Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/politics/Archive 5

Transtasman assessments

I notice that several NZ MP articles have assessments on their performance from the site transtasman.co.nz. In two cases (Katrina Shanks and Grant Robertson), there is a table of such assessments over several years. A list of links to the site can be found at [1].

Is transtasman a well-regarded and neutral organisation/publication whose assessments might be used more widely in MP's articles, or should such assessments be removed? I'm more inclined to the latter view, or at least their assessments should be balanced against those of other commentators - and adding those balancing views would be rather a lot of work.-gadfium 21:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the site's "About" and it appears to be part of the Main Report group which, while not notable enough to actually have an article, is a collection of well-established niche publications. I'd consider it inherently biased (pro-business) but not unreliable - on a par with (for example) the NBR. Daveosaurus (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Election result templates - sort order

Hugo and Fanx, rather than some of us creating sort order in the results templates with all electorates in alphabetical order, only for the next user to come along and stick the Maori electorates at the bottom, why don't we have a discussion here which sort order we should use? I for one have been creating these lists in alphabetical order, but I'm open to arguments why the other sort order might be more appropriate. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what we decide, but we shouldn't have a situation where we revert each other's work. I'm guessing that neither of you has noticed that this is going on. Schwede66 02:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Māori electorates have always* (since 1868) been listed separately (in government & academic publications, the news media, and until recently in wikipedia) since they are a separate class of electorate, and they as a whole superimpose on the General (previously European) electorates, thus breaking the 'rule' that all territory is covered by one electorate only. I do not see any advantage in breaking with this convention.

* "always", as in I cannot recall ever seeing a different format in over four decades of following NZ electoral politics, either current or historic.

:edit: I had presumed the layouts/changes I was reverting were done by someone unfamiliar with the convention, but I hadn't investigated who was making the changes as they seemed relatively minor. FanN | talk | 04:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hugo or anybody else - any thoughts? Schwede66 07:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

When I raised the order for the Maori electorates with Schwede in February, only the 1935 & 1938 templates had the four Maori electorates together at the end; the others all had the Maori electorates spread in alphabetical order throughout the list, which is why I proposed listing all of them in alphabetical order too. But as they are separate at the end in many government listings, it would be OK with me to list them all that way. I also noticed that while most elections list electorates alphabetically, some 19c elections (eg 1884 & 1887) are listed geographically north to south. Hugo999 (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm easy, and the points put forward by Fanx are certainly valid. Would others care to comment before we change things around again, just so that we have somewhat broader consensus? Schwede66 07:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

In case this is of any relevance: the printed electoral rolls themselves are numbered as well as named and (until recently, at least) arranging them in number order would give you an alphabetical listing of the general electorates, then an alphabetical listing of the Māori electorates. I'll probably end up at the library tomorrow and (if I remember) will check their copies of the most recent electoral rolls to see if this is still the case. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

(Further to which, I checked the most recent set in the library - dated 2013 - and this is still the case) Daveosaurus (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Daveosaurus, for looking this up. Ok, why don't we go with this - general electorates first, then Maori electorates, and the whole lot sorted alphabetically by electorate. I've added some sub-headings to the 1899 results table. Do others like that? Is that how we should clarify that this is the intention? Schwede66 08:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that Schwede's sub-heading is the best way to handle this, and it clarifies the diversion from a strict alphabetical order. Regarding the geographical listings of electorates North to South; electorates were originally entirely contained within their respective provinces so it made sense to list them within the provinces - the provinces were listed North-South so the electorates followed this pattern. After the abolition of the provinces electorates continued to follow old borders, and old habits. The change to alphabetical listing happened somewhere between the 1925 & 1928 elections (presuming from my reading of AJHR 1926 I H-33 and AJHR 1929 I H-33) FanN | talk | 21:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thinking of doing the rounds of meet-and-greets

Now that the election has been called, I've been thinking about getting in touch with the party publicity officers about getting invites to wellington-based meet-and-greets to get photos of candidates, unless someone else has similar plans. My understanding is that all candidates can have their photos on the electorate page, if we have a suitable, freely licensed, image? I have a camera that's good for taking portrait shots. Given that I'm a political neophyte, any tips would be appreciated before I launch. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Great initiative. Not sure that I can give any political tips, though. If we have suitably licensed photos, we can do with them what we want, on whichever page we like to use them. Schwede66 07:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand WikiProject

In the majority of cases, focused pages of a WikiProject are dubbed to be a Task Force or Work Group. Please consider formalizing this subpage into a semi-organized collaboration on the subject of New Zealand Politics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Liz, what specifically do you mean? Schwede66 17:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Templates for discussion:By-election results templates

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion there is a proposal to delete or merge Template:Christchurch East by-election, 2013 into one of it's transcluded articles. This would presumably have a knock-on effect for many of our other templates for elections, by-elections, by-elections per parliamentary term etc. Your input would be appreciated. FanN | talk | 07:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:NZ electorate result

We are having a discussion about this template and you might want to join in. Schwede66 05:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Encouraging people to take photos of candidates

I've been approached to write some articles for a new blog that CC New Zealand have in the pipeline. I'm thinking that one of my piece should be an article encouraging aspiring photo journalists to take photos of candidates during the election and upload them to wikimedia under a CC license. My real question is: am I right in thinking that we can use (at least) a photo of every candidate on Category:New Zealand electorates + several for people who already have articles? I'll probably also talk about taking photos of natural geographic features and public artworks in their locality. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It might be worth linking to this map with requested images. I found it at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New Zealand. There are similar but more detailed maps of requests in the various geographical subcategories.-gadfium 02:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Internet MANA

If all goes to plan for the Internet Party and the Mana Party they will be contesting electorate seats under their current party identities, and standing a combined list as the Internet Party and MANA Movement, (also to be known as Internet MANA). This will effectively be three parties, and we need to accommodate all three in our election results templates.

Party		Candidate	Notes	List	Index
	Mana Party	Hone Harawira	using {{NZ election box candidate}}	1	Mana Party
	Internet	Laila Harré	using {{NZ election box candidate}}	2	Internet

Internet MANA's proposed logo [2] is primarily black and red - both colours being used by major existing parties. As the party is currently designed to have a short "shelf-life" I propose a gradient as the party political colour to represent this anomalous situation

{{NZ election box coalition candidate}} {{NZ election box coalition candidate}}

Party		Candidate	Notes	List	Index
	Labour	David Cunliffe		1	Labour
	Internet Mana	Miriam Pierard	using {{NZ election box candidate}}	6	Internet Mana
	NZ First	Winston Peters		1	NZ First

The object of this proposal is not simply to introduce a different style of colour template, but to differentiate between the Internet and Mana parties, and between the individual parties and their combined list on the various election tables. I have attempted to incorporate the gradient script into a template #F8F9FA - so far without success. FanN | talk | 11:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Nicely done. If it can be incorporated into the template we may be able to use this technique for other potentially conflicting party colours in the future.-gadfium 23:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Good work, Fanx (as usual). Looks good to me. Schwede66 23:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the gradient doesn't show in Internet Explorer Version 9, (it works fine in Firefox 29, and Chrome Version 35), so I've put a bgcolor in the cells - the gradient overrides it, and will suffice while I try to make it work better, and in template. FanN | talk | 04:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It does look good, and gives scope for using more colours in the cluttered political landscape. I think I read somewhere that no electorate will have candidates from both Mana and Internet standing; it will be one or other, but not both. So it could always be the corresponding constituent party colour. How is this scenario represented in the tables for the conglomerate Alliance party back in the day? Ridcully Jack (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You're correct in that the Internet and Mana parties won't be standing against one another, and if that was the only only consideration then their respective party colours or a new shared colour would suffice. The difference from the current situation and that of the Alliance and its constituent parties is that they gave up their separate identities for elections, both in electorates and as a party list (at least, until the Alliance fractured), while Internet MANA are keeping their separate party structures in standing in electorates while creating a third party (pun not intended) to contest the party vote. They also have a "sunset clause" in their memorandum of understanding that explicitly states their arrangement is for review some five weeks post-election.
Unless terminated as per section 25, this agreement will remain in force until at least six weeks after the 2014 General Election polling day. The component parties will meet together within five weeks of the 2014 General Election to review the agreement. memorandum of understanding: page 5
The memorandum also states intent; To allow each component party to have its own policy spokespeople ... who may publicly advocate their own party’s policy ...
These points taken together show a political structure not previously seen in contemporary NZ politics, and probably has more in common with the United/Reform Coalition as elected in the 1931 election (see results table for 1931 for how we treated party colours for the separate parties and their coalition). FanN | talk | 06:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Reworked tables above with new meta/gradient template type {{Internet Party and MANA Movement/meta/gradient}} - with three #REDIRECTs; {{Internet Party (New Zealand)/meta/gradient}}, {{Mana Party/meta/gradient}} and #F8F9FA
New template {{NZ election box coalition candidate}} references the /meta/gradient templates and as the examples use redirects the differing party names and their relevant meta/shortname and wikilinks work separately. Using the standard candidate or results templates (in this case {{NZ election box candidate}}) we can use either a standard HEX as our meta/color template, or we can use a linear gradient. This means no extra template series to otherwise accommodate the gradients since we only need edit the meta/color templates. FanN | talk | 13:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Internet MANA vs. Internet Mana vs. Internet-Mana

There's discussion on renaming Internet MANA/Mana at Talk:Internet Party and MANA Movement#Article title, and while I support the official capitalised version others do not - and NZ media seem to prefer their own invention of a hyphenated Internet-Mana. Regardless of which version you support you input would be appreciated. FanN | talk | 03:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I have proposed to rename this article at Talk:Internet_Party_and_MANA_Movement. Ground Zero | t 15:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The Civilian

I've started a discussion on the scope of The Civilian article. Please chip in if you are interested. Schwede66 06:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Tasks for the 2014 election

This election we seem to be working on the election in an ad-hoc manner compared to previous elections - no 2014 taskforce as in 2011, and I know I've seen a list of likely new MP pages somewhere, but I can't quite find it now.

I've made a results template that can be edited and pasted to each electorate (primarily for party vote only results) - to be read in conjunction with the Candidates by electorate article, or sections as copied to each electorate. The candidates by electorate templates are easily converted into results templates by simply changing the template name slightly - {{NZ election box candidate}} becomes {{MMP election box candidate}} etc. (NZ election box templates are always created with "redundant" fields that are used only when the templates are renamed).

In lieu of any known offer to create a map of election/electorate results I have written a cartogram - example for current parliament at svg images. FanN | talk | 14:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you yourself set up the 2011 taskforce; why not do it again? :) It was certainly useful to have and encouraged wider participation. Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/politics/New MPs is where we continue to draft new bios when elections or by-elections loom. Schwede66 20:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to generate new electorate maps, but at the moment don't have access to the software I used last time to convert the electorate boundary files into SVG images. My current job also seems to take up more of my time than the job I had back when I made the previous boundary maps. I like the cartograph, but it would be nice if we had a map as well. If I figure out a way to generate an svg map I'll make it available. Unfortunately, since so many electorate boundaries have changed, it's not just a matter of changing the old file. A NZ electorate map is now complete (possibly being tweaked), and I'm making individual maps from it, starting with the new electorates, then the changed electorates (which is most of them). Ridcully Jack (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Many of the electorate articles seem to have broken external links to http://www.parliament.nz that need updating. Nurg (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Some electorate's geographical descriptions are inaccurate after the boundary review. Ridcully Jack (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we leave the current geographic descriptions in place, and add the changes to the text? That way, the reader can see how an electorate shifted over time. I've seen it happen that the old description is deleted, with only the current geographic description given, and that is much less useful.

I've updated the Members of Parliament tables for all current electorates to the agreed format (e.g. for Taupo from this to this), and there's just two Maori electorates to go (Te Tai Hauāuru and Tāmaki Makaurau). With regards to the latter one, I propose to split off the 1999 to 2002 Hauraki (Māori electorate); please discuss on the article's talk page if you have any thoughts. Schwede66 19:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with leaving older electorate geo-details in place, with changes noted - elections.govt.nz dumps its old data at every boundary review, it would be a shame if we did the same. Per the national election map - last election our map was somewhat distorted, particularly with the lower South Island being stretched far to the west (it looked more like a tv weather map), are we using a more conventional one this time? FanN | talk | 07:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't have a lot of control over the map projection that would work with the data I could access last time. I'm not sure if it's much different this time - have a look. New_Zealand_electorates,_2014.svg Ridcully Jack (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That map is fine, unfortunately for the last two elections we've used a highly distorted map (see 2008 and 2011). My analysis of the variation from our standard NZ map is here. I experimented with fixing the map by scaling the x-axis (to approx 70%) but significant errors were still apparent. FanN | talk | 22:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yuck, I don't remember making such an ugly map! It could be that it needs some kind of keystone correction; leave the top the same width, and make the bottom 30% (?) narrower. I'm not sure how to do that to an .svg file, but will have a go when I'm finished making and uploading the revised individual electorate maps. Ridcully Jack (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I have made Waitakere a historic electorate. I have requested a move over a redirect for the electorate template so that the correct one will show under the current electorates. This requested template move shows some linked pages as being requested for deletion (i.e. the wikilink is light red) - I guess that's a bug in the system. Schwede66 19:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The template issue is sorted; the moved has happened. I have updated almost all of the articles of those MPs who are not standing for re-election (two to go). Schwede66 04:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Electorates

We need to work our way through the 71 electorates and update:

• lead,
• prose of the body (who's won the election) including a reference, and
• the electoral history table (or tables if there's also a candidate who got in via the list).

From my perspective, the results tables can wait until later given that they are still preliminary. Here's a list, and I suggest we strike out electorates that we have dealt with. Schwede66 04:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

North Island

Auckland Central, Bay of Plenty, Botany, Coromandel, East Coast, East Coast Bays, Epsom, Hamilton East, Hamilton West, Helensville, Hunua, Hutt South, Kelston, Mana, Māngere, Manukau East, Manurewa, Maungakiekie, Mount Albert, Mount Roskill, Napier, New Lynn, New Plymouth, North Shore, Northcote, Northland, Ōhāriu, Ōtaki, Pakuranga, Palmerston North, Papakura, Rangitīkei, Rimutaka, Rodney, Rongotai, Rotorua, Tāmaki, Taranaki-King Country, Taupō, Tauranga, Te Atatū, Tukituki, Upper Harbour, Waikato, Wairarapa, Wellington Central, Whanganui, Whangarei

South Island

Christchurch Central, Christchurch East, Clutha-Southland, Dunedin North, Dunedin South, Ilam, Invercargill, Kaikōura, Nelson, Port Hills, Rangitata, Selwyn, Waimakariri, Waitaki, West Coast-Tasman, Wigram

Māori

Hauraki-Waikato, Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, Tāmaki Makaurau, Te Tai Hauāuru, Te Tai Tokerau, Te Tai Tonga, Waiariki

Electorate results

The Electoral Commission separates the Internet and Mana candidates from the party vote (eg [3]). Should we be doing the same in electorate result tables? Adabow (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense for us to adopt the same approach. Schwede66 01:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, just for reference, the relevant template code for electorate candidates is therefore:

{{MMP election box local party candidate|
 |color = #7C0808
 |party = [[Mana Party|Mana]]
 |candidate = [[Candidate Name]]
 |votes = 
 |percentage = 
 |change = 
 }} 
and
 {{MMP election box local party candidate|
 |color = #662C92
 |party = [[Internet Party (New Zealand)|Internet]]
 |candidate = [[Candidate Name]]
 |votes = 
 |percentage = 
 |change = 
 }}
and
 {{MMP election box party only|
 |party = Internet Party and MANA Movement
 |party votes = 
 |party percent = 
 |party change = 
}}

The other question I have is whether "total valid votes" is the same as the EC's "TOTAL" or is "Total valid votes" equal to "TOTAL" less informals? Adabow (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

See Ilam (New Zealand electorate)#2014 election for how I suggest structuring things, with a footnote explaining the Internet and Mana shared list. Adabow (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• The code above looks right.
• I can't see the Ilam footnote.
• Can I suggest that we use citation templates, please?

<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/electorate-yy.html
 |title=Official Count Results -- xxx
 |publisher=[[Electoral Commission (New Zealand)|Electoral Commission]]
 |accessdate=4 October 2014 |date=4 October 2014}}</ref>

In that citation, replace:

• yy with the two-digit electorate id number
• xxx with the electorate name

Thanks! Schwede66 02:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with splitting Internet & MANA from Internet MANA. We're already adding notes on Internet MANA party vote swing being compared with 2011 Mana Party vote, so it isn't too difficult to extend that note to say it is a coalition. Post result per candidate party, and leave the party vote in the same line as noted. Elections NZ do many things differently than we do - we use templates and find solutions to their raw data, and we sort by votes instead of alphabetically etc. so there is no need for us to follow their overly simplistic format. They also use Total Votes where we use Total Valid Votes ... I see there is some confusion in our electorate results tables over this point. Total Votes should only be used for calculating Turnout and Informal percentages. I'm also seeing copy/paste errors in {{MMP election box begin}} where election year and electorate number are unchanged from 2011 results - electorate numbers (used in external ref) are only consistent with the previous election up to Kaikōura, then the new seat of Kelston (along with a new Upper Harbour and an abolished Waitakere) throws out the pattern. FanN | talk | 08:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

So, to be clear, "Total Valid Votes" excludes informals? And do you suggest we add a footnote next to Internet and Mana candidate names saying something along the lines of "XYZ was a candidate for the Internet Party."? Adabow (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it excludes informals. I'd suggest an Internet MANA format along the lines of candidate's party as Internet or Mana with both linking to Internet Mana, with candidate votes and combined Internet Mana party vote on the same line, with a note on the party vote cell stating both Internet Party and MANA Movement stood a combined party list, and in the swing +/- percent cell the current note stating as current (paraphrase: swing is on 2011 Mana vote). FanN | talk | 09:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The simplest fix for this is to use two custom links for the separate parties, or to use the "spare" cells in the Candidate column. It would be easy enough to write a custom template such as {{MMP election box coalition candidate}} that would allow for two party names with links to fit our purpose. FanN | talk | 10:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

General Election 2014: Waikikamukau
Notes:		Blue background denotes the winner of the electorate vote. Pink background denotes a candidate elected from their party list. Yellow background denotes an electorate win by a list member, or other incumbent. A Y or N denotes status of any incumbent, win or lose respectively.
Party		Candidate		Votes	%	±%	Party votes	%	±%
	Internet Mana	Laila Harré		1,315	3.79	+3.79	338	0.96	+0.79
	Internet Mana	Hone Harawira		8,971	41.35	-1.97	4,247	18.75	-5.74
	Independent	Ebeneezer Scrooge		100	1.0	-1.00	100	1.0	+1.00
	Internet Mana	Laila Harré	(Internet)	1,315	3.79	+3.79	338	0.96	+0.79
	Internet Mana	Hone Harawira	(Mana Party)	8,971	41.35	-1.97	4,247	18.71	-5.74
Informal votes				150			100
Total valid votes				1,000			1,000
	Mana Party gain from Internet		Majority	100	1.00	-1.00

Electorate map

I made a new version (File:New_Zealand_electorates_2014_(wiki_colours).svg) using the official wikipedia NZ politics meta colours for parties. I like the old colours better but you may want to use this instead. --Korakys (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice, but I note that Christchurch East is a bit too blue. Schwede66 05:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Muldoon / Rob Muldoon

Hi, I've started a discussion at Talk:Robert_Muldoon#Requested_move_5_March_2015 as to whether the article should be titled Robert Muldoon or Rob Muldoon. I'm a "Roberter" myself but I'll let you make your own minds up. Please help us develop a concensus. Regards. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Vote Summary Bar Graphs

Hi, after looking through the general election pages I noticed there wasn't a graph easily illustrating the percentage of votes and seats like in other election pages, therefore I thought it would be an idea to add them. However in my over enthusiasm I replaced the pie-charts in the 2014, 2011 and 2008 election pages, which a fellow user thought was more appropriate than the graphs. Therefore though I've already added them to 2014-1990, I thought it be best to find out if it was appropriate to add these graphs (perhaps in addition to the current charts) before I continue adding the graphs to all the NZ election pages. Humongous125 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Popular Vote National   47.82% Labour   35.14% Greens   6.85% NewLabour   5.16% Democrats   2.02% Others   3.37%

Parliament seats National   69.07% Labour   29.90% NewLabour   1.03%

Yeah, I raised it at Talk:New_Zealand_general_election,_2014#Votes_summary_.28Pie_v_Bar.29. I guess I was always taught to use pie charts for percentages while at school, and thought this wholesale change should be discussed first. Mattlore (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Suppose Im not a pie chart fan, but in all seriousness I don't have an issue with pie charts. The reason I thought it would be an idea was that many election pages throughout the site have the bar graphs that I am adding German federal election, 2013#Results, Scottish Parliament general election, 2007#Election results and thought, for consistency, it would be good to add them. Also, with the New Zealand election era of FPTP, voting percentage does not relate to the number of seats, therefore a graph is a good way in showing that. But also theres no reason why there can't be both, the United Kingdom general election, 2005#Results has both a pie chart and a bar graph. Humongous125 (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Northland by-election, 2015

One of the consequences of the Northland by-election, 2015 is that we'll get a new MP into parliament. If Peters manages to win the by-election, somebody on the NZ First list will get in, and Ria Bond is next in line. It's a draft article that could do with a bit of expanding. Schwede66 19:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As Ria Bond is currently a public employee and therefore prohibited from electioneering in any way it is unknown if she is interested in taking up her right to the list seat ... or if NZ First wishes her to do so. All the talk in the media has focussed on the next-highest unelected list candidate Mataroa Paroro ... probably due to the dearth of information on Ms Bond's - and NZ First's intentions. FanN | talk | 07:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

NZ election article and source discrepancies

Ive noticed that there is some discrepancy between many of the NZ election articles and information from the Electoral Commission [[4]] about past elections. The first point is share of the vote, I noticed that for the 1908 election article says Liberal obtained 48.63% however the EC shows that they won 58.7%. I also noticed for the 1911 election, the electoral commission states liberal 40.1% of the vote while the article shows they only gained 34% of the vote, plus it also gives the total vote share. Therefore I am wondering how this should be corrected?

The second point I noticed is that again for many elections, despite what the article and what the electoral commission states about the number of seats won, the list of candidates in the article shows a different number of seats won per party. Taken the 1902 election as an example, the EC states Liberal won 49 seats, but there appears to be 51 successful liberal candidates.

I did however note, the electoral commission is not always accurate as in the 1914 election it states that 6 Labour group members won that election with no independents that year, however John Payne’s article states he was an independent until the actual Labour Party was formed in 1916.

I also noticed that in the 1919 election, many electorate winners appear as independents, despite the persons article stating they are members of parties with no mention of defections around the time of the election. With these candidates added up, there appears to be a greater number of Reform politicians, even than whats stated by the electoral commission.

Therefore I am enquring what should be done to correct this. Should the electoral commission be followed religiously or do we follow the win of each candidate and count up the party wins from there? Humongous125 (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess two separate issues there. The first is share of the vote. I'm not sure why they differ - perhaps one is a share of registered voters and one is a share of actual voters who voted? Do the actual totals of vote differ, or is that fact not available in all sources?

Secondly is the number of seats. This is because the party system was still in its infancy then and different sources attribute different people to parties. ie, it is not always clear if a person is a "Liberal" and "Independent" a "Independent Liberal" a "Liberal Independent" or any other variety of titles. Even if they are a "Liberal" they may not always follow the leader of the "Liberal Party". As long as we have reliable source(s) to back up the number of seats we have used, then I think that is satisfactory. I don't think we can say the electoral commission is the "official" source and should be followed over all others. Mattlore (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The actual vote total is not available in the easily accessible sources so unable to find something that backs up these values.

I also have noted for the 1966 election, the percentages add up to a total of 100.26% and the votes do not add up to the given total. It appears that this is due to the communist party, which was a percentage of 0.26% and when 'removed' from the list all the totals and percentages add up perfectly. According to the electoral commission, others as is stated in the article only makes up 0.4%. Therefore what should be done in this case? Humongous125 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Disregard Elections NZ "results" for early party-era elections unless you've supporting evidence. Researching election news reports at PapersPast will give a better idea on ambiguous party relationships. Many electorates had more than one candidate for the same party - the Liberals were notorious for this. If an Independent (Liberal or Reform) were to win ahead of the official candidate political expediency and/or personalities often decided whether the MP was considered an Independent or a party MP. FanN | talk | 07:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

For voting results since 1905 use data at NZES (although there are some obvious errors), and for election results from 1875-76 to 1949 search Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHR) FanN | talk | 07:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

United/Reform Coalition

There's a discussion on how or whether to identify the official United/Reform Coalition candidates for the 1931 and 1935 elections at this talk page that other editors might want to contribute to. Schwede66 23:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Political records

@Hugo999: You once had the thought of setting up an article with political records, e.g. youngest MP ever and the like. Are you still thinking of doing that? I've just had a look how many elections back somebody got into parliament who's still alive, and got lucky in 1957: Bob Tizard. By jolly, that is a long time ago. I started with the 1954 election and thought that should surely be far enough back, but got across somebody who died in 2013 and who had first been elected in 1947, so maybe I should check earlier elections than 1954 as well. Some kind of record is Father of the House, but we have an article for that one already. Anyway, any thoughts? Schwede66 10:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Have checked back to 1946 and Bob Tizard it is. Schwede66 19:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, still interested in the idea. Had a look for similar lists in other countries, but no luck sofar. Do you know of any? Hugo999 (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC) PS: Other possibilities are "Youngest MP when elected", "longest-serving MP" and (from Wilson) "MPs who were also MPs in other countries" (from Wilson; i.e. also MP in Australia or Britain)

No, I don't. But I did record those ex-MPs who were first elected in the 1950s and 1960s and are still alive on this page. It's kind of an old age record. Schwede66 01:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Title “The Hon”

Re the New Zealand order of precedence article, the article lists only two MPs shown as current MPs Judith Collins & Chester Borrows but there are quite a few current Labour MPs in this category as they were Ministers of the Crown and as far as I know were not Ministers outside Cabinet. Their current MP page on the Parliamentary website has the title “The Hon” eg see Phil Goff. Those titled “Hon” are: Clayton Cosgrove, David Cunliffe, Ruth Dyson , Phil Goff, Annette King, Trevor Mallard, Nanaia Mahuta, Damien O'Connor & David Parker. And Peter Dunne who was in a Labour cabinet (tho he is listed). But some current National MPs who are ministers outside Cabinet are listed eg Paul Goldsmith although he is not shown with the title “Hon” see Paul Goldsmith. PS: David Clendon (Green) has the role of Musterer according to his page on the Parliamentary website! A nicer name for Whip? Hugo999 (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to go through those articles and tidy them up. What you've identified represents the correct situation, as far as I can see. It would probably be best if in the prose, it's explained that they've been granted the title because they were or are a cabinet minister; referencing their page on the parliamentary website should do as a suitable inline ref. And yes, the Greens call their whips musterers. Schwede66 21:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Results templates

@Kiwichris: What is the rationale for ditching the results template from the 13th New Zealand Parliament with this edit (and the 12th Parliament with this edit, and replacing it with a manual results table? This has potentially quite far-reaching implications, and here's why. We used to have manual results tables for the election and nth parliament pages. The trouble was that editors had to know that when they wanted to make a change, they had to update two results tables simultaneously. This didn't work, and auditing the results tables showed that they were, without exception, quite different. Hence we agreed on the template approach. Later on, somebody came along and put our templates up for deletion because each of them had only two transclusions. We argued long and hard, and in the end, it was agreed that we could maintain our template approach. Obviously, with just one transclusion remaining, we are breaking the requirements for using templates, and we are back to where we started. So is it ok to revert your edit, or do you have good reasons why we should abandon the results template approach? Schwede66 17:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If our arms are being twisted like that, revert them then. The approach on the 1890 page (any reason why that one is exempt) seems to emphasize the members themselves opposed to the polling results which seems more appropriate for a page on the Parliament rather than the election. Kiwichris (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. 1890 is different because the Liberal Party really only formed after the election, but there is of course scope to change that particular one. You are doing absolutely excellent work, Kiwichris; I reckon you are a one-person legend. Keep it up. Schwede66 04:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I've always been a bit wary about the template approach because in my view it results in a lot of irrelevant information on the Parliament pages (for example, who held each seat in the previous parliament, how many votes each MP won by and who almost made it into parliament). It does however have the advantage of making these pages, which are rarely cared for, easier to maintain. Mattlore (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter pretty much echoes Mattlore's. Was also wondering why the more recent Parliament pages have a similar setup to 1890 despite the whole 'deletion candidacy controversy' thing that denies its use on the others? Kiwichris (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree that there is info with the nth parliament pages that isn't relevant. No question. But that has to be weighed up against what we found a few years ago when we audited the pages, and there was a big discrepancy between those pages that should show the same base detail. Using the template approach was the solution for getting on top of the problem. If anybody has a better idea how this can be managed, I'd be keen to hear about it. I don't feel that the content is as yet stable enough that we can say that it doesn't need any further editing. That may be true with the more recent elections (e.g. since 1996), which is why I'm personally much more relaxed about the MMP era. One thing that has changed in the meantime is that we've got Wikidata, but I don't really understand what it is that we can use it for. Is that maybe a system that can help us ensure that the information given is as correct as possible, and that we can maintain the data in one central depository? Schwede66 07:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarity

I am seeking clarification on what is "encyclopedic" in relation to politicians. A user has removed information on how Alfred Ngaro voted on a conscience vote and information on a bill created by Ngaro. The claim is the information is not encyclopedic.Incredtent (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is that a vote on a conscience issue, or against the party line, is appropriate to include in a politician's article. A vote with the party line is not, but might be covered in the article on the government (eg Fifth National Government of New Zealand) if the matter is controversial.-gadfium 07:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Whether Ngaro's vote on the Social Assistance Bill is worth noting should be discussed at Talk:Alfred Ngaro, not here.-gadfium 08:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Mayoral elections

There are some more mayoral election articles appearing; see the mayoral elections in New Zealand category. Kiwichris is working on Wellington articles, and I've written some for Christchurch. I thought it would be useful to now add appropriate navboxes, and I've drafted one in my userspace (which is as yet incomplete, but you'll see what I'm aiming for). If you've got any thoughts on what should be done differently, better, etc, please comment here. Schwede66 06:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Some good ideas, like the infobox. After the Wellington articles I also intend to do mayoral election articles for Napier and Lower Hutt someday.Kiwichris (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Now complete and published, but don't let that stop you from commenting. Since the comment above, I have also indicated the length of the mayoral terms in the template. Schwede66 19:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice work. Do you know when local elections became triennial and was it the same everywhere via an act of parliament?Kiwichris (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was an act of parliament. I thought you'd be interested, and when I added the background to the Mayor of Christchurch article the other day, I pinged you via the edit summary. Strange that it didn't show up at your end as a notification, as that is what I had intended to happen. By the way, parliament had intended in 1913 to scrap the election at large, and have mayors once more elected by their fellow councillors. I came across some reporting, and it also gives context why mayors were elected by the ratepayers in the first instance. It's something that had been pioneered by Blenheim. Schwede66 18:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting article. Strange I didn't notice any ping. I didn't receive the one left in the Wellington City mayoral election, 1875 article either, just happened to notice it! So triennial terms began in 1935 for all NZ then? Kiwichris (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition (parliamentary)

I just wanted to start a discussion about why we use the tag "Opposition" in reference to opponents to the Liberal Party pre-1909. Over the last year or two doing research here It has become quite clear that they were known more specifically as "Conservatives". While reading up on the Reform Party, the reason that the name Reform itself was chosen by Massey was to provide a more appealing label that rid themselves of the "Conservative" branding given to them by Seddon. It is also somewhat confusing as The Liberals themselves were referred to as "Opposition" by media both pre-1890 and post-1912. Might I suggest we use Conservative instead of Opposition? Kiwichris (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

We don't use "Conservative" because they weren't a political party. The "Opposition" are so-named because that is what they were - a faction within the wider Independent body that opposed the Liberal government. "Opposition" doesn't give them any particular status other than their relationship towards the majority - and only established party. Prior to the establishment of the Liberal Party as case could be made for labelling the more liberal minorities as "Opposition", but allegiances were somewhat more fluid in the earlier parliaments. The terms "Government" and "Opposition" were also used well into the multi-party era, particularly in the press coverage of elections and candidates - depending on which party was in power of course, but by then they were also [mostly] party-affiliated. And if as you say, "Conservative" was a disparaging name foisted on what would eventually become the Reform Party by Seddon then it is hardly appropriate.FanN | talk | 07:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

For the last point the term was used widely, it was just abused by Seddon i.e. casting the Liberals in a positive contrast rather than an outright slur. The fact that "Government" and "Opposition" were used long before and after 1890-1909 makes me think "Conservative" is a better fit and is actually already in use on dozens of MPs pages which describe them as "Conservative". Non-Liberal's functioned under a number of brands pre-1909; the Political Reform Association (1887-91), the National Association (1891–99) and the Political Reform League (1905). They elected their own leaders, whips and such working as a faction rather than a proper party but more than merely the opponents of the Liberal's. Thoughts?Kiwichris (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That's certainly not a straightforward issue, and there are good arguments both for and against. Maybe what should happen in the first instance is to write an article that gives the context, e.g. Historic conservatism in New Zealand or at least a separate entry for New Zealand in Conservatism. It might then become clearer whether there is good merit in linking to that article or not. Schwede66 19:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Started the article. More to come though. Kiwichris (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that we have an article I've continued the discussion on its talk page. Kiwichris (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Labour - Green Memorandum of Understanding

Is anything being done about including the Lab-Green MoU in the respective party articles? ... and on a related note, should we consider Lab-Green as a block now, as in electoral polling and in the 2017 election? FanN | talk | 08:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should consider them a block, in my mind it is not any different from the Labour-Alliance agreement in 1999 or John Key's cups of coffee with preferred partners during campaigns. Mattlore (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, they're not quite on the same level as say the Lib/Nat Coalition are in Australia. Kiwichris (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing method

I've been looking into making some articles for opposition shadow cabinets but haven't had much luck finding any good info other than the list of Kirk's listed in David Grant's bio of him. Anyways, I sent an e-mail to the Parliamentary Library asking if they had any information they could give me. The reply contained the recent Labour ones (which already have articles) but also for some National shadow cabinets (McLay, Bolger, Shipley & English). I'm happy to make articles for them, but was wondering how to source them properly. The only time I can see anything like this happening before is on the Chairman of Committees page. Sourcing in this format would suffice? Kiwichris (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I've commented elsewhere on the same issue, too. Just for completeness, if the parliamentary library isn't a WP:RS, then I don't what is. Anybody could rock up and look at the sources for this themselves. Not very convenient, but still within the definition of a reliable source. I shall declare for transparency that the precedent referred to above was created by my good self. Schwede66 09:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of a district article with a district council article

User Ajf773 for some reason has suggested the proposed merge of two articles I have been working on: Rangitikei District and Rangitikei District Council despite there being many articles for other New Zealand local authorities' councils separately from the article for those local authorities. The user claims it is because a lack of notability despite one or two or so articles a week from the Whanganui Chronicle and the Manawatu Standard. Is the article for Rangitikei District Council deserving of being a separate article from the article for the district it governs? Please chime in on Talk:Rangitikei District Council. JaumeBG (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting a notice about the issue here. Just reiterating that the discussion should happen on the relevant talk page. Schwede66 09:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Electoral history of New Zealand politicians

Thanks to Kiwichris, we have a lot of electoral history of New Zealand politicians articles being created. Good on you! We also have a long-standing convention of setting up results templates for by-elections, as they are also used in the respective electorate articles. It would seem logical that we template the results that are used in the electoral history articles, too, or would there be any opposing views? If all's good, shall I help going through the articles and setting up templates? Schwede66 08:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I find using and creating templates (going in to separate pages) makes things more laborious. Obviously in the pages I've made so far any by-elections have had the templates utilised. Also, don't templates need to be used in a minimum amount of pages to validate their existence? Earlier, here, you cited an instance where templates were up for deletion as they only had two transclusions. Just my two cents. Kiwichris (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Shall we write the electoral histories of all New Zealand politicians or just the Prime Ministers? J947 06:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It could be expanded beyond Prime Ministers to other MPs with a certain degree of notability (party leaders, very long serving members etc...). Kiwichris (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer! I've seen that you've already made the articles for the electoral histories of David Shearer and Thomas Wilford. When I get home from holiday I will get to work on some electoral histories such as Andrew Little, David Cunliffe, James Shaw, Metiria Turei, Don Brash, and Grant Robertson which the public will probably be more interested than those of Wilford or George Grey. Some other projects could be the electoral histories of Bill English, Winston Peters, Peter Dunne, and Annette King. J947 08:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Should we try and reach a consensus for some sort of notability criteria for electoral histories? The reason I created one for Thomas Wilford (per Be bold) was to invite comment on the issue. Wilford was never Prime Minister, but he was several other things:

1. Leader of a parliamentary party (Liberal Party)
2. High serving official (served in cabinet and was opposition leader)
3. A long serving MP (31 years)
4. Mayor of a major city (Wellington)

Which (if any) of these do people think would qualify someone as deserving of a dedicated electoral history article? I'm just mindful of this getting out of hand. Kiwichris (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think all of these should apply. Another political figure who meets all of these points is Phil Goff,

1. A leader of a parliamentary party (Labour)
2. A high serving official (served in cabinet and was opposition leader)
3. A long-serving MP (32 years)
4. Mayor of a major city (Auckland)

However, I do lean inclusionist and I think that this requires more discussion. J947 05:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

National Party Leadership

Are we going to create a page for the impending National leadership election on 12/12/16? I've noticed we don't have any pages for National leadership elections, only Labour and Liberal party. I've got the numbers and info for all their leadership contests from 1936 to 1997, but not the more recent ones. Kiwichris (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

We already have. Look at this page. As for the earlier leadership contests, why don't create those articles soon? Also, where did you find the leadership election information from? J947 05:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh cool, the article looks great! The results I have are from Barry Gustafson's book covering National's history (was written in 1986 so only goes that far). I've created a page for the 1940 leadership election and intend to do more. Kiwichris (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Good work! I'm now going to create a category for National Party leadership elections. J947 06:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see you already have. Good work. J947 06:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)