![]() | A news item involving 2014 New Zealand general election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 September 2014. | ![]() |
![]() | A fact from 2014 New Zealand general election appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 December 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Template:Did you know nominations/Next New Zealand general election
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Hone Harawira - cropped.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hello Lcmortensen, do you really think that removing the table with historic election dates, and turning the whole thing into prose, is an improvement? Schwede 66 09:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
This is uncontroversial. The date has been announced so we can move this to New Zealand general election, 2014( Lihaas ( talk) 13:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)).
The infobox here is massive, on my laptop it fill 80–90% of the screen, makes the page basically unreadable. Why does every single party winning a seat need to be included? – the Australian, Canadian, and UK election pages (to name a few) don't do this, and the information is available later in the article. I would suggest just having the Nats, Labour, the Greens, and NZFirst, reducing the size to two columns. 124.148.220.169 ( talk) 03:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of almost-redundant information making the information for each party quite long. The actual number of votes is not important; the percentage is important. Could it not read: 2011 election 59 seats, 47.31% 2014 election 61 seats, 48.06% Swing ^2 seats, ^0.74% I don't think we need to have Internet Mana in the info-box at all; if the box is about the 121 seats, they have zero. We don't have a box for any other un-represented party; NZIC is of equal insignificance now that Brendan Horan isn't an MP. Ridcully Jack ( talk) 03:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It lacks critical information that the previous election pages' infoboxes have. I would advocate reverting it back. Byzantium Purple ( talk) 21:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, it lacks Internet Mana, ACT and United Future. The "Next" one used to lack almost half of the parliamentary parties in its infobox. This is not truly reflective of the election. All past elections doesn't cut it down to six parties, why should 2014 be an exception? 2.216.202.153 ( talk) 16:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I think we had this discussion last election, but do we need to list every unsuccessful list candidate? It's just clutter – we don't list every unsuccessful electorate candidate, and the full list of unsuccessful candidates is available at Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2014 by party. Lcmortensen ( mailbox) 09:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I still think it is inappropriate. Can someone name one other election article (outside New Zealand) that lists is unsuccessful candidates on its main page? I double checked last election's discussion and User:Fanx makes a good point - " The vast majority of unsuccessful list candidates' only notability will be no more than a name on an old election leaflet and the 2011 party lists article; to give them two mentions in this one context seems excessive."
Also, adding the table adds an extra 6 kB to a page that already is 80 kB long. Wikipedia:Article size recommends splitting off non-essential information at this point, of which unsuccessful candidates are. I may get a second opinion on this from the Elections WikiProject. Lcmortensen ( mailbox) 08:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
In the electoral results section, we include the standard map of electorates coloured according to the party winning that electorate (also shown here for convenience). I think it would be interesting to also have the same map but coloured according to the party winning the greatest number of party votes in each electorate. I think there are quite a number of electorates where the results differ.- gadfium 04:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Waiting till we've got final results sounds reasonable enough. Thanks for being prepared to put the time and effort in, Ridcully Jack - much appreciated. Schwede 66 04:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Lcmortensen has expressed a desire to achieve Good Article (GA) status. That's a great aim, and I have read the article with a view of identifying what areas need work. I guess the article could simply be nominated, and a reviewer would tell us what needs doing, or we could identify the more obvious things ourselves and get them done before nomination. Here's a list, and I encourage others to add to it. All in all, this is quite achievable: Schwede 66 18:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Although I concede that my deletion of some National candidates from
the candidates by party article needed consideration, there is no rationale for including non-party list names in the
Unsuccessful list candidates section of this article, precisely because they weren't list candidates. National's
media release naming 75 people on it's list remains nothing more than a media release while the Electoral Commission's
2014 General Election Party Lists has just 65 names for National. In the unlikely event that National gained more than 55% of the vote they would have been constrained to no more than 65 MPs, unless one or more of those three non-list electorate candidates (Lewis Holden, Karl Varley, and Christopher Penk) had won any of the electorates they contested (
Rimutaka,
Wigram, or
Kelston respectively).
In the
Candidates by electorate article we show (separately) withdrawn candidates, but those persons never make the election results sections of their respective electorate articles - because they never were candidates in the sense that their names and fees were given to Elections NZ - some of them gave notice that they were withdrawing, others simply didn't appear on the day the candidates were officially announced. I have no idea why National chose to release a list that contained more names than the list that was officially published, but that's their business and only of passing interest to us. The unlucky nine are duly noted where they should be noted, but to add them to this article only causes confusion, and is wrong - this should remain as official list candidates only, and not some internal National Party wishlist.
Fan |
talk |
01:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted the change from pie graphs to bar graphs because I think it should be discussed here first before it's done. For the table of Parliament seats, I prefer the use of a pie graph, because we are dealing with percentages and it clearly shows coalition options for a majority to be obtained. For the Popular Vote graph, I don't have a strong opinion either way. Mattlore ( talk) 20:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
So something that looks like this? Humongous125 ( talk) 01:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is Internet Mana listed as the eighth party? Shouldn't it be the Conservative Party? They are the largest party that didn't win any seats. Jol123 ( talk) 20:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The infobox lists Internet Mana 8th, but they came 9th. This is wrong and contrary to usual election infobox practice. See discussion at Talk:New_Zealand_general_election,_2017#Sixth_Party. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New Zealand general election, 2014. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | A news item involving 2014 New Zealand general election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 September 2014. | ![]() |
![]() | A fact from 2014 New Zealand general election appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 December 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Template:Did you know nominations/Next New Zealand general election
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Hone Harawira - cropped.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hello Lcmortensen, do you really think that removing the table with historic election dates, and turning the whole thing into prose, is an improvement? Schwede 66 09:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
This is uncontroversial. The date has been announced so we can move this to New Zealand general election, 2014( Lihaas ( talk) 13:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)).
The infobox here is massive, on my laptop it fill 80–90% of the screen, makes the page basically unreadable. Why does every single party winning a seat need to be included? – the Australian, Canadian, and UK election pages (to name a few) don't do this, and the information is available later in the article. I would suggest just having the Nats, Labour, the Greens, and NZFirst, reducing the size to two columns. 124.148.220.169 ( talk) 03:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of almost-redundant information making the information for each party quite long. The actual number of votes is not important; the percentage is important. Could it not read: 2011 election 59 seats, 47.31% 2014 election 61 seats, 48.06% Swing ^2 seats, ^0.74% I don't think we need to have Internet Mana in the info-box at all; if the box is about the 121 seats, they have zero. We don't have a box for any other un-represented party; NZIC is of equal insignificance now that Brendan Horan isn't an MP. Ridcully Jack ( talk) 03:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It lacks critical information that the previous election pages' infoboxes have. I would advocate reverting it back. Byzantium Purple ( talk) 21:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, it lacks Internet Mana, ACT and United Future. The "Next" one used to lack almost half of the parliamentary parties in its infobox. This is not truly reflective of the election. All past elections doesn't cut it down to six parties, why should 2014 be an exception? 2.216.202.153 ( talk) 16:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I think we had this discussion last election, but do we need to list every unsuccessful list candidate? It's just clutter – we don't list every unsuccessful electorate candidate, and the full list of unsuccessful candidates is available at Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2014 by party. Lcmortensen ( mailbox) 09:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I still think it is inappropriate. Can someone name one other election article (outside New Zealand) that lists is unsuccessful candidates on its main page? I double checked last election's discussion and User:Fanx makes a good point - " The vast majority of unsuccessful list candidates' only notability will be no more than a name on an old election leaflet and the 2011 party lists article; to give them two mentions in this one context seems excessive."
Also, adding the table adds an extra 6 kB to a page that already is 80 kB long. Wikipedia:Article size recommends splitting off non-essential information at this point, of which unsuccessful candidates are. I may get a second opinion on this from the Elections WikiProject. Lcmortensen ( mailbox) 08:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
In the electoral results section, we include the standard map of electorates coloured according to the party winning that electorate (also shown here for convenience). I think it would be interesting to also have the same map but coloured according to the party winning the greatest number of party votes in each electorate. I think there are quite a number of electorates where the results differ.- gadfium 04:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Waiting till we've got final results sounds reasonable enough. Thanks for being prepared to put the time and effort in, Ridcully Jack - much appreciated. Schwede 66 04:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Lcmortensen has expressed a desire to achieve Good Article (GA) status. That's a great aim, and I have read the article with a view of identifying what areas need work. I guess the article could simply be nominated, and a reviewer would tell us what needs doing, or we could identify the more obvious things ourselves and get them done before nomination. Here's a list, and I encourage others to add to it. All in all, this is quite achievable: Schwede 66 18:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Although I concede that my deletion of some National candidates from
the candidates by party article needed consideration, there is no rationale for including non-party list names in the
Unsuccessful list candidates section of this article, precisely because they weren't list candidates. National's
media release naming 75 people on it's list remains nothing more than a media release while the Electoral Commission's
2014 General Election Party Lists has just 65 names for National. In the unlikely event that National gained more than 55% of the vote they would have been constrained to no more than 65 MPs, unless one or more of those three non-list electorate candidates (Lewis Holden, Karl Varley, and Christopher Penk) had won any of the electorates they contested (
Rimutaka,
Wigram, or
Kelston respectively).
In the
Candidates by electorate article we show (separately) withdrawn candidates, but those persons never make the election results sections of their respective electorate articles - because they never were candidates in the sense that their names and fees were given to Elections NZ - some of them gave notice that they were withdrawing, others simply didn't appear on the day the candidates were officially announced. I have no idea why National chose to release a list that contained more names than the list that was officially published, but that's their business and only of passing interest to us. The unlucky nine are duly noted where they should be noted, but to add them to this article only causes confusion, and is wrong - this should remain as official list candidates only, and not some internal National Party wishlist.
Fan |
talk |
01:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted the change from pie graphs to bar graphs because I think it should be discussed here first before it's done. For the table of Parliament seats, I prefer the use of a pie graph, because we are dealing with percentages and it clearly shows coalition options for a majority to be obtained. For the Popular Vote graph, I don't have a strong opinion either way. Mattlore ( talk) 20:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
So something that looks like this? Humongous125 ( talk) 01:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is Internet Mana listed as the eighth party? Shouldn't it be the Conservative Party? They are the largest party that didn't win any seats. Jol123 ( talk) 20:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The infobox lists Internet Mana 8th, but they came 9th. This is wrong and contrary to usual election infobox practice. See discussion at Talk:New_Zealand_general_election,_2017#Sixth_Party. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New Zealand general election, 2014. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)