This template is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
I really like this template. I did fix a few of the links for some mayors in Northern California. They were linking to the wrong people. Just letting you know. Killiondude (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list the 62 big cities in california might be useful to navigate around from city to city. But I cannot see a utility of looking at one city and wanting to jump the mayor of another city. -MarsRover (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of this? Not sure why we need a template for this. Mikemill (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template has been redesigned now. It is intended to be useful for Mayors. If you are looking at one mayor you might want to look at another. Suppose for example you are trying to consider who they might choose to replace Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the United States Senate, you might start with a page like Byron Brown, which I have been working on a lot lately, and then say. Hmm what do some other mayors look like?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont like this template as it is, but i do see we have them for most states, so consensus says it stays (for now at least). I do respect its existence, and think it has use, its just got problems. i think calif's just feels too big (therefore hard to maintain-most people are city boosters, not position of mayor statewide boosters), and of course, its not great to have a navigational template where more than half are redlinks. i do see we SHOULD have articles for all mayors for over 100k cities. I also dont like the fact that this template needs to be changed with each election or mayor changing event, where most templates are either relatively static or change incrementally (awards templates). It would make more sense to link to an article on "mayor of san francisco" as a position, not the person, and pipe in the name of the current mayor. but we arent going to do that. only 2 or 3 cities have such articles associated with them. AT the least, per marsrover, this template should be used on the mayor articles, not the city articles. wait, Ok, i just figured out why it is on the city pages: the redlinked mayors wont get changed at election time unless the template appears on the city page, and a city article editor notices the discrepancy between the mayor named in the article and the template. also, at election time, an editor may notice the template and change it there while working on the city article. again, its not easy to maintain this list unless someone is diligent. IS someone strongly attached to this article?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In some cities, the position of mayor is a nonpartisan position. Those mayors should not have a D or R after their name in this template. Bahooka (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second on this - these elections are voter-nominated and are non-partisan. Party affiliation should not be attached. Marleeashton (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If all mayoral positions in California are non-partisan, how is the personal party affiliation relevant? The Ds and Rs should all be removed then. Looking for more input from other editors. Bahooka (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bahooka exactly. There's been a rogue mass editor using multiple IPs changing the affiliations, its been going on for so long. I don't think the affiliation should be mentioned until they are in an office where the party affiliation is relevant. (so councilmembers should be exempt as well) Marleeashton (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should this template include the party affiliations of non-partisan mayors? Bahooka (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem strange not to note their affiliations, provided they are well documented. The office may be non partisan but the holder (usually) isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukewarmbeer (talk • contribs) 12:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem like a problem to me. Many city government electeds are technically nonpartisan. But here, it should be fine, especially in this template of large cities where party affiliation is absolutely part of the campaign process. TheSavageNorwegian 20:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though the elections are technically non-partisan almost all individuals belong to the Democratic or Republican party. I do not see a problem with including party affiliations. Grahaml35 (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the consensus is to retain the party affiliation, so I will remove the tag. I do have a final question . . . what is the source of the affiliations and is it reliable? Thank you all for your input. Bahooka (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
