Talk:Mayor of Long Branch, New Jersey

Wikidata links

No decision to remove the links has been made at the RFC that is currently open. You should know, it is your RFC. We generally wait for them to close by a neutral third party who can gauge consensus, before acting on them. You are also aware that no such decision was made at the first RFC, which is why you started the second RFC. --RAN (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ):- Regardless of the RFC, using an inter-language link for a purpose other than linking to a foreign language article is nothing short of WP:GAMING and you know it. The purpose of ILLs is explained here: Help:Interlanguage links. Since none of these topics have articles in another language, it is clear you are not using the ILL for its intended purpose. Stop trying to game the system and clutter articles with useless links.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It is one of the options at the RFC that you proposed! A neutral third party will gauge consensus and close your RFC. --RAN (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

That option was to use the ILL for their intended purpose, not to game the system!--Rusf10 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree this is a misuse of the i-l-l template and this article is terribly confusing and cluttered with useless links (to the average reader). It shouldn't be hard to reach a consensus here to remove these links from this article. MB 04:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Also the overuse of red links is an issue here. As per WP:REDYES, notability guidelines apply to red links too.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed a couple as a starting point. I also think RAN may be fouling foul of their ArbCom-imposed editing restrictions by creating unsourced entries at WD and then linking them here. - Sitush (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The editing restriction (one of several) says Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is prohibited from linking as a reference any external site to which he has contributed. I'm guessing RAN would try to argue that the links are not references. Even if so, they're still crap and creating a circular mess. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Turnout

The source used for the comment about turnout is an op-ed and we're citing it as a factual statement, ie: that having the elections in May is the reason for the low turnout. We can't do that. It could just as well be because most people don't attach much weight to the local election, for example. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed the bit about election date causing low turnout. - Sitush (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Rollback

I rolled back your changes, too many out of process changes to address individually, like removing references you do not agree with. There is no rule to not use "Political Graveyard" and the vanity press you listed as unreliable is not to be used for notability. My change also restores the note from the town librarian. I also removed the notability tag, the notability of mayors was determined in a recent RFC. --RAN (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

And you were reverted by someone else on the grounds of "crappy sourcing". Succinct and accurate. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link for the RfC regarding notability of mayors. - Sitush (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Political Graveyard

I had mentioned the potential issue with the Political Graveyard website on RAN's talk page a few hours ago. As stated there, WP:RSN has several past discussions regarding the thing (four as of that post) and while some people (RAN included) have tried to argue that it is reliable, more have raised concerns about its veracity and noted WP:SPS. I'm thinking that RAN should know this given their past participation but, regardless, I've removed it because the past consensus seems clear to me. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This issue is now at WP:RSN again. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

And closed there as "not reliable". - Sitush (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Schneider term length

Is there a limit on the number of times someone can be mayor? We say for Schneider that his term ending 2018 was his "seventh and final term" but also say that he was beaten in the 2018 election, which means he stood for an eighth term. This matters because "and final" implies that he cannot stand again but clearly he did. Seems to be a breach of WP:CRYSTAL because presumably he could try again in 2022 (or even earlier if the mayor-elect were to die in office or prior to formal appointment). Unless I'm misunderstanding the system, of course. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have removed "and final". - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Inline note and NPOV

There is a hidden inline note saying "Here is where the sources differ: |[[Charles Asa Francis]] || ||1904 to 1906||He became mayor in December of 1904. |- ||[[Rufus Blodgett]]|| (1834-1910)||1903 to 1904||There are claims that he was the first mayor under the reincorporation as a city on April 8, 1903."

I have no idea what sources are being referred to but why on earth are we seemingly preferring one version over another? WP:NPOV. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Rufus Blodgett

Both the entry for Rufus Blodgett and the image caption relating to him say that he served seven terms as mayor, with the first being 1894-98. The other six terms do not appear to be in the list. Makes no sense but I am hampered by lack of access to some of the sources. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this source, used for the Schneider entry, says that Schenider's seventh term was "unprecedented". So what's with Blodgett, even allowing for the inline note mentioned in a preceding section here? - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

According to this source used at Rufus Blodgett, he was mayor on five occasions. - Sitush (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Dates of appointment

A lot of the older entries have the somewhat repetitive "he became mayor on [day] May [year]" in the Notes column. Obviously, the year bit is already in the preceding column, so there is probably no need to mention it again except when it doesn't occur in May. I think specifying the exact day is rather petty and I'm also thinking that it may actually be incorrect since the newer entries seem to be saying that the actual change-over/swearing-in is around 1 July even though elections are in May. - Sitush (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Length of term

Quite a few of the entries seem to assume that the office-holder served a full term. That is, we have a source for their election and then we have a source for another person who was elected four years (or whatever) later. The pairing of two sources such as those to derive the conclusion that the first person served a full term is synthesis. - Sitush (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)