Talk:2013 New York City Comptroller election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extra Infobox[edit]

This discussion has been moved from User talk:DONALDderosa in order to allow for a third opinion. Any syntax that did not carry over can be found there.

Howdy again. Just to touch base on the election article. As far as the infobox goes, the articles you cited (NYC Comptroller, NYC Mayoral, NYC Public Advocate elections) should have an infobox. However, someone didn't put them there. It really is best to have them though. If there are images of the candidates, and someone willing to put in the work, it is the better way. As to the "See Also" section, the articles I had in there were pertinent and do follow general thought processes of a reader. So did the ones you added. I think it is best to have both. Finally, to avoid an edit war, it is best not to revert a revert. I consider us to be something of partners on the article (and we do have creative differences), but in the future, it is best to start a discussion on the talk page or on a user talk page before reverting again. Going on policy, I have added the infobox and see also back to the article. Thanks. Have a good one. PrairieKid (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the 'See Also' page originally because it was not organized but I took the liberty of organizing it. Well, if you look at many local (Mayor, Comptroller), state (Gubernatorial, Lt. Governor), and federal (House of Reps, Senate) all the primary elections are not displayed by an infobox with the candidates pictures but with a simple graph, stating the candidates names, party, popular vote, and percentage. For example, look at various Senate elections from 2012, or any election, you will not see an infobox for the primary election. For someone (you) who claims that the articles I cited "should" have an infobox, none of them do. I have never seen an election, local, state, or federal, that has displayed primary results buy an infobox. I think you are wrong on this as no article proves it. - DONALDderosa (talk) 03:06, 9July 2013 (UTC)
I ask you to consider the several thousand elections that happen every even year, and the 100's more that happen every odd numbered year. Because of the pure volume of these elections, and the fact that most candidates do not already have articles and pictures, most do not have infoboxes. However, many of the more-developed articles do have small boxes with the images. (A small box off to the side, or several images in a row are the most common.) The Presidential Election articles (and many high-profile election articles0) have them because all of those candidates have images and because there are several times as many people reading and contributing to those. I personally think that regardless of what the rest have, the infobox does look more... professional (?) and is much more descriptive and visual, not to mention the fact that it has the image of the candidates. I think we are both pretty confident that we are right. I am a senior editor to you, and I ask that you heed to my advice. However, before we break the 3 Revert Rule, I would be happy to open a discussion with an administrator to determine what to do. PrairieKid (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
To respond to that last revert, as to the number of infoboxes, this is also simple. The Democratic Party is the only one with more than one candidate, so there isn't any need. However, if the Republicans had multiple major candidates (with articles and images), yes, we would have many infoboxes. Finally, I am going to ask you to not revert my edits. There is a three revert rule on WP and neither of us should break it (and face a permanent block) over something so trivial. PrairieKid (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, infobox's do look more professional, but only one, for the general election. In this election, yes, their are only multiple candidates for the Democratic primary. What gets me is that if you want to have a primary election infobox, that means that if their are multiple candidates from 10 party's, that is 10 infobox's. Does than seem to look professional then? No. Just because you are a "senior" editor to me does not mean you are right. Besides presidential primary's, I have never seen elections that have infobox's for primary's. Please provide me with a few elections where there are infobox's for primary's. I would be more then happy to have this discussion with an administrator. Let me know how we can work that out and be my guest to start that discussion. - DONALDderosa (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

3O Response: The infobox guidance says: "This infobox describes a presidential, legislative or parliamentary election." I read this as applying to the election for the office itself, not a primary. In a sense having infoboxes for primaries, as part of the candidate selection process, would be UNDUE because they could not include state or local caucuses. And what about those situations where no primary is held because the party candidate is un-opposed? The only situation where primary election infoboxes would be appropriate are in the open-primary situations where the front runner gets the majority over all others. Finally, how would an infobox help this article go beyond Start level classification? My IMH-3O, do not put infoboxes in articles about primaries in this or most other primary election articles. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC) .[reply]

Quote.[edit]

If you Google for "spitzer failed big time", you find that different sources transcribe the ad differently. I've seen:

"failed big time"
'failed. big time"
"failed, big time"
"failed - big time"
"failed — big time"

The source we use, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57594981/eliot-spitzers-new-ad-for-comptroller-i-failed-big-time/, has it both ways, with a comma in the title and a dash in the body. I don't know that there's a right answer here, so I'm just gonna leave it alone. MilesMoney (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article must be corrected[edit]

The current name of the article, New York City comptroller election, 2013, must be changed to New York City Comptroller election, 2013. The only difference is the capitalization of the C in Comptroller. As this is an official government position, Comptroller should be capitalized. A great example is the previous Comptroller election in 2009, in which Comptroller is capitalized. - DONALDderosa (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 article was incorrect. I would suggest looking at the 2005, 2009, 2013, or just about any other year's New York City mayoral election article. I moved the 2009 article, so it is also right. See WP:NAME. PrairieKid (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York City comptroller election, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_New_York_City_Comptroller_election&oldid=1212496967"