidence that today's results were also withdrawn by the Board of Elections. Can you provide a source for that claim? ― Tartan357 Talk 23:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Naked link: [15] Jd2718 (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Jd2718, that article refers to yesterday's results being withdrawn. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Tartan357 (talk · contribs) Yes, and you are posting yesterday's results. Jd2718 (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Jd2718, no, I'm not. What on Earth are you talking about? ― Tartan357 Talk 00:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Tartan357 You are correct. I stand corrected. But the new results draw attention to an issue with the template - Wiley trails Garcia by a tiny number of votes (347) at the elimination stage, which was crystal clear with Artoonie's table, but is invisible in the template. Jd2718 (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Jd2718, If we think that's an important detail, then I suppose it's a problem. Perhaps Template:Election box ranked choice begin should be expanded to accept data from all rounds. All I care about here is making sure we're using a template since there are a lot of ranked choice elections and the presentation should be standardized, just as it is for FPTP elections. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Tartan357 What would it look like with additional rounds added? I do think that detail is important. But I also think round by round in general is interesting, and total transfer votes is not likely to be something a reader is looking for. I am not at all against some standardization, but it should deliver clear information that is valuable to the reader. The audience is the readers, not the editors. Jd2718 (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Jd2718, I think you and Artoonie have both made some good points so I propose this: Let's put back Artoonie's table for now and go to WP:RT to request an overhaul of Template:Election box ranked choice begin to support all rounds. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
The table I posted has the up-to-date results. I do think we should update the other template. FYI the tables are auto-generated by rcvis.com, so whatever we agree upon, we should push those changes to rcvis so it generates tables. For the time being, the table I posted is used in over a dozen wikipedia articles for RCV results, and I believe it provides more insight than the existing format. I am not aware of deleting another table in my edit... Artoonie (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Artoonie, see this diff, where you deleted the existing table. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Tartan357 that table was using last week's outdated first-round-only data. I don't see any table I deleted that had RCV results? Artoonie (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Artoonie, no, that was a RCV table using yesterday's withdrawn results, which I have since updated with today's results. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Tartan357 So sorry, I'm still not seeing any RCV results in the diff you linked to...all I see is a table titled "2021 New York mayoral Democratic primary election First round results (97% reporting)". Regardless...I think at its heart, we should discuss how to update the RCV template to include data from all-rounds, since the table shown currently overemphasizes first-round results which is not in line with best RCV reporting practices. What is the process to update that template, so that we may reinstate the larger table (or another acceptable variant) here? - Artoonie (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Artoonie, as I've said, I've already updated that template. All the data are there already. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Artoonie, Template:Election box ranked choice begin currently only supports the first and final rounds. Perhaps that template should be expanded. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Tartan357 I agree, let's update Template:Election box ranked choice begin to include all rounds, since only reporting first and final results in bad RCV reporting practice. What is the process for that? Do we move this conversation to that template? - Artoonie (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Artoonie, anyone can edit the template but it requires some level of technical expertise, so I think making a request at Wikipedia:Requested templates would be a good idea. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I do not have the wikipedia technical expertise, so I have made the request at the page you suggested. I can ensure RCVis is updated to export to whatever correct format we come up with there. I'm guessing that process will take a while - until there's a consensus, are we are required to stick to the existing template, and not allowed to include the complete RCV data until the new template is created? - Artoonie (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Artoonie, as I noted above, you and Jd2718 have made some good points, so I'm fine with using your table while we wait for the template to be expanded. Others may disagree, though, in which case we'll discuss further here. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Tartan357 Thanks, I have kept both tables just in case, please feel free to clean up as needed. - Artoonie (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I support using the template to display results. In the meantine, if we stick with this other table, can someone disambiguate the link for Eric Adams and remove the links for the three candidates without articles? Shoestringnomad (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Maya Wiley is the only candidate in the Major candidates table without their campaign logo. This could really do with being added to bring it up to par with all the other major candidates listed in the table. Helper201 (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source with a simple version of her campaign logo? The one on her website includes a stylized graphic of her face, so it would not meet the free usage policies used for other candidates' campaign logos. (Namely, "This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain.") Shoestringnomad (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


How about: [https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-dhv204h1yh/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/143/417/mayaForMayor_black_maskSingle__35291.1617735224.png?c=1]
from the store page at: https://store.mayawileyformayor.com/maya-for-mayor-black-mask/]
jg (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC) .<be>

There's no indication that the graphic you linked to should be considered an alternative campaign logo. There's another "Maya for Mayor" graphic for a hat in her store that looks completely different. That's my main argument against using the one you shared or any from her store. Furthermore, these would have to be edited before they could be added, and I don't know whether doing so would be in violation of WP:OI. Regardless, the variants make it difficult to establish an alternative, Wikipedia-friendly logo. Shoestringnomad (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This one could be used as a campaign logo: [16] Muhibm0307 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Tables for candidates

Should this article use tables for the candidate sections instead of plain-text? Toa Nidhiki05 20:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey

  • No - In addition to arguably violating our accessibility policies, these tables are large, bulky, and don't add anything of value really to the page. There is a reason articles on elections in the US don't use these, and this page should be no different. Toa Nidhiki05 20:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, looks like you tagged the article without opening a discussion here on the talk page. Could you explain how you believe the tables violate policy? Perhaps you should start a section here at Talk? Jd2718 (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
It’s being discussed. Tables aren’t recommended where simple lists can suffice and the table is very poorly accessible for users of screen readers. I absolutely get, however, that editors here don’t seem to give a shit about that. Toa Nidhiki05 19:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Where is it being discussed? A link to the discussion would be helpful? And what policy are you referencing? A link to that policy would be helpful. I don't particularly care for the tables, but no one should tag and run. Jd2718 (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The fact you’re unaware of our accessibility policy is concerning. WP:NO-TABLES is a start, but other areas include the lack of alt text for pictures and logos and the inability of screen readers to process the information. Nothing this table does is better than a standard list that 99.9% of articles use, and those don’t violate our accessibility guidelines. Toa Nidhiki05 15:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, this article is already very high profile, receiving literally thousands of views a day. Making a change like this for purely cosmetic reasons is needlessly disruptive and accomplishes nothing. No-one is sent into fits of confusion because a table has images in it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes The article has been this way for a while and it allows for there to be a good amount of information, pictures, etc. in limited space Pennsylvania2 (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes I have yet to see an actual explanation for how the tables violate Wikipedia's policies on accessibility. Also, trying to argue against the use of the tables based on their visual appearance is weak, since appearance is incredibly subjective. In other words, you can't say "we should remove the tables because I think they look bad" because there are plenty of other people who think they look just as good or better than plaintext lists. Also, if photo tables really were just objectively ugly, then why would they be the standard for presidential articles, which receive significantly more traffic and attention than articles about downballot races? I'm the person who originally added the photo tables to this page. If you click here, you'll see the last version of the page before I added the table. Note how there were already photos, I just added photos for all candidates who have images on Commons and organized them into a table. There's clear consensus that a photo table is the best way to display pictures of all the candidates in a primary, so what's the issue here? Like the other editors said, just leave this page the same way it's been for months. Let us have our candidate pictures, god damn. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes: Per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes per BottleOfChocolateMilk.Sea Ane (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No, per wp:PROSE and the aforementioned accessibility (screenreader) issues. In general, prose is easier to understand, and provides greater context than a list/table slapped into an article. Tables are usually only used when there is a pressing need for the raw data, and even so, are always accompanied by explanatory text. Since there isn't much in terms of raw data in an article about a political contest, and any such tabulated data will have to be explained in text, why not just cut out the middleman and stick with prose only? BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 02:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Sadly BrxBrx, I don’t think the accessibility concerns will be addressed by users on this page. There’s a reason 99% of political races pages use prose only, but a small group of users here are convinced that they can make tables a thing. I may look to other wikiprojects to reinforce how serious the problem is here. Toa Nidhiki05 03:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. The chart presents the information clearly and facilitates easier comparison between the candidates than a wall of text would. DownstateElitist (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. The chart presents the information more clearly for comparison purposes. 2603:7000:2143:8500:5146:8732:655B:4E69 (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. The chart is clear and the ordering (alphabetical) is rational, though perhaps not optimally "fair". All it presents is the candidate's background and links, so it's a useful jumping-off point for people wishing to explore a given candidate further. Denzera (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • No. They should never be used except on presidential primary articles, where there is a great deal of useful additional information and the candidates are per se notable, and even there I find it questionable. Prose is the default superior choice and there should be a clear justification for deviating from it. I concur that the greatest problem is accessibility, but they are also eyesores. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes in primary subsection

It is not normal to have infoboxes for primary elections. Why are there infoboxes in the Republican and Democratic primary subsections? SecretName101 (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

SecretName101, because I felt they were useful. People need to stop basing editorial decisions off of what's "normal" in other articles. If there's an RfC or manual of style entry saying we shouldn't have them, then that's relevant. Otherwise, you're just making a silly WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
This isn't a referendum, so I won't "vote", but they should be removed. The stated purpose of the election infobox template is to summarize the election as a whole. Using them in primary elections is both non-standard and contrary to that purpose. This has already been discussed in the context of elections where the primary is tantamount to election (e.g. 1930 United States Senate election in Louisiana and other Southern primaries), and in those cases the primary infobox goes in the article lead to fulfill that purpose. Infoboxes in subsections implies multiple separate elections rather than primary nominating votes. This comes up every so often and is corrected. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2021 (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) 19:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Listing of former officeholders in endorsement lists

In endorsement lists, officeholders should be listed in the sections that reflect the office they held. Not as "individuals". I had already changed this a while back, and that has been reverted.

In widespread practice on Wikipedia, former officeholders seem to be listed by the office they once held in endorsement boxes, not as mere "individuals".

See 2018 California gubernatorial election, 2010 United States Senate election in Florida, 2018 United States Senate election in Texas, as just some examples. They list ex-officio officeholders by virtue of the office once held . Also see articles like List of Elizabeth Warren 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. While that one does make a difference between former and current office holders (due to the list being long enough), they do not list former officeholders as "notable individuals", but rather list them by virtue of the office they previously held.

Would it make sense to relegate someone such as former president Barack Obama as a "individual"? I'd argue no, it would not.

SecretName101 (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: The reverting editor gave good justification in their edit summary. Someone who is no longer in an elected position should be listed as an individual, as they no longer represent that office. Their endorsements are still notable and that's why they're added. Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
They are still notable by virtue of having held that office. And to claim a political endorsement "represents that office" is completely misunderstanding the legal nature of political endorsements altogether. Just about all political endorsements are technically given by the individual, and do not represent their office. It is illegal in most offices to give a political candidate an endorsement while acting in an official capacity. Endorsements are almost always individual acts, and not official acts of office. Therefore, the argument that former officeholders "do not represent" the office anymore is built on a false premise that endorsements from the incumbent are somehow an act of their office. SecretName101 (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, they are still notable, which is why they're included. Shoestringnomad (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
they are notable by virtue of the office. SecretName101 (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
And you utterly ignored my whole point that endorsements do not work the way y'all are insisting. Endorsements are not an act "representing the office". In fact, that would usually be illegal. SecretName101 (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

And it makes no sense from an pure standpoint of organizing a list to not list an individual who has held an office under the section dedicated to said office. SecretName101 (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree: This is a political page, and the distinctions between tiers of political offices held are crucial. Receiving an endorsement from a former City Council member is good, but receiving an endorsement from a former Governor or POTUS is far, far more important. Our endorsements section should reflect that fact, as they do in practically every other election page. Listing endorsements from former low-level politicians (not to mention celebrities like Scarlett Johansson and Jay-Z) alongside endorsements from former high-level politicians only serves to dilute the importance of the latter. MorganThePirate31 (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I really see it this way: there is no clear negative to listing all officeholders, regardless of whether they are incumbent or former officeholders, in an ex officio (by virtue of their office) manner. On the other hand, I'd argue that there is great confusion that will result from listing former officeholders as "individuals". We are also almost downgrading the endorsements of former officeholders. It'd make no sense for, let's say, a former governor or former president to be listed alongside c-list celebrities and beneath city council members. And anyone used to the formatting of nearly all other articles, where former officeholders are listed by virtue of the office they once held, will be be given a misrepresentation if they merely skim the lists. SecretName101 (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose as these endorsements are not truly ex officio except in the case of a candidate running for that former officeholder's seat, as by dignity of holding that particular office before their endorsement is carrying the weight of being of that office and saying, "this person should replace me; I know this position by virtue of having held it". Other than that, they're a private citizen and it's misleading. If someone were to briefly scan and see a lot a of, say, City Councilmembers endorsing, they would think it's the support of many of currently sitting Council endorsing a future colleague, but if it's people who haven't served 20 years they wouldn't necessary observe that in a quick scan of small font with different sets of years the only thing to distinguish current vs former. When listed in the "Individuals", the description after the names is more than clear enough to observe with a brief scan, "Oh, there's six former City Councilmembers endorsing here" rather than just others. Let's not make this argument an exercise on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the discussion should be perhaps best placed on a Wikiproject Talk rather than an individual page. JesseRafe (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Think of this for a thought experiment, if you support keeping them in the office they formerly held... What if they move on to a different form of government? We keep these lists well maintained and segregated between local officials, state legislators, federal legislators, Executive Branch, etc. So, if someone was a local official and is now a State Senator and they endorse, do we still put them in the local official heading? Does a former NY State Assemblymember now serving in Congress get added to the "State legislator" section? If the answer is "yes" then you have a coherent rationale for keeping former officeholders in their former roles' headers; if "no", then you have found a logical inconsistency, where if we put Hakeem Jeffries in "Federal legislators" not "State legislators" and John Liu in "State legislators" not "Local officials", then Ruth Messinger or David Paterson have to be listed as "Individuals" not their prior officeholdings. JesseRafe (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with your point, and see no logical inconsistency with arguing that a politician should be qualified by their highest political office held. An endorsement from David Paterson is notable because he is a former Governor, not because he is a former state senator or Lieutenant Governor, despite him having previously held those positions too. Another way to look at it is to say that no one views, say, Barack Obama as a state senator, even though he did previously hold that position. People, reasonably, view him as a former President. That's his title, and that's how people view him. It would therefore be absurd to list him as an "Individual". It does nothing to organize this page and only makes it less similar to other election pages. I can understand the argument that David Paterson should be listed under something like "Former State Officials" or "Former Governors", but to list him next to people with no political experience and no titles only results in the dilution of the importance of his endorsement. Again, this is a political page, it's completely normal to sort based on prior political experience. MorganThePirate31 (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Clarifying: Apologies for originally signing as my comment as Shoestringnomad. Poor copying/pasting error on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorganThePirate31 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Your (hole-filled) argument seems to act like "individual" is an office or official title, when it is the complete opposite. SecretName101 (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
And your other argument is that it is toooooooo hard for people to look closer at a list to see if the word "former" appears or not next to names, but it is also somehow soooooo easy for them to sift through a long list of "individuals" and recognize all the names that are further identified as former holders of a particular office? That makes zero sense. It truly holds no weight. SecretName101 (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

WFP - Deborah Axt

Per BRD, the other user should start this section since they have the against-policy view, and seek consensus for the change. The source used on the page is unmistakably clear, "Deborah Axt, the former leader of the organizing group Make the Road, is currently the official nominee on the WFP line, according to BOE records."[1] She is the official nominee of the party. Whether she is replaced later is irrelevant because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JesseRafe (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.thecity.nyc/2021/5/17/22441291/third-party-run-for-mayor-in-new-york-city
The source states "The Working Families Party line is also filled — by a placeholder who is destined to be booted off the ballot before voting day in November."
This is an article about an election, not about a ballot. We don't need a crystal ball - we have a source - a very clear one - and the only that places Axt on the ballot - it also says she will not be on for the election. Jd2718 (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
And the ballot is the primary source for who will be eligible for the election, and the NYS BOE is the undisputed relegator for who appears on the ballot for the election. If it matters to you so much to countermand both the source that says Axt is the current nominee and our policy clearly delineated at WP:CRYSTAL that we don't publish conjecture on Wikipedia, then perhaps you would like to drop a note after Axt's name that WFP intends to replace her once the Democratic nominee is named that will display with the other footnotes. Even then, there's no reason the formatting for the parties' nominees should be different. As the only two participants in this conversation, you have not yet demonstrated a consensus to remove her name or break the formatting. JesseRafe (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
This is not about WP:CRYSTAL, it is about honestly and accurately reflecting what the secondary sources say. Jd2718's version is obviously a better way to represent both the content of sources and the true situation. --JBL (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Length of Article

I find that there is consensus to split the Democratic primary section into its own article. The other two options of splitting both sections, or splitting no sections, were not as strongly supported. Some comments did not contain bolded votes, but made their preferences clear, so those preferences were taken into consideration. I do not find the "don't split" arguments convincing enough to override the majority. WP:LENGTH states When an article is too large, consider breaking it into smaller articles, spinning part of it out into a new article, or merging part of it into another existing article. When an article is too small, it may be merged with one or more other existing articles. Such editorial decisions require consensus., which in my opinion implies the most important criteria for a split decision is a talk page discussion resulting in consensus, not necessarily readable prose size. While WP:SIZERULE does not recommend splitting an article with little readable prose, stating Length alone does not justify division, I do not see an absolute prohibition against it. I also note WP:SPLITLIST, which seems to allow for splitting large lists, tables, and other material. WP:COAT arguments will not be examined in detail since that is just an essay. I also note that the example of precedent given, 2010 United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, is a featured article. I hope this close is satisfactory, and that this article improves once large lists such as that endorsement section are moved out. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This notice is currently on 2021 New York City mayoral election#Democratic primary due to its sheer length. Given how the Democratic primary is effectively tantamount to election, it may make sense to separate it out. Muhibm0307 (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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) 01:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=upper-alpha> tags or {{efn-ua}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=upper-alpha}} template or {{notelist-ua}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_New_York_City_mayoral_election/Archive_1&oldid=1140883152"