Talk:2024 London Assembly election: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
2. Mayoral candidate if they are also a GLA candidate. |
2. Mayoral candidate if they are also a GLA candidate. |
||
3. First candidate on the list otherwise. |
3. First candidate on the list otherwise. |
||
I can also see the logic behind only using the lead candidates for the sake of consistency, but this seems to me like a reasonable way to do this. |
I can also see the logic behind only using the lead candidates for the sake of consistency, but this seems to me like a reasonable way to do this.[[Special:Contributions/92.239.96.120|92.239.96.120]] ([[User talk:92.239.96.120|talk]]) 16:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:29, 13 April 2024
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Caroline Pidgeon
If Caroline Pidgeon is not standing for re-election, then this is not reflected in the infobox. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 01:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Mayoral Candidate Symbol
In the candidates section, a cross (†) is currently being used to denote candidates that are also standing for mayor of London. This looks to me like a 'died in office' symbol, so I'm not sure it's the best choice. Could a different symbol be used? If it's arbitrary, I like this one: ℳ. Otherwise, maybe just an (MC) for mayoral candidate? Is there any guidance on this in the style guides? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.96.120 (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Infobox Leaders
While I understand the logic of putting the current GLA party leaders in the infobox, I'm not sure people who are not even standing can reasonably be described as "leading the party through that election", which is what the template[1] calls for. So here's the order of preference I've gone with: 1. GLA Party Leader if they are a current GLA candidate. 2. Mayoral candidate if they are also a GLA candidate. 3. First candidate on the list otherwise. I can also see the logic behind only using the lead candidates for the sake of consistency, but this seems to me like a reasonable way to do this.92.239.96.120 (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)