Talk:2019 San Antonio mayoral election

Inclusion of candidates in inbox before election

@SanAnMan: My understanding is that it is atypical to include candidates (even the incumbent) in the infobox at this stage. Notice how articles such as 2019 San Francisco mayoral election, 2019 Arlington mayoral election and 2019 Denver mayoral election (in which an incumbent is also running for reelection) do not include candidates (even incumbents) in the infobox at this pre-election stage. Additionally, when Rahm Emanuel was still seeking a third term as mayor of Chicago, 2019 Chicago mayoral election did not include him in the infobox. SecretName101 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@SecretName101: Can you cite this in policy? Furthermore, can you cite in policy your statement regarding the other infoboxes you have changed with the rationale of "wikipedia convention to exclude candidates placing 5% or above from the infobox"? Thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

For 5% see our discussion on my talk page. It is a rule of hand I have been encountering from experienced wikipedia editors in many election articles. As for holding off on including candidates at this stage, I would presume it is typically done to avoid being premature/arbitrary with our infoboxes. It's not necessary to include candidates at this stage, so why do it, particularly since it presents neutrality issues if we only include a limited number of candidates (polling for mayoral races is often infrequent, so it is problematic to rely on that for determining who to include). SecretName101 (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding Political Alliances in the infobox

I know this is officially a nonpartisan election, but the candidates did have political alliances. Nirenberg was a democrat and Brockhouse was a Republican. I think placing the political endorsements under "party" would be too strong, but placing them under alliance or creating a custom "endorsed by" is a good way to let the reader know political affiliation.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Nirenberg IS NOT a Dem, nor is Brockhouse a Rep. They are both nonpartisan. The endorsements you speak of are clearly mentioned in the Endorsements section. The article also clearly explains both candidates’ political views. There has never been your suggested addition in any previous San Antonio election infobox. Stick with the established methods. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@SanAnMan: Your right that these alliances are mentioned in the article, but all I'm trying to do is move the political party alliance to the infobox. Infoboxes are used as a way to quickly gain facts. I feel like a lot of readers will probably just glance at the infobox and move a on. If you absolutely have to add this to every other San Antonio election I can, but I feel like this election needs it because it was unusually partisan. - Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

What you “feel” makes absolutely no matter to the article. And you don’t get to change the established format of every single election article without consensus from other editors. - SanAnMan (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the only one that "feels" that partisanship has been making its way into nonpartisan races. [1] [2] [3] [4] Help:Infobox states that infoboxes should give a concise "at a glance" look at the facts presented in the article. Which in this case I'm trying to help the reader have an "at a glance" understanding of the candidates political endorsements. As for reaching consensus what do you think we're doing now? A similar discussion could be put into election articles where there was heavy partisan politics. - Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox election has no field for your suggested addition. If it’s not in the template it doesn’t belong. I’m not changing my mind on this. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Consensus has already been met under Template talk:Infobox election that in situations like this a custom "endorsed by" could be put in. Having a discussion could be difficult if your never going to change your mind, that's not the best attitude for a discussion.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

One person’s response does not equal consensus. You’re also leaving out a ton of details in that talk section. Not good enough. - SanAnMan (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you cite policy on that if something is not included in the template that it's not allowed, the reason they allow these custom parameters is for uncommon situations like this. - Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you cite any election infobox anywhere in current existence that includes your “custom field”? - SanAnMan (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I can see you have no policy for your claim that it doesn't belong due to its absence from the template, which seems to be your only current argument for it not belonging in the infobox. We can kind of see a similar occurrence in the New York City mayoral elections of party endorsements being placed under "alliance". I just don't think "alliance" is the best thing to use since it usually is referring to parliamentary systems. If alliance works in the New York City elections is suppose it could work here to. However, I thought a custom parameter could be a better way of showing the party endorsement. - Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• 3O Response: I think that if the candidates are not running on a party platform and have not been identified by RS as belonging to a party, party affiliation should not be listed in the infobox. No opinion on the custom infobox alternative suggested by Iamreallygoodatcheckers. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• 3O Response: I think if the election is non-partisan and the candidates themselves are not running on a party platform, including endorcements or any other supporters in a custom infobox is bordering on POV. Until or unless that support/endorcement becomes Noteable for the election in some way- it doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. WP:NOTNEWSNightenbelle (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)