![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just to stick it on the talk page for a bit more visibility - Please stop adding "potential candidates" - because that is 1) WP:CRYSTAL and 2) in theory, is a nearly endless list. Wait until people declare or decline, there is no rush ( WP:NOTNEWS). Turini2 ( talk) 18:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Tory is saying to councillors that he won't resign until after the budget process is finished - which could take weeks. There's also requests to him from his allies that he not resign. Shouldn't we wait for him to resign before discussing a by-election that would never happen? If nothing else, there needs to be information in the article that makes it clear that there may not be a by-election. Nfitz ( talk) 01:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
McKelvie shouldn't be listed as "acting mayor" in the infobox before Tory even resigns.
Neither the City of Toronto Act or the Toronto Municipal Code state the deputy mayor becomes acting mayor, but rather acts as mayor, in the office of deputy mayor.
As the office of mayor is granted to the head of council in provincial legislation, it would simply become vacant once Tory resigns. The deputy mayor does not assume the office of head of council and by definition is not the incumbent mayor. —WildComet talk 04:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Any suggestions on rewording the background section? Turini2 ( talk) 09:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. But Wikipedia bases sources on secondary sources (major news media), not just primary sources. The City says it is not an official title role, but as per the City official press release, “Under the Council Procedures (Chapter 27 of the Toronto Municipal Code), the Deputy Mayor automatically assumes certain rights, powers and authority given to the Mayor by Council following a Mayor’s resignation until the Declaration of Office for the successful by-election candidate is complete.” I recognize as per the official city press release the City does not designate the official title as there is no such formal title in the City of Toronto Act, but in theory this is what an acting mayor is. Save nomenclature, an acting mayor is a one who takes on the powers and duties in a caretaker capacity, and is the highest official at the time following the resignation of mayor. And importantly, what do we do when all official major mainstream news media say otherwise, despite the press release contradicting? All the major news refer as acting/interim/caretaker/temporary mayor. https://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/who-is-jennifer-mckelvie-what-we-know-of-the-scarborough-councillor-poised-to-take-over-as-acting-mayor-1.6269715
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-who-is-jennifer-mckelvie-toronto-mayor/
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/02/10/jennifer-mckelvie-john-tory-mayor-resignation/
https://thelocal.to/tory-resigns-toronto-mayor-by-election/ Yeungkahchun ( talk) 18:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't see why Layton was removed from the list of potential candidates. The heading is "potential" not "actively considering" - if you want a list of people who have said they are considering than make that a separate section as a number of listed "potential" candidates haven't said theyre considering but have simply been named by others. 199.119.233.209 ( talk) 13:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Reached on Friday, Mr. Layton was non-committal. Asked if he was considering a bid, he replied that it was ”probably a little too early to say." - so he's being encouraged to run but says it's too early to comment. This is evidence he's a "potential candidate". 208.98.222.117 ( talk) 17:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
The very same article that is used as a source for Wong-Tam as a potential candidate also lists Layton [1] and he's listed again two days later [2] No reason to list Wong-Tam, Bravo or others who have been non-commital and not list Layton. 208.98.222.117 ( talk) 17:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
References
I'm not sure if mainstreet or forum has the better approach for including or exlcuding undecided in their percents, but the data in the table should be consistent one way or the other. For now i've added the undecided column and adjusted forum numbers by the fraction of respondants leaning or decided because mainstreet has completed more polls. 2607:FEA8:C2:1100:D568:5576:CE6C:C32B ( talk) 06:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
However, User:Humberland, are some of the e polls seem to be treating undecided differently. Something looks really hinky in this. Nfitz ( talk) 19:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
How is the list of candidates listed in the infobox determined?
I feel like we are getting ahead of the election has not happened yet. No one has any idea how the number will look this early on and the list right now is arbitrary.
In the interest of saving space (since this now takes up half the page) and not favouring/overemphasizing 8-9 candidates, can we remove this until after the election has been held? After which we can add the top 3, or set a vote cutoff (10%)?
I'm not familiar with this template so if there is a way to collapse it, that could also work. But as it stands now, it seems premature to select 9 from 50 people a month out from the election. —WildComet talk 06:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
What are the colours indicating in the polling table? I thought they were showing the largest % in each poll, but that's not the case? 4 of the candidates are coloured in the most recent one. If it is supposed to be that, it should be fixed? Turini2 ( talk) 12:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
There should be some explanation or legend by the chart to show what the colour shading means. It appears to be "10% or higher", which is somewhat aligned to the inclusion in the InfoBox. Greenwalnut ( talk) 15:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The shading in the opinion poll table makes no sense. For the April 21-22 poll the #1 and #3 candidates are shaded. For April 12-13 the #1 candidate is not shaded but #2, #3 and #4 are. It's completely nonsensical. Just shade the lead candidate and that's it. 208.98.222.124 ( talk) 20:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Can you change Matlow's shading to something darker? It is barely visible on my browser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.222.74 ( talk) 11:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I noticed that there were a number of inconsistencies and mistakes in how the polls were being reported in the polling table here. In an effort to prevent the need for an 'undecided' column, someone was re-weighting just some of the polls, leaving others untouched, and selecting different sub-samples in some cases than in others. Here are all the edits I have made, which were cross-referenced with the original poll sources in every case. If someone has a disagreement with this, I'd appreciate discussing it here before reverting my edits, since there are so many and some of them are unequivocally errors.
Added undecided column, to improve clarity and remove the need for scaling reported figures on just some polls
February 14th MSR Poll:
- Bailao listed as not included in the poll, in fact polled at 5%
- Bradford listed at 6%, was actually 4%
- Matlow listed at 10%, should be 6%
- Correct value for other candidates re-calculated.
February 19th MSR Poll:
- Bailao corrected from 16% to 8%
- Bradford corrected from 8% to 4%
- Hunter corrected from 14% to 7%
- Matlow corrected from 12% to 6%
- Saunders corrected from 12% to 6%
- Correct value for other candidates re-calculated.
March 19 MSR Poll:
- Number of participants incorrectly listed as 981, was 985
- This time, Bailao and Davis had the correct percentages while others were incorrect.
- Bradford corrected from 6% to 4%
- Hunter corrected from 10% to 7%
- Mammolitti corrected from 6% to 4%
- Matlow corrected from 15% to 11%
- Saunders corrected from 7% to 5%
March 23 Forum Research Poll:
- Corrected MoE from 3.1% to 3%
- Listed 8% for “other candidates”, despite Forum not actually saying whether this was for other candidates or for undecided voters.
April 12 MSR Poll:
- Matlow listed at 16%, should be 15%
- Saunders listed at 11%, should be 10%
- Other listed at 11%, should be 9%
April 19 MSR Poll:
- Bailao listed at 19%, should be 13%
- Bradford listed at 7%, should be 5%
- Hunter listed at 7%, should be 5%
- Matlow listed at 18%, should be 13%
- Saunders listed at 14%, should be 10%
- Chow listed at 23%, should be 16%
- Other listed at 12%, should be 7%
April 22 Liaison Strategies Poll:
- Bailao listed at 9%, should be 5%
- Bradford listed at 11%, should be 6%
- Furey listed at 2%, should be 1%
- Hunter listed at 9%, should be 5%
- Matlow listed at 21%, should be 12%
- Peruzza listed at 2%, should be 1%
- Saunders listed at 19%, should be 11%
- Chow listed at 23%, should be 13%
- Other listed at 5%, should be 3%
April 26 MSR Poll:
- Incorrect poll data used. Someone added the data for only decided voters, while every previous poll listed in this table used all adults.
- Corrected percentages accordingly.
Alexwaolson ( talk) 15:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Polling firm | Source | Date of poll | Sample Size | MOE | Ana Bailão | Brad Bradford | Olivia Chow | Mitzie Hunter | Josh Matlow | Mark Saunders | Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forum Research | IVR [1] | April 25-26, 2023 | 1,022 | ± 3% | 10% | 7% | 32% | 7% | 14% | 13% | 16% |
Mainstreet Research | IVR [2] | April 25-26, 2023 | 996 | ± 3.1% | 22% | 9% | 26% | 5% | 14% | 11% | 14% |
Liaison Strategies | IVR [3] | April 21-22, 2023 | 1264 | ± 2.75% | 9% | 11% | 23% | 9% | 21% | 19% | 9% |
Mainstreet Research | IVR [4] | April 19-20, 2023 | 1082 | ± 3% | 19% | 7% | 23% | 7% | 18% | 14% | 12% |
Mainstreet Research | IVR [5] | April 12-13, 2023 | 785 | ± 3.5% | 17% | 7% | 16% | 7% | 18% | 13% | 22% |
Mainstreet Research | IVR [6] | April 2-3, 2023 | 1,306 | ± 2.7% | 23% | 8% | 24% | 7% | 9% | 13% | 16% |
Forum Research | IVR [7] | March 23, 2023 | 1,009 | ± 3% | 11% | 5% | 24% | 12% | 18% | 8% | 8% |
Mainstreet Research | IVR [8] | March 19, 2023 | 985 | ± 3.1% | 22% | 6% | – | 11% | 18% | 8% | 35% |
Mainstreet Research | IVR [9] | February 19, 2023 | 1,701 | ± 2.4% | 17% | 9% | – | 16% | 13% | 12% | 33% |
Mainstreet Research | IVR [10] | February 14, 2023 | 1,947 | ± 2.2% | 10% | 7% | – | – | 12% | – | 70% |
Forum Research | IVR [11] | February 14, 2023 | 1042 | ± 3% | 11% | 11% | – | – | – | – | 66% |
It may be my colorblindness or my browser but Matlow's highlight is almost impossible to see on the poll chart. Can the color be changed to something that shows up better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.222.74 ( talk) 11:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
I've removed a few endorsements (mostly from Furey) because they were not notable people without wikipedia pages.
What makes Progress Toronto notable for a Chow endorsement? There's no secondary source of their endorsement to establish notability of them - i.e. The Star or CBC reporting "Progress Toronto endorses Chow" etc Turini2 ( talk) 07:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The article for "2022_Toronto_municipal_election" is full of endorsements by Progress Toronto. They're notable enough as a group for a mention, despite not having their own wiki page. As such, I've added the endorsement in. Greenwalnut ( talk) 12:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I undid the addition of Furey to the polling table - given that he only polled above 5% (which I understand is the agreed threshold) once, and previous polls had him at 2/3%. The most recent poll (Liaison Strategies, May 12-13) has him on 2%, so I believe he should remain excluded from the table at this time. Turini2 ( talk) 14:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
With Furey returning to the table, I think the Notes section at the bottom needs some clean up. I haven't been managing the Polls table, so will let one of the other editors manage that housekeeping - tx! Greenwalnut ( talk) 12:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
It's not sorting properly. Instead of sorting by date, it's sorting in alphabetical order by month (April - June - May). 70.29.86.63 ( talk) 18:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here, but: looking at the infobox and polling tables, I think the colour scheme we're using could use some adjustment. Bailão's and Bradford's colours are very close, and Furey's and Hunter's are also too similar. I understand that these were picked from their websites, but when this results in an overlap of colours, we ought to be making adjustments for our own purposes (because the candidates use their colours for different purposes than we do… and they're not limited to one, like we are). This is actually happening to some extent already: Bradford and Matlow both use shades of blue, but — presumably because there are too many blues — editors opted to use a tertiary yellow; meanwhile, Saunders actually uses blue and yellow for his campaign, not black.
Here is a table showing the colours on wiki, the colours used on their websites, and my own suggestion:
Candidate | Wiki | Primary | Secondary | Tertiary | Website | Proposed |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ana Bailão | https://anabailao.ca/ | |||||
Brad Bradford | https://www.votebradford.ca/ | |||||
Olivia Chow | https://www.oliviachow.ca/ | |||||
Anthony Furey | https://furey.ca/ | |||||
Mitzi Hunter | https://www.mitzieformayor.ca/ | |||||
Josh Matlow | https://www.votematlow.ca/ | |||||
Mark Saunders | https://marksaundersfortoronto.ca/ |
The main thing here is adjusting the shades/tints of the primary colours to be further apart, allowing for more duplication while still being distinct. This freed up space to put Matlow in his primary blue, and in turn move Saunders to yellow. I left Bradford with his secondary colour because there's really no way to fit a fourth blue in, and yellow does show up in his campaign material more than in Matlow's. Meanwhile, Bailão moves to green to add more colour.
Here's how the infobox would look with these colours (hidden for length):
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Opinion polls | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comments? — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should number the candidates from 1 to 102, matching the number on the ballot. I'm seeing at least one candidate who is now campaigning with his number in the election materials. Nfitz ( talk) 17:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that some of the percentages in the "Prior to campaign period" polls table might be incorrect. Also, notes should be added in the "other" boxes for either all the people not listed in the table or just the people not listed in the table currently registered as candidates. 198.96.85.24 ( talk) 19:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Gong should be added as a major candidate, he already spent tge most campaign money. 2A02:3030:805:1AFA:1:0:9172:1222 ( talk) 14:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Gong is not a major candidate. Polling is the agreed upon standard for inclusion. Greenwalnut ( talk) 17:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Today a user (with IP address), added Chloe Brown to the Infobox. Prior discussion has circled around 5% being a threshold for inclusion, and we're kind of there. A few polls. How many is enough? In recent weeks, attempts to add Brown were reverted due to not meeting the standard.
Also, should we have consistency in the candidates in the Infobox, as the Opinion Polling table? Right now, Brown's polling is all in the Notes, and if we have consensus, could be its own column.
Just starting this topic here for some opinions. Thoughts? Greenwalnut ( talk) 17:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Should we create a separate article for Anthony Furey? Thoughts on this? Rushtheeditor ( talk) 00:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Quick question: Where are we putting the various candidates’ platforms? Thanks!
—
Spike
Toronto 10:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi all - I don't feel the table by @ MiltonC is an improvement - it's very hard to read / understand, and the colours are very bright ( MOS:ACCESSIBILITY). It also mixes existing and previous city councillors, MPPs and MPs in the same table. Furthermore, I don't like that it "calls out" politicians that haven't made an endorsement of a particular candidate.
The existing table follows an established pattern for election articles, as far as I recall. What do other people think? Turini2 ( talk) 10:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Greenwalnut ( talk) 14:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
He retired in 2020 I think. That's 3 years. I am sure there could be a photo on the box on the right without his police uniform. MiroslavGlavic ( talk) 00:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
As in previous Toronto elections - the consensus has been that anyone achieving 5% gets to be in the infobox (so that's Chow, Bailao and Saunders). Have reverted.
Talk:2022 Toronto mayoral election#Inclusion of Chloe-Marie Brown into the main infobox (6.3%)
2003 Toronto municipal election (5.2%) Turini2 ( talk) 06:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I thought the practice was to not name the previous office holder at the bottom of the infobox, if the office is already vacant before the incoming official takes office. In other words, we exclude John Tory's name & just use Vacant. Anyways, I've put Tory's name into a footnote. GoodDay ( talk) 13:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Should Furey and Matlow be added to the infobox to make this article consistent with 2021 Canadian federal election? 205.189.94.9 ( talk) 20:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Here are some very interesting maps of the election that may be able to be incorporated into the article:
https://walkitect.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=80b3c1d7d1b1447f86254c75ae7d6254
https://cinycmaps.com/index.php/international/t-o-mayor-2000s CGP05 ( talk) 02:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just to stick it on the talk page for a bit more visibility - Please stop adding "potential candidates" - because that is 1) WP:CRYSTAL and 2) in theory, is a nearly endless list. Wait until people declare or decline, there is no rush ( WP:NOTNEWS). Turini2 ( talk) 18:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Tory is saying to councillors that he won't resign until after the budget process is finished - which could take weeks. There's also requests to him from his allies that he not resign. Shouldn't we wait for him to resign before discussing a by-election that would never happen? If nothing else, there needs to be information in the article that makes it clear that there may not be a by-election. Nfitz ( talk) 01:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
McKelvie shouldn't be listed as "acting mayor" in the infobox before Tory even resigns.
Neither the City of Toronto Act or the Toronto Municipal Code state the deputy mayor becomes acting mayor, but rather acts as mayor, in the office of deputy mayor.
As the office of mayor is granted to the head of council in provincial legislation, it would simply become vacant once Tory resigns. The deputy mayor does not assume the office of head of council and by definition is not the incumbent mayor. —WildComet talk 04:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Any suggestions on rewording the background section? Turini2 ( talk) 09:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. But Wikipedia bases sources on secondary sources (major news media), not just primary sources. The City says it is not an official title role, but as per the City official press release, “Under the Council Procedures (Chapter 27 of the Toronto Municipal Code), the Deputy Mayor automatically assumes certain rights, powers and authority given to the Mayor by Council following a Mayor’s resignation until the Declaration of Office for the successful by-election candidate is complete.” I recognize as per the official city press release the City does not designate the official title as there is no such formal title in the City of Toronto Act, but in theory this is what an acting mayor is. Save nomenclature, an acting mayor is a one who takes on the powers and duties in a caretaker capacity, and is the highest official at the time following the resignation of mayor. And importantly, what do we do when all official major mainstream news media say otherwise, despite the press release contradicting? All the major news refer as acting/interim/caretaker/temporary mayor. https://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/who-is-jennifer-mckelvie-what-we-know-of-the-scarborough-councillor-poised-to-take-over-as-acting-mayor-1.6269715
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-who-is-jennifer-mckelvie-toronto-mayor/
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/02/10/jennifer-mckelvie-john-tory-mayor-resignation/
https://thelocal.to/tory-resigns-toronto-mayor-by-election/ Yeungkahchun ( talk) 18:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't see why Layton was removed from the list of potential candidates. The heading is "potential" not "actively considering" - if you want a list of people who have said they are considering than make that a separate section as a number of listed "potential" candidates haven't said theyre considering but have simply been named by others. 199.119.233.209 ( talk) 13:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Reached on Friday, Mr. Layton was non-committal. Asked if he was considering a bid, he replied that it was ”probably a little too early to say." - so he's being encouraged to run but says it's too early to comment. This is evidence he's a "potential candidate". 208.98.222.117 ( talk) 17:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
The very same article that is used as a source for Wong-Tam as a potential candidate also lists Layton [1] and he's listed again two days later [2] No reason to list Wong-Tam, Bravo or others who have been non-commital and not list Layton. 208.98.222.117 ( talk) 17:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
References
I'm not sure if mainstreet or forum has the better approach for including or exlcuding undecided in their percents, but the data in the table should be consistent one way or the other. For now i've added the undecided column and adjusted forum numbers by the fraction of respondants leaning or decided because mainstreet has completed more polls. 2607:FEA8:C2:1100:D568:5576:CE6C:C32B ( talk) 06:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
However, User:Humberland, are some of the e polls seem to be treating undecided differently. Something looks really hinky in this. Nfitz ( talk) 19:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
How is the list of candidates listed in the infobox determined?
I feel like we are getting ahead of the election has not happened yet. No one has any idea how the number will look this early on and the list right now is arbitrary.
In the interest of saving space (since this now takes up half the page) and not favouring/overemphasizing 8-9 candidates, can we remove this until after the election has been held? After which we can add the top 3, or set a vote cutoff (10%)?
I'm not familiar with this template so if there is a way to collapse it, that could also work. But as it stands now, it seems premature to select 9 from 50 people a month out from the election. —WildComet talk 06:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
What are the colours indicating in the polling table? I thought they were showing the largest % in each poll, but that's not the case? 4 of the candidates are coloured in the most recent one. If it is supposed to be that, it should be fixed? Turini2 ( talk) 12:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
There should be some explanation or legend by the chart to show what the colour shading means. It appears to be "10% or higher", which is somewhat aligned to the inclusion in the InfoBox. Greenwalnut ( talk) 15:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The shading in the opinion poll table makes no sense. For the April 21-22 poll the #1 and #3 candidates are shaded. For April 12-13 the #1 candidate is not shaded but #2, #3 and #4 are. It's completely nonsensical. Just shade the lead candidate and that's it. 208.98.222.124 ( talk) 20:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Can you change Matlow's shading to something darker? It is barely visible on my browser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.222.74 ( talk) 11:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I noticed that there were a number of inconsistencies and mistakes in how the polls were being reported in the polling table here. In an effort to prevent the need for an 'undecided' column, someone was re-weighting just some of the polls, leaving others untouched, and selecting different sub-samples in some cases than in others. Here are all the edits I have made, which were cross-referenced with the original poll sources in every case. If someone has a disagreement with this, I'd appreciate discussing it here before reverting my edits, since there are so many and some of them are unequivocally errors.
Added undecided column, to improve clarity and remove the need for scaling reported figures on just some polls
February 14th MSR Poll:
- Bailao listed as not included in the poll, in fact polled at 5%
- Bradford listed at 6%, was actually 4%
- Matlow listed at 10%, should be 6%
- Correct value for other candidates re-calculated.
February 19th MSR Poll:
- Bailao corrected from 16% to 8%
- Bradford corrected from 8% to 4%
- Hunter corrected from 14% to 7%
- Matlow corrected from 12% to 6%
- Saunders corrected from 12% to 6%
- Correct value for other candidates re-calculated.
March 19 MSR Poll:
- Number of participants incorrectly listed as 981, was 985
- This time, Bailao and Davis had the correct percentages while others were incorrect.
- Bradford corrected from 6% to 4%
- Hunter corrected from 10% to 7%
- Mammolitti corrected from 6% to 4%
- Matlow corrected from 15% to 11%
- Saunders corrected from 7% to 5%
March 23 Forum Research Poll:
- Corrected MoE from 3.1% to 3%
- Listed 8% for “other candidates”, despite Forum not actually saying whether this was for other candidates or for undecided voters.
April 12 MSR Poll:
- Matlow listed at 16%, should be 15%
- Saunders listed at 11%, should be 10%
- Other listed at 11%, should be 9%
April 19 MSR Poll:
- Bailao listed at 19%, should be 13%
- Bradford listed at 7%, should be 5%
- Hunter listed at 7%, should be 5%
- Matlow listed at 18%, should be 13%
- Saunders listed at 14%, should be 10%
- Chow listed at 23%, should be 16%
- Other listed at 12%, should be 7%
April 22 Liaison Strategies Poll:
- Bailao listed at 9%, should be 5%
- Bradford listed at 11%, should be 6%
- Furey listed at 2%, should be 1%
- Hunter listed at 9%, should be 5%
- Matlow listed at 21%, should be 12%
- Peruzza listed at 2%, should be 1%
- Saunders listed at 19%, should be 11%
- Chow listed at 23%, should be 13%
- Other listed at 5%, should be 3%
April 26 MSR Poll:
- Incorrect poll data used. Someone added the data for only decided voters, while every previous poll listed in this table used all adults.
- Corrected percentages accordingly.
Alexwaolson ( talk) 15:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Polling firm | Source | Date of poll | Sample Size | MOE | Ana Bailão | Brad Bradford | Olivia Chow | Mitzie Hunter | Josh Matlow | Mark Saunders | Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forum Research | IVR [1] | April 25-26, 2023 | 1,022 | ± 3% | 10% | 7% | 32% | 7% | 14% | 13% | 16% |
Mainstreet Research | IVR [2] | April 25-26, 2023 | 996 | ± 3.1% | 22% | 9% | 26% | 5% | 14% | 11% | 14% |
Liaison Strategies | IVR [3] | April 21-22, 2023 | 1264 | ± 2.75% | 9% | 11% | 23% | 9% | 21% | 19% | 9% |
Mainstreet Research | IVR [4] | April 19-20, 2023 | 1082 | ± 3% | 19% | 7% | 23% | 7% | 18% | 14% | 12% |
Mainstreet Research | IVR [5] | April 12-13, 2023 | 785 | ± 3.5% | 17% | 7% | 16% | 7% | 18% | 13% | 22% |
Mainstreet Research | IVR [6] | April 2-3, 2023 | 1,306 | ± 2.7% | 23% | 8% | 24% | 7% | 9% | 13% | 16% |
Forum Research | IVR [7] | March 23, 2023 | 1,009 | ± 3% | 11% | 5% | 24% | 12% | 18% | 8% | 8% |
Mainstreet Research | IVR [8] | March 19, 2023 | 985 | ± 3.1% | 22% | 6% | – | 11% | 18% | 8% | 35% |
Mainstreet Research | IVR [9] | February 19, 2023 | 1,701 | ± 2.4% | 17% | 9% | – | 16% | 13% | 12% | 33% |
Mainstreet Research | IVR [10] | February 14, 2023 | 1,947 | ± 2.2% | 10% | 7% | – | – | 12% | – | 70% |
Forum Research | IVR [11] | February 14, 2023 | 1042 | ± 3% | 11% | 11% | – | – | – | – | 66% |
It may be my colorblindness or my browser but Matlow's highlight is almost impossible to see on the poll chart. Can the color be changed to something that shows up better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.222.74 ( talk) 11:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
I've removed a few endorsements (mostly from Furey) because they were not notable people without wikipedia pages.
What makes Progress Toronto notable for a Chow endorsement? There's no secondary source of their endorsement to establish notability of them - i.e. The Star or CBC reporting "Progress Toronto endorses Chow" etc Turini2 ( talk) 07:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The article for "2022_Toronto_municipal_election" is full of endorsements by Progress Toronto. They're notable enough as a group for a mention, despite not having their own wiki page. As such, I've added the endorsement in. Greenwalnut ( talk) 12:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I undid the addition of Furey to the polling table - given that he only polled above 5% (which I understand is the agreed threshold) once, and previous polls had him at 2/3%. The most recent poll (Liaison Strategies, May 12-13) has him on 2%, so I believe he should remain excluded from the table at this time. Turini2 ( talk) 14:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
With Furey returning to the table, I think the Notes section at the bottom needs some clean up. I haven't been managing the Polls table, so will let one of the other editors manage that housekeeping - tx! Greenwalnut ( talk) 12:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
It's not sorting properly. Instead of sorting by date, it's sorting in alphabetical order by month (April - June - May). 70.29.86.63 ( talk) 18:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here, but: looking at the infobox and polling tables, I think the colour scheme we're using could use some adjustment. Bailão's and Bradford's colours are very close, and Furey's and Hunter's are also too similar. I understand that these were picked from their websites, but when this results in an overlap of colours, we ought to be making adjustments for our own purposes (because the candidates use their colours for different purposes than we do… and they're not limited to one, like we are). This is actually happening to some extent already: Bradford and Matlow both use shades of blue, but — presumably because there are too many blues — editors opted to use a tertiary yellow; meanwhile, Saunders actually uses blue and yellow for his campaign, not black.
Here is a table showing the colours on wiki, the colours used on their websites, and my own suggestion:
Candidate | Wiki | Primary | Secondary | Tertiary | Website | Proposed |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ana Bailão | https://anabailao.ca/ | |||||
Brad Bradford | https://www.votebradford.ca/ | |||||
Olivia Chow | https://www.oliviachow.ca/ | |||||
Anthony Furey | https://furey.ca/ | |||||
Mitzi Hunter | https://www.mitzieformayor.ca/ | |||||
Josh Matlow | https://www.votematlow.ca/ | |||||
Mark Saunders | https://marksaundersfortoronto.ca/ |
The main thing here is adjusting the shades/tints of the primary colours to be further apart, allowing for more duplication while still being distinct. This freed up space to put Matlow in his primary blue, and in turn move Saunders to yellow. I left Bradford with his secondary colour because there's really no way to fit a fourth blue in, and yellow does show up in his campaign material more than in Matlow's. Meanwhile, Bailão moves to green to add more colour.
Here's how the infobox would look with these colours (hidden for length):
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Opinion polls | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comments? — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should number the candidates from 1 to 102, matching the number on the ballot. I'm seeing at least one candidate who is now campaigning with his number in the election materials. Nfitz ( talk) 17:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that some of the percentages in the "Prior to campaign period" polls table might be incorrect. Also, notes should be added in the "other" boxes for either all the people not listed in the table or just the people not listed in the table currently registered as candidates. 198.96.85.24 ( talk) 19:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Gong should be added as a major candidate, he already spent tge most campaign money. 2A02:3030:805:1AFA:1:0:9172:1222 ( talk) 14:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Gong is not a major candidate. Polling is the agreed upon standard for inclusion. Greenwalnut ( talk) 17:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Today a user (with IP address), added Chloe Brown to the Infobox. Prior discussion has circled around 5% being a threshold for inclusion, and we're kind of there. A few polls. How many is enough? In recent weeks, attempts to add Brown were reverted due to not meeting the standard.
Also, should we have consistency in the candidates in the Infobox, as the Opinion Polling table? Right now, Brown's polling is all in the Notes, and if we have consensus, could be its own column.
Just starting this topic here for some opinions. Thoughts? Greenwalnut ( talk) 17:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Should we create a separate article for Anthony Furey? Thoughts on this? Rushtheeditor ( talk) 00:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Quick question: Where are we putting the various candidates’ platforms? Thanks!
—
Spike
Toronto 10:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi all - I don't feel the table by @ MiltonC is an improvement - it's very hard to read / understand, and the colours are very bright ( MOS:ACCESSIBILITY). It also mixes existing and previous city councillors, MPPs and MPs in the same table. Furthermore, I don't like that it "calls out" politicians that haven't made an endorsement of a particular candidate.
The existing table follows an established pattern for election articles, as far as I recall. What do other people think? Turini2 ( talk) 10:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Greenwalnut ( talk) 14:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
He retired in 2020 I think. That's 3 years. I am sure there could be a photo on the box on the right without his police uniform. MiroslavGlavic ( talk) 00:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
As in previous Toronto elections - the consensus has been that anyone achieving 5% gets to be in the infobox (so that's Chow, Bailao and Saunders). Have reverted.
Talk:2022 Toronto mayoral election#Inclusion of Chloe-Marie Brown into the main infobox (6.3%)
2003 Toronto municipal election (5.2%) Turini2 ( talk) 06:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I thought the practice was to not name the previous office holder at the bottom of the infobox, if the office is already vacant before the incoming official takes office. In other words, we exclude John Tory's name & just use Vacant. Anyways, I've put Tory's name into a footnote. GoodDay ( talk) 13:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Should Furey and Matlow be added to the infobox to make this article consistent with 2021 Canadian federal election? 205.189.94.9 ( talk) 20:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Here are some very interesting maps of the election that may be able to be incorporated into the article:
https://walkitect.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=80b3c1d7d1b1447f86254c75ae7d6254
https://cinycmaps.com/index.php/international/t-o-mayor-2000s CGP05 ( talk) 02:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)