Talk:2024 London mayoral election

Include the two Lib Dem shortlisted candidates?

Should the two Lib Dem shortlisted candidates - Chris French and Rob Blackie - be added? References: https://news.sky.com/story/who-is-rob-blackie-campaigner-fighting-russian-propaganda-in-bid-to-become-london-mayor-12922416 88.179.219.171 (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I concur, it seems confusing.

I’m not au fait with the election, but I saw some piece on BBC London about Rob Blackie, and frankly it was the first I knew about the upcoming elections. Quickly looked it it up and saw (only) 3 photographs of some candidates, but couldn't understand why there wasn't a photograph of Blackie. I don't even know who Chris French is, too, but one assumes all candidates should be in that picture window section.

Great that there's a Green Party candidate included in the pictures, but why isn't Blackie (or French) included? Charliepenandink (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The general consensus for UK elections is to include only candidates for parties that won at least 5% in the previous election in the infobox. Information about all candidates is in the body of the article. Ralbegen (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

An official photograph for Rob Blackie can be found here: https://www.londonlibdems.org.uk/robblackie which links to https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1a31cW2FYccyxuqbAGykOOMxirt53R8Gm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.16.138 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Candidate or nominee

The article at a number of points refers to people as mayoral nominees (e.g. "the party's former mayoral nominee Steven Norris said"; "and nominee for mayor of Hackney in 2022"; "nominee for mayor in 2008"). I find this wording odd and switched these to "candidate", which BottleOfChocolateMilk has now reverted.

I wish to argue that "candidate" is the better word. It's the word that reliable sources use. "Nominee" is anachronistic in this context. For example, I did a search for "Zoe Garbett" and "candidate", which yielded 1420 Ghits and 13 Google news hits. "Zoe Garbett" and "nominee" yielded 4 Ghits and 1 Google news hits. Let's follow the wording used by reliable sources.

But what do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "candidate" is much more standard. I guess the other view is that "nominee" clears up a slight ambiguity between sought-nomination and received-nomination? I don't think that's a significant enough gain in clarity to justify using less common language. Ralbegen (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

More than a "slight" ambiguity, there is a big difference between losing and winning the nomination. "Nominee" is the universally-used consensus across pretty much all of Wikipedia, and is also used very commonly outside this site as well. It's not like it's some super-obscure term that's never used in a formal context. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The word "nominee" appears nowhere in 2021 London mayoral election. It is used in 2016 London mayoral election, but in the opposite sense (for people seeking a party's candidacy who were unsuccessful). It is used once in 2012 London mayoral election. It is not used in 2008 London mayoral election, 2004 London mayoral election or 2000 London mayoral election. Looking at earlier articles in the same series as this one, it is not a word with much usage, and when it is used, it is without a consistent meaning.

It is a common term in American English, but WP:ENGVAR applies. As indeed does MOS:JARGON. Bondegezou (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I would be totally fine using "candidate" if it's in a sentence like "Garbett was the party's candidate for mayor of Hackney," which makes it clear that she was the nominee. But in a sentence like "Hackney borough councillor and ____ for mayor of Hackney in 2022," "candidate" could either mean that she ran for mayor but lose the Green nomination or that she ran and won the nomination. "Nominee" is a VERY COMMON term that completely clears up this confusion. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Can EU citizens vote?

Are EU citizens still eligible to vote in this election? Or is this a bit of boilerplate left over from pre-Brexit election articles? --- Jfruh (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Some are, some aren't. It's complicated. See this. I'm not certain how best to update the article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This is probably the clearest statement of who can vote. Bondegezou (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. I don't think it's actually that important to get into all the details here, and mostly just wanted to make clear that it's some but not all EU citizens; people who are curious can follow the references. --Jfruh (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Susan Hall’s photo is larger than the others

On mobile at least, Susan Hall’s photo is larger than the other two, which may provide incorrect context.

Should probably make sure they’re always an equal height. Ngriffinuk (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Going back a few pages, this actually appears to be a theme and conservatives always appear in the middle with the larger photo. Ngriffinuk (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Try going back further. They're in order from left to right for %. There's no party that gets a particular place in the order. As to the sizes of the photos, an interface issue I believe, not an editor selection. It could be an issue with Template:Infobox election. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• I just checked and all the images use the default size, none are declared size values. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Can someone who knows how please fix the problem? 87.75.117.183 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks like it's a problem with the Minerva skin, which is adjusting the heights of the three images to make them 100% of the width of the table column each is in; that width is determined by the length of each candidate's name: whilst Hall's name is not wrapped, Khan and Garbett are, so their columns are narrower (and pictures thus smaller). The CSS includes

.content a > img, .content noscript > img { max-width: 100% !important; height: auto !important;}

Disabling the max-width property renders all images the same height.

Whilst I understand CSS, I do not have the skill to alter the skin. Bazza 7 (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I've made some changes to make sure the images all display and are the same size. Notable change: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_election/row&diff=prev&oldid=1219628656&title=Template%3AInfobox_election%2Frow&diffonly=1 ad

Hopefully this looks better now? If not let me know how I can help. 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Parts of my change got reverted. Am following up on Template_talk:Infobox_election#TemplateStyles_revert to understand why. 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Publicly Expressed Interest

https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1742220079826182295?t=5qLY89wcefuEGlWtnm0V0A&s=19

He won't be a major candidate but Laurence Fox definitely has expressed interest at this point 176.26.177.98 (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It needs to be reported by independent reliable sources before we’d consider covering it in the article. Anyone can say anything on Twitter: we wait for independent sources to judge something as being worth talking about. Bondegezou (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Obvious bias

I've tried multiple times to make the article more neutral by providing context behind why some of the current mayor's policies are controversial, but it seems like his supporters keep on reverting my edits, going back to biased language saying he "funded" stuff that was paid for by the taxpayer, and completely skimming over the fact that the he had promised that the ULEZ (his most controversial policy by far) would not be expanded before his election; primary sources are not allowed but apparently secondary sources are "not necessary". Might as well rename the article to "Sadiq Khan's 2024 election campaign" and be done with it. 82.0.194.154 (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't followed this edit war at all. So lets start with the first thing: what do you want to include in the article? and- what reliable sources do you have? Jonjonjohny (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

For starters the last paragraph in the Background section before the ULEZ subsection, I had added more context including his opponents' views, if you go back a few edits you can see it looks less like a list of accomplishments and provides the reader with more information. Then the ULEZ section, no mention of the fact that the expansion went against Khan's own pledge not to expand it before his re-election, which is a major criticism in regards to the policy, while validity is given to his statement that he has "no plans" to intrduce a comprehensive road user charging, despite his track record. I had provided context by citing sources quoting his opponents but Ralbegen believes that that sort of information isn't needed. I'm not going to edit the page any more if it's just going to be reverted back to its current state, but it's not looking great right now. 82.0.194.154 (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I incorporated parts of your changes to the background section, like including the legal challenge. I think the section gives a decent overview of what happened and who's involved. There are sources avaiable that cover back-and-forth over criticism of ULEZ expansion not being included in his manifesto (like this article), but as with a lot of other details that have been covered in the media but aren't mentioned in this article, it wouldn't add a lot. The Conservatives opposed it, some councils opposed it, and there's plenty of material in the other sections covering other candidates who want to undo expansion or remove the ULEZ altogether. Similarly when it comes to other candidates pledging to match free school meal funding: that's included elsewhere in the article, which is one reason there's a sentence giving context in the background section. Ralbegen (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't Brian Rose mentioned in the candidate list?

https://brianformayor.london/ 109.164.225.146 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

We only include information that is covered by a reliable, secondary source. Anyone can put up a website saying anything. We need to see a reliable source, like a newspaper, reporting that Rose is a real candidate. Bondegezou (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Polling graphs

@Ralbegen: can I ask what equation is being used to fit lines to the polling numbers? Because the current lines look like a poor fit. The image file says that's loess, but it doesn't look like loess. It looks polynomial. Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a slightly older version of the next general election code—the line is geom_smooth(method = "loess", formula = y~x, se = FALSE, span = 1.5). Lower span looks overfitted—polling is really sparse this time round! It's a bit better with this new poll, though. From time to time I've been tinkering with a new version of the code that includes calculated spans rather than eyeballed spans as I currently produce, but it's taking its time. Ralbegen (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, agreed, the new graph with the new poll looks much better. Loess must have been struggling with the low number of data points. I couldn't find any specific guidance in the literature on a quick look, but loess is generally recommended for large data sets, not for 7-8 data points! But then nothing is really recommended for 7-8 data points. Bondegezou (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Missing poll from Focaldata - referenced here: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-mayoral-election-polling-voter-id-sadiq-khan-susan-hall-b1148143.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.16.138 (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC) New poll: https://twitter.com/Savanta_UK/status/1778691021057991095

New poll here: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-mayor-election-sadiq-khan-susan-hall-poll-b1153729.html 86.8.16.138 (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

https://savanta.com/knowledge-centre/published-polls/polling-london-mile-end-institute-qmul-25-april-2024/ 86.8.16.138 (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Another poll here - Focaldata 22 March - 2 April 2024.

https://www.focaldata.com/blog/london-mayoral-polling-for-hope-not-hate 86.8.16.138 (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

New YouGov poll out. Bondegezou (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2024

change the current listing for Amy Gallagher to as follows:

Social Democratic Party

Amy Gallagher was announced as the Social Democratic Party’s candidate on 12 December 2023 following selection by a vote of party members in London. Born and raised in South London, the daughter of a taxi driver, Gallagher worked as an NHS nurse for over 10 years in hospitals and communities cross London. She acted as a whistleblower speaking out against racial and religious discrimination in the NHS, and is currently bringing a legal case against the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust. Gallagher’s manifesto focuses on increasing housebuilding, ending the Ultra-Low Emission Zone, improving public transport, creating more opportunities for civic volunteering, taking a zero-tolerance approach to crime, and taking a hostile stance against identity politics. Merfinator (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That edit uses only primary sources. We focus on the use of secondary sources. You need to show independent sources saying things about Gallagher. Bondegezou (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Why are only three candidates featured at the top?

This is clear bias when there are many more candidates 66.108.36.111 (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Only candidates whose party surpassed 5% of the vote in the previous election get included in the infobox, to avoid having an overly cluttered infobox (and once the election actually happens, only candidates who got >5% of the vote are included). See WP:5%R. Those other candidates will be included in the infobox if they surpass 5% of the vote in this election. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)

WP:5%R repeatedly says the rule should not be strictly enforced. RS coverage and polling suggests that Blackie and maybe Cox are as significant candidates as Garbett. I think there is a case for their inclusion in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

In the last month there have been about countless articles about Khan, fewer but still dozens about Hall, 19 articles about Garbett, 16 on Blackie, 3 on Cox. Among the others, there are nine about Binface, one about Campbell, Rose has a few excluding fringe and crypto outlets; nobody else has anything. By coverage I think that justifies a 4-candidate infobox with Khan, Hall, Garbett and Blackie, if there's consensus among editors. The case for including Cox would be based on poll headline results, which I think is a weaker inclusion threshold. Ralbegen (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That seems sensible to me (but I acknowledge the difficulty of making decisions like this about current elections). Bondegezou (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I note that the ITV London mayoral debate included Khan, Hall, Garbett and Blackie. I think that's significant in terms of how we should summarise the article. Bondegezou (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

How many citizens eligible to vote?

I was hoping to find this information in this Wikipedia article. It's clearly missing (like in the news articles I read). Can anyone add that? --2003:CC:374B:603B:D28F:171C:83CA:43A7 (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that gets announced before the results. There were 6,191,387 eligible voters last time. Ralbegen (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)