This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2020 New Zealand general election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A news item involving 2020 New Zealand general election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 October 2020. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
@ Lcmortensen: Interesting how you can purge things from this article without valid explanation, and i'm the the one who has to begin a discussion.
Having a brief background on the pervious election is at least common among wikipedia election articles. see: Next Australian federal election, 43rd Canadian federal election, Next German federal election etc. Even if this wasn't a common practice, I still think its useful to have a brief description of the previous election for context. We even had it in some form in the 2017 election article. It should stay.
The timeline isn't quite as common as an election background, however both the Next Australian federal election and 43rd Canadian federal election articles have this practice. I just think its useful and harmless to have information on major events in parliament, especially since such events can drastically affect election results. This one is more debatable.
The removal of this is completely unjustified. Even the 2017 election article had a table of the previous election result. This definitely should not have been removed. Clesam11 ( talk) 22:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I was very careful not to include "weasel words" and to keep entirely neutral. I am happy to merge the paragraphs, but I want to keep it how it was otherwise. I have already explained why my lead is the best option. Aubernas ( talk) 03:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
"At the 2008 election, the National Party had 58 seats, the Labour Party 43 seats, Green Party 9 seats, ACT and Māori Party five each, and Progressive and United Future one each. During the Parliament session, two members defected from their parties – Chris Carter was expelled from Labour in August 2010, and Hone Harawira left the Māori Party in February 2011. Carter continued as an independent, while Harawira resigned from parliament to recontest his Te Tai Tokerau electorate in a by-election under his newly formed Mana Party. Two MPs resigned from Parliament before the end of the session, John Carter of National and Chris Carter, but as they resigned within 6 months of an election, their seats remained vacant.
"At the dissolution of the 49th parliament on 20 October 2011, National held 57 seats, Labour 42 seats, Green 9 seats, ACT 5 seats, Māori 4 seats, and Progressive, United Future and Mana one each."
@ Clesam11: regarding your reverts on my edits to the tables on this page, I'm just seeking your rationale to format the tables this way. I think the way they are now (without lines) actually makes them more difficult to read, progressively more so the longer the table. It also runs counter to all precedent set on previous election pages. Thus, I feel such a change should be discussed properly and changed only if a consensus is reached. Kiwichris ( talk) 02:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@
Clesam11: As the co-leaders of the green party are co-leaders, should both individuals pictures be displayed in the right hand table? --
pwapwap (
talk)
22:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
What is the latest date that a snap election can be called that can be held before year's end? Or in other words, when do we move this article to 2020 New Zealand general election? Schwede 66 20:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
So what is the scope for the List-only MPs section? I had always been under the impression that it was for electorate MPs only contesting on the party list. Right now it includes Paulo Garcia and Julie Anne Genter who have only ever been list MPs and have announced they aren't contesting electorates. The former seems worth mentioning as it is a noticeable change, but the later isn't really much of a change at all. Kiwichris ( talk) 06:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I suggest we encourage others to chip in. Schwede 66 04:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Kia ora folks,
I'm not going to do this unilaterally but now that the Advance NZ has been registered and has a seat in Parliament, should they be on the infobox? -- MerrilyPutrid ( talk) 06:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the last time we had this situation was with Brendan Horan at the 2014 election. He got expelled from New Zealand First, was in parliament as an independent for a while and then set up the NZ Independent Coalition. That party went into the 2014 with Horan as a sitting MP but going by the infobox just prior to the election, they were not included. And that, to my mind, was the right decision and we should do the same again. Schwede 66 05:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
This page should be taken down at once. It is clearly a potential vehicle for political campaigning. And frankly, whoever found a flattering photo of that Thatcherite vampire Collins is undermining the platform. Seriously, take down. Leonotopodium ( talk) 13:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I will if this page remains in its current form. Leonotopodium ( talk) 14:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Trying to comply. Get "It is not possible to delete user accounts, as all contributions must be assigned to some identifier; either a username or an IP address." Leonotopodium ( talk) 14:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussing here before the page is created. I think the next election article should be titled
2023 New Zealand general election straight away instead of
Next New Zealand general election. I do know that
WP:NCELECT says For future elections of uncertain date, use a form similar to Next ...
, however this is more aimed towards e.g. UK elections which seem to happen randomly, unlike here. NZ has a de facto triennial election cycle and this hasn't been broken for 70 years; not even a pandemic has nudged the election date too far. Moving straight to 2023 would help prevent links being broken or confused, as any external or even internal links to the "Next" page will point to a completely different page every three years (see
Special:Whatlinkshere/Next New Zealand general election: none of these links point to their expected pages, and off-wiki it would be a whole lot worse). The "2023" date is even used by official sources such as
[2] and explicitly
[3] (The next general elections are in 2020 and 2023.
), so "2023" is definitely the
WP:COMMONNAME at least. And in the extremely rare chance a snap election is held in 2021 or 2022 we can just move the page there, no biggie, the links will be very easy to fix, and external ones will still work.
Nixinova
T
C
21:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm think the metro area boundaries are quite overrestricted. Remutaka isn't included in the Wellington-specific map, even though it is a Wellington electorate just as much as Hutt South and Mana and it was included in the last two election maps. New Lynn isn't included either, even though it is very much still an urban electorate. There are also others that are debatable such as Whangaparāoa and Banks Peninsula. What do you think? YttriumShrew ( talk), 06:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Would it be good to link in the mapmaker to this talk section? iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply) 09:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Auckland should include Whangaparāoa, New Lynn, and Papakura. Wellington should include Remutaka. Also heading for the general electorates should be "General Electorates" not "Electorate Seats". It currently implies that Electorate seats are a different category to Māori seats, which they are not. Alistairk8 ( talk)
I'm sure Erinthecute would appreciate this information. I also agree that the metropolitan boundaries should be extended. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 05:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
So I changed the Auckland Metro inset to include Whangaparāoa, New Lynn, and Papakura, and added Remutaka to the Wellington inset. Here's the new version. I put it on imgur so it can get a once over before I put it on Commons. I changed the names of the sections to the more accurate "General Electorates" and "Māori Electorates". I also changed the colour for the Māori Party to shades of orange, the same as in the 2005/08/011 maps, to make it easier to distinguish from Labour (nobody asked for this, but someone on Reddit mentioned it last week and it's been on my mind.) Papakura in the Auckland Metro inset bothers me a little since it's significantly bigger than the other electorates, but it's not a big deal. I also chose not to put Banks Peninsula in the Christchurch inset because it would dwarf all the other electorates and, due to limited space, would make them unreasonably difficult to see. Erinthecute ( talk) 07:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Electorate and list numerical counts in the bottom right are incorrect in the map. -- Korakys ( talk) 09:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, sorry to have to ask this, but not sure how to create the images myself. I wanted to see if someone with the skills could please create a map that labels the electorates? There is such images for every NZ MMP election from 1996-2017, under electorate results (e.g. /info/en/?search=File:New_Zealand_electorates,_2017.svg or /info/en/?search=File:New_Zealand_electorates,_2014.svg ). But the beautiful images for 2023 and 2020 sadly lack the labels. I'm worried this could make it difficult for readers to match up which candidates run where, geographically, in future - particularly after the next census / redraw by the Representation Commission. Would be very grateful if anyone could do something about this please? Sb101FV ( talk) 12:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC) cc: @ Kiwiz1338:, @ Matthew McMullin:, @ TheLoyalOrder:/@ Jakoats02:, @ Erinthecute:, @ Korakys:, @ Vardion:.
From my ignorance, is it true that actual Labour Party is on centre-left? I think it is centre-right, and National Party is a right party.-- 2802:8000:8AC:AA00:DCC0:4EF4:27BD:2BCF ( talk) 03:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't get why my edit of the table was reverted. According to the section on the electoral system "Each voter gets two votes, one for a political party (the party vote) and one for a local candidate (the electorate vote). ". There should thus be two columns, like with german elections, right?-- Aréat ( talk) 06:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Party | First past the post | Proportional | Total seats |
+/- | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Votes | % | Seats | Votes | % | Seats |
This party is mentioned in the lead as part of the outgoing coalition but neither the lead nor the infobox, nor as far as I can see the rest of the article, say what results it got. Was it dissolved or did it just fail to win any seats, or something else? Maybe a knowledgeable editor could add a line and an infobox entry? 83.159.74.201 ( talk) 11:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
election articles, and so on). I have restored NZ First to the infobox. (And for what it's worth, no, IP user is not my sockpuppet!!) -- Hazhk ( talk) 11:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Kia Ora everyone. I have recently rewritten the lead, because there was little difference to lead before than what it was two weeks ago. The election has happened now, and we can confirm results. So please, if you feel it to be too long, discuss here so we can take out small parts. Someone has tried to delete the whole section, which in my opinion isn't helpful. Aubernas ( talk) 13:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, sorry, I didn't know that was going to be an issue. I'll just copy and paste and we can work to trim it down. But please don't revert as well or you'll be a hypocrite. Aubernas ( talk) 14:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
talk Didn't mean to insult you bro, sorry :). I'm currently experiencing difficulty copying and pasting what I had before, because the citations do not remain in tact, and if I attempt to copy and paste the links from below, it doesn't work. Can you help me? Aubernas ( talk) 14:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I know, but my concern is that the citations don't work if you copy and paste the text into the article. I'm pasting from google docs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubernas ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I was just digging around the New Zealand Election Results site and I found something that doesn't quite match. How is it that a Heartland party candidate in Port Waikato received 7500 votes yet the table in the Results section only shows that Heartland received about 1000 votes? - boldblazer ( talk) 21:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I've reached out to the Māori Party for an image of John Tamihere to use on this page and his own Wikipedia page. If I get a response I'll add it to Wikimedia Commons, but if anyone here can get it done faster I'd appreciate it.
I would also like to double check that getting permission from the party is enough to upload such an image, or if I should get stronger confirmation that it's fair use. Will.torkington ( talk) 23:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I feel my longer and more informative lead should be the lead. I really don't want to edit war, I just don't want a lead that is too short and leaves out key information. Look at this article, 1997 United Kingdom general election. Its lead, which I think we can agree is the main thing an average person reads on wikipedia, is a good length, without going on for too long. Why do we have to apply such a short one here? it covers so many important things, such as the LGBT+ MPs setting a world record! We would be utter and complete fools not to include that in the lead. I'm 15 and I worked very hard on this, so I would like to see a lead that is full and interesting rather than one with my information largely stripped and move to the nether of the article. At this stage for me it's getting really exhausting. Aubernas ( talk) 03:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. While the lead, based on the current length of the article, is best around three–four paragraphs, the current length of the paragraphs are too long and include too much intricate detail about voting tactics, and have several weasel word and neutrality issues. I think for everyone's sake, and to avoid any disruptive editing or edit wars, it's best that we all back off and talk this through until we can find some common ground to work on.
they asked for the party vote over the candidate vote, tactically ensuring candidates running against Labour would not split the vote in National's favour.should probably be removed, and
taking Waiariki from Tāmati Coffeymay also be too much info, but at the moment I'm gonna hold off on touching the lead until t←h↑i↓s→ is sorted out. Nixinova T C 04:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I was very careful not to include "weasel words" and to keep entirely neutral. I am happy to merge the paragraphs, but I want to keep it how it was otherwise. I have already explained why my lead is the best option. Aubernas ( talk) 03:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
this is all just so stressful and depressing. all i ever wanted was a good strong lead, and no matter what I do it always gets reverted. What am i even doing here? Aubernas ( talk) 04:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Onetwothreeip and Nixinova: Let's see if we can find any more sources that highlight that seat. If there are, then I think we have enough evidence to qualify it's inclusion in the lead. Otherwise, we might have to remove it. Personally though, I think it's a significant thing: a smaller left-wing party took a whole electorate from the largest right-wing party in three years... Btw, I've also just added a little note after the second paragraph - we just need to find some sources for the last two sentences, especially the last since it's a less than favourable picture. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC) @ Onetwothreeip: Btw, my description of NZF as a populist nationalist party is just based on the description we have on New Zealand First. I'm not fussed either way, but I think something (even "nationalist party" or "right-wing" etc) to just place it on the political spectrum might be good. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The party [New Zealand First] promotes itself as centrist, but quite what that means has not always been clear.
In short, its policies are more centre-right than they are centrist.
Under pressure from farmers and her coalition partners in the right-wing New Zealand First,....
New Zealand First (Aotearoa Tuatahi) is a nationalist populist party currently in government with the Labour Party...), this ANU report (
Immediately after New Zealand’s 2017 general election, populist party New Zealand First gained a pivotal role...), and this NYT report (
...by a partnership with the populist, center-right New Zealand First Party...). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Populist nationalist party New Zealand First, led by Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters in coalition with Labour.... ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Great to see us having bios for all new MPs up by the time I opened my eyes this morning (and I opened them before 6am!). Good stuff, especially considering how many there were. I've just had a look: in 2011 we had 25 new MPs, in 2014 it was 23 (plus 4 who had previously been MPs), and in 2017 it was 31 first timers (plus 2 returnees). I've just heard on the news that this time, we have 40 new MPs. What a landslide election that was!
I was wondering whether somebody would want to compile a list of newbies. That hasn't been done previously but it's useful to do for maintenance purposes. Easier to go through the articles and check for completeness if you know which articles to look for. Schwede 66 06:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
My interest is about 1), 2) & 3) aspects of the Infobox on the right edge and 4) Party colours as displayed throughout this page.
1) For 2020 six parties are shown. For the previous election seven parties. It might be easier to read this section of the Infobox if the parties selected were shown alongside on one another, below the preamble text.
2) The rows under each party, to my eye, differently displayed for the previous election and the current election.
The current 7 row headings are:
a) Last election 14 seats, 10.70%
b) Seats before 14
c) Seats won 8
d) Seat change Decrease 6
e) Popular vote 162,443
f) Percentage 6.27%
g) Swing Decrease4.43 pp
I suggest the following 4 row headings:
a) Last election 14 seats, 10.70%
c) Seats won 8 seats, 6.27&
d) Seat change -6
e) Popular vote 162,443, -4.43%
In other words:
Delete row 2 - with MMP, parties seem to go out of their way to avoid by-elections so as to avoid any provisions of the Electoral Act that might be triggered by a change of party.
Combine rows c) and f) so they look like existing row a)
Combine rows e) and f) to give a similar feel to rows a) and c) and give a (relevant) focus to the % change
Deprecate the words "Increase" and "Decrease"
Replace the word "Decrease" with "-" in front of the number (integer or percentage) or continue with up and down arrows. /n
I appreciate this will involve adjusting the series table that feeds this Infobox. So be it. I am sure the suggested layout will ease editing issues going forward. I am happy to be involved if someone can instruct me where to find the underlying series table.
3) The intensity of party colours to show change in Party Vote by Electorate.
The issue, for me, being at the higher rates of change all colours tend to very dark shades that, for me, make them almost indistinguishable from one another in this part of the Infobox. This leads into interest 4) Party colours themselves.
For this section I suggest:
3a) This part of the Infobox gets it own, larger, section; or
3b) The shades of colours used in the first two segments and the changes table are adjusted, where necessary, to easily see a differentiation. See 4) below for a discussion.
4) Party colours as displayed throughout this page.
I appreciate the party colours are a given external to this page. And shown in sufficient size and alongside other distinguishing information, such as Party name or the name/photo of the leader(s) the exact shade is not relevant. On the other hand, such as in these thumbnail maps and devoid of other distinguishing info, some colours in small boxes can be easily confused when getting the message across quickly is the aim.
For 2020 those that colours that seem to be similar in small parcels on screen are those for Labour and Maori. I would like to be able to distinguish between them at a glance, especially when other distinguishing information is not present.
I am sure there is definite externally sourced hex code for each colour and any change, even for good reason, may invite controversy. For example: the colours used throughout this page appear to be: \n Labour = #D82A20 (RGB = 212, 042, 032) \n Maori_ = #B2001A (RGB = 178, 000, 026) \n
From the logos registered with the Electoral Commission I selected a reasonably consistent section from each. \n
The browser app in
https://imagecolorpicker.com/en/ found the dominant colours in .jpg files of the parties logos to be: \n
Labour = #D82C1C (RGB = 212, 044, 028)
Maori_ = #D4061F (RGB = 212, 006, 031)
These are very close, with that for the Maori Party being a tad darker.
The browser app in
https://html-color-codes.info/colors-from-image/ found the dominant colours in .jpg files of the parties logos to be:
Labour = #D72B1F (RGB = 211, 043, 031)
Maori_ = #D4292F (RGB = 208, 041, 047)
These are very close, again with that for the Maori Party being a tad darker.
But all three are slightly different from one another to suggest there is not one agree shade for either party.
I suggest, coupling this page wide issue with the Infobox issue at 3) above, that two obviously different shades are each other an which retain that difference when lightened and darkened for interest 3) above.
My suggestion for each these two parties is:
Labour = #FF0000 (RGB = 255, 000, 000)
Maori_ = #DD7979 (RGB = 221, 121, 121)
These seem to lighten well for 10% and 20% reductions. Darkening is a bit of a challenge as the colours are quite dark to start with.
I look forward to comments.
AlwynWellington (
talk)
03:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey! Just looking at the "general election" section, I feel as though the visual complexity of a table and prominence of the party rainbow gives undue weight to the status quo - no sources that I've seen actually make a special mention of the pre-election parliamentary organisation, and someone mindlessly scrolling down could very easily see the parliament layout and think that's the new one rather than read the impossibly tiny, low-contrast disclaimer underneath. I've gone ahead and removed the template, especially since we already describe the pre-election parliament with more relevant detail in the first paragraph of the Background section, but thought that I'd leave this little blurb here so people can see why I've removed it. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday, the words "two referendums" in this article were changed to "two referenda" and an edit summary said Corrected grammar (the plural of referendum is referenda, NOT referendums
. That opinion is not widely accepted. Firstly,the word "referendums" is an English word, not Latin. Secondly, my revert has returned the article to the status quo usage that is widespread in Wikipedia. See the following articles
Referendums by country,
Referendums in New Zealand and
1894–1987 New Zealand alcohol licensing referendums.
Moriori (
talk)
01:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Changes are necessary in some of #3 Schedule to take into account that writs were issued and the election has taken place. Mcljlm ( talk) 06:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please explain this table? I suspect additions have been made at some point that aren't formatted properly, but the column Electorate/List makes very little sense at this point. My impression is that every candidate in this table should be a list candidate, so maybe the entries for Genter and Garcia should have their former electorate seats listed in this column.
Further: is it also the case that this table only lists candidates who have moved to the list from holding an electorate? Or are we listing every candidate who formerly stood for an electorate in 2017 and then didn't in 2020 (i.e. Genter)? I am doubting both the clarity/completeness (what needs improving) and the purpose/usefulness (whether it should even exist) of a list like this. — HTGS ( talk) 01:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
In the latest yyyy New Zealand general election article, there is always a word "Next" in the infobox that points to the subsequent election. And it regularly gets changed to a particular year, which is WP:CRYSTAL as we can have a snap election at any time. In the current parliamentary term, only if an early election hasn't been called by October 2022, we know that the election will be held in 2023. It takes a wee while for an election to go through the process after being called and it must be held within the time frame specified of the law. So by October 2022, we'll know that it will be held in 2023. Before then, a snap election may be held in an earlier year. Anybody changing "Next" to "2023" will have their edit reverted. Schwede 66 21:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Much as we are proud of the Labour Party's success, it was not a landslide as usually defined. The party received 48 percent of the votes, not a majority, and only 10 seats more than the other parties (put together).
The term landslide applies where the governing party gets say 60 percent of the votes and 80 percent of the seats or more. A landslide election is one where one party takes so many seats that it leaves few or no seats to the others. That is how Wikipedia defines landslide. if that is the definition, then NZ's 2020 election was not a landslide election. A decisive victory, yes but not a landslide.
Un-balanced landslide results do actually happen in some FPTP elections. Thankfully, NZ's MMP elections are held more proportional-ly than that, and the result was more balanced than that. A different term should apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.222.51 ( talk) 06:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2020 New Zealand general election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A news item involving 2020 New Zealand general election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 October 2020. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
@ Lcmortensen: Interesting how you can purge things from this article without valid explanation, and i'm the the one who has to begin a discussion.
Having a brief background on the pervious election is at least common among wikipedia election articles. see: Next Australian federal election, 43rd Canadian federal election, Next German federal election etc. Even if this wasn't a common practice, I still think its useful to have a brief description of the previous election for context. We even had it in some form in the 2017 election article. It should stay.
The timeline isn't quite as common as an election background, however both the Next Australian federal election and 43rd Canadian federal election articles have this practice. I just think its useful and harmless to have information on major events in parliament, especially since such events can drastically affect election results. This one is more debatable.
The removal of this is completely unjustified. Even the 2017 election article had a table of the previous election result. This definitely should not have been removed. Clesam11 ( talk) 22:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I was very careful not to include "weasel words" and to keep entirely neutral. I am happy to merge the paragraphs, but I want to keep it how it was otherwise. I have already explained why my lead is the best option. Aubernas ( talk) 03:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
"At the 2008 election, the National Party had 58 seats, the Labour Party 43 seats, Green Party 9 seats, ACT and Māori Party five each, and Progressive and United Future one each. During the Parliament session, two members defected from their parties – Chris Carter was expelled from Labour in August 2010, and Hone Harawira left the Māori Party in February 2011. Carter continued as an independent, while Harawira resigned from parliament to recontest his Te Tai Tokerau electorate in a by-election under his newly formed Mana Party. Two MPs resigned from Parliament before the end of the session, John Carter of National and Chris Carter, but as they resigned within 6 months of an election, their seats remained vacant.
"At the dissolution of the 49th parliament on 20 October 2011, National held 57 seats, Labour 42 seats, Green 9 seats, ACT 5 seats, Māori 4 seats, and Progressive, United Future and Mana one each."
@ Clesam11: regarding your reverts on my edits to the tables on this page, I'm just seeking your rationale to format the tables this way. I think the way they are now (without lines) actually makes them more difficult to read, progressively more so the longer the table. It also runs counter to all precedent set on previous election pages. Thus, I feel such a change should be discussed properly and changed only if a consensus is reached. Kiwichris ( talk) 02:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@
Clesam11: As the co-leaders of the green party are co-leaders, should both individuals pictures be displayed in the right hand table? --
pwapwap (
talk)
22:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
What is the latest date that a snap election can be called that can be held before year's end? Or in other words, when do we move this article to 2020 New Zealand general election? Schwede 66 20:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
So what is the scope for the List-only MPs section? I had always been under the impression that it was for electorate MPs only contesting on the party list. Right now it includes Paulo Garcia and Julie Anne Genter who have only ever been list MPs and have announced they aren't contesting electorates. The former seems worth mentioning as it is a noticeable change, but the later isn't really much of a change at all. Kiwichris ( talk) 06:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I suggest we encourage others to chip in. Schwede 66 04:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Kia ora folks,
I'm not going to do this unilaterally but now that the Advance NZ has been registered and has a seat in Parliament, should they be on the infobox? -- MerrilyPutrid ( talk) 06:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the last time we had this situation was with Brendan Horan at the 2014 election. He got expelled from New Zealand First, was in parliament as an independent for a while and then set up the NZ Independent Coalition. That party went into the 2014 with Horan as a sitting MP but going by the infobox just prior to the election, they were not included. And that, to my mind, was the right decision and we should do the same again. Schwede 66 05:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
This page should be taken down at once. It is clearly a potential vehicle for political campaigning. And frankly, whoever found a flattering photo of that Thatcherite vampire Collins is undermining the platform. Seriously, take down. Leonotopodium ( talk) 13:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I will if this page remains in its current form. Leonotopodium ( talk) 14:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Trying to comply. Get "It is not possible to delete user accounts, as all contributions must be assigned to some identifier; either a username or an IP address." Leonotopodium ( talk) 14:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussing here before the page is created. I think the next election article should be titled
2023 New Zealand general election straight away instead of
Next New Zealand general election. I do know that
WP:NCELECT says For future elections of uncertain date, use a form similar to Next ...
, however this is more aimed towards e.g. UK elections which seem to happen randomly, unlike here. NZ has a de facto triennial election cycle and this hasn't been broken for 70 years; not even a pandemic has nudged the election date too far. Moving straight to 2023 would help prevent links being broken or confused, as any external or even internal links to the "Next" page will point to a completely different page every three years (see
Special:Whatlinkshere/Next New Zealand general election: none of these links point to their expected pages, and off-wiki it would be a whole lot worse). The "2023" date is even used by official sources such as
[2] and explicitly
[3] (The next general elections are in 2020 and 2023.
), so "2023" is definitely the
WP:COMMONNAME at least. And in the extremely rare chance a snap election is held in 2021 or 2022 we can just move the page there, no biggie, the links will be very easy to fix, and external ones will still work.
Nixinova
T
C
21:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm think the metro area boundaries are quite overrestricted. Remutaka isn't included in the Wellington-specific map, even though it is a Wellington electorate just as much as Hutt South and Mana and it was included in the last two election maps. New Lynn isn't included either, even though it is very much still an urban electorate. There are also others that are debatable such as Whangaparāoa and Banks Peninsula. What do you think? YttriumShrew ( talk), 06:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Would it be good to link in the mapmaker to this talk section? iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply) 09:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Auckland should include Whangaparāoa, New Lynn, and Papakura. Wellington should include Remutaka. Also heading for the general electorates should be "General Electorates" not "Electorate Seats". It currently implies that Electorate seats are a different category to Māori seats, which they are not. Alistairk8 ( talk)
I'm sure Erinthecute would appreciate this information. I also agree that the metropolitan boundaries should be extended. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 05:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
So I changed the Auckland Metro inset to include Whangaparāoa, New Lynn, and Papakura, and added Remutaka to the Wellington inset. Here's the new version. I put it on imgur so it can get a once over before I put it on Commons. I changed the names of the sections to the more accurate "General Electorates" and "Māori Electorates". I also changed the colour for the Māori Party to shades of orange, the same as in the 2005/08/011 maps, to make it easier to distinguish from Labour (nobody asked for this, but someone on Reddit mentioned it last week and it's been on my mind.) Papakura in the Auckland Metro inset bothers me a little since it's significantly bigger than the other electorates, but it's not a big deal. I also chose not to put Banks Peninsula in the Christchurch inset because it would dwarf all the other electorates and, due to limited space, would make them unreasonably difficult to see. Erinthecute ( talk) 07:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Electorate and list numerical counts in the bottom right are incorrect in the map. -- Korakys ( talk) 09:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, sorry to have to ask this, but not sure how to create the images myself. I wanted to see if someone with the skills could please create a map that labels the electorates? There is such images for every NZ MMP election from 1996-2017, under electorate results (e.g. /info/en/?search=File:New_Zealand_electorates,_2017.svg or /info/en/?search=File:New_Zealand_electorates,_2014.svg ). But the beautiful images for 2023 and 2020 sadly lack the labels. I'm worried this could make it difficult for readers to match up which candidates run where, geographically, in future - particularly after the next census / redraw by the Representation Commission. Would be very grateful if anyone could do something about this please? Sb101FV ( talk) 12:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC) cc: @ Kiwiz1338:, @ Matthew McMullin:, @ TheLoyalOrder:/@ Jakoats02:, @ Erinthecute:, @ Korakys:, @ Vardion:.
From my ignorance, is it true that actual Labour Party is on centre-left? I think it is centre-right, and National Party is a right party.-- 2802:8000:8AC:AA00:DCC0:4EF4:27BD:2BCF ( talk) 03:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't get why my edit of the table was reverted. According to the section on the electoral system "Each voter gets two votes, one for a political party (the party vote) and one for a local candidate (the electorate vote). ". There should thus be two columns, like with german elections, right?-- Aréat ( talk) 06:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Party | First past the post | Proportional | Total seats |
+/- | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Votes | % | Seats | Votes | % | Seats |
This party is mentioned in the lead as part of the outgoing coalition but neither the lead nor the infobox, nor as far as I can see the rest of the article, say what results it got. Was it dissolved or did it just fail to win any seats, or something else? Maybe a knowledgeable editor could add a line and an infobox entry? 83.159.74.201 ( talk) 11:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
election articles, and so on). I have restored NZ First to the infobox. (And for what it's worth, no, IP user is not my sockpuppet!!) -- Hazhk ( talk) 11:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Kia Ora everyone. I have recently rewritten the lead, because there was little difference to lead before than what it was two weeks ago. The election has happened now, and we can confirm results. So please, if you feel it to be too long, discuss here so we can take out small parts. Someone has tried to delete the whole section, which in my opinion isn't helpful. Aubernas ( talk) 13:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, sorry, I didn't know that was going to be an issue. I'll just copy and paste and we can work to trim it down. But please don't revert as well or you'll be a hypocrite. Aubernas ( talk) 14:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
talk Didn't mean to insult you bro, sorry :). I'm currently experiencing difficulty copying and pasting what I had before, because the citations do not remain in tact, and if I attempt to copy and paste the links from below, it doesn't work. Can you help me? Aubernas ( talk) 14:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I know, but my concern is that the citations don't work if you copy and paste the text into the article. I'm pasting from google docs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubernas ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I was just digging around the New Zealand Election Results site and I found something that doesn't quite match. How is it that a Heartland party candidate in Port Waikato received 7500 votes yet the table in the Results section only shows that Heartland received about 1000 votes? - boldblazer ( talk) 21:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I've reached out to the Māori Party for an image of John Tamihere to use on this page and his own Wikipedia page. If I get a response I'll add it to Wikimedia Commons, but if anyone here can get it done faster I'd appreciate it.
I would also like to double check that getting permission from the party is enough to upload such an image, or if I should get stronger confirmation that it's fair use. Will.torkington ( talk) 23:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I feel my longer and more informative lead should be the lead. I really don't want to edit war, I just don't want a lead that is too short and leaves out key information. Look at this article, 1997 United Kingdom general election. Its lead, which I think we can agree is the main thing an average person reads on wikipedia, is a good length, without going on for too long. Why do we have to apply such a short one here? it covers so many important things, such as the LGBT+ MPs setting a world record! We would be utter and complete fools not to include that in the lead. I'm 15 and I worked very hard on this, so I would like to see a lead that is full and interesting rather than one with my information largely stripped and move to the nether of the article. At this stage for me it's getting really exhausting. Aubernas ( talk) 03:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. While the lead, based on the current length of the article, is best around three–four paragraphs, the current length of the paragraphs are too long and include too much intricate detail about voting tactics, and have several weasel word and neutrality issues. I think for everyone's sake, and to avoid any disruptive editing or edit wars, it's best that we all back off and talk this through until we can find some common ground to work on.
they asked for the party vote over the candidate vote, tactically ensuring candidates running against Labour would not split the vote in National's favour.should probably be removed, and
taking Waiariki from Tāmati Coffeymay also be too much info, but at the moment I'm gonna hold off on touching the lead until t←h↑i↓s→ is sorted out. Nixinova T C 04:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I was very careful not to include "weasel words" and to keep entirely neutral. I am happy to merge the paragraphs, but I want to keep it how it was otherwise. I have already explained why my lead is the best option. Aubernas ( talk) 03:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
this is all just so stressful and depressing. all i ever wanted was a good strong lead, and no matter what I do it always gets reverted. What am i even doing here? Aubernas ( talk) 04:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Onetwothreeip and Nixinova: Let's see if we can find any more sources that highlight that seat. If there are, then I think we have enough evidence to qualify it's inclusion in the lead. Otherwise, we might have to remove it. Personally though, I think it's a significant thing: a smaller left-wing party took a whole electorate from the largest right-wing party in three years... Btw, I've also just added a little note after the second paragraph - we just need to find some sources for the last two sentences, especially the last since it's a less than favourable picture. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC) @ Onetwothreeip: Btw, my description of NZF as a populist nationalist party is just based on the description we have on New Zealand First. I'm not fussed either way, but I think something (even "nationalist party" or "right-wing" etc) to just place it on the political spectrum might be good. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The party [New Zealand First] promotes itself as centrist, but quite what that means has not always been clear.
In short, its policies are more centre-right than they are centrist.
Under pressure from farmers and her coalition partners in the right-wing New Zealand First,....
New Zealand First (Aotearoa Tuatahi) is a nationalist populist party currently in government with the Labour Party...), this ANU report (
Immediately after New Zealand’s 2017 general election, populist party New Zealand First gained a pivotal role...), and this NYT report (
...by a partnership with the populist, center-right New Zealand First Party...). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Populist nationalist party New Zealand First, led by Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters in coalition with Labour.... ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Great to see us having bios for all new MPs up by the time I opened my eyes this morning (and I opened them before 6am!). Good stuff, especially considering how many there were. I've just had a look: in 2011 we had 25 new MPs, in 2014 it was 23 (plus 4 who had previously been MPs), and in 2017 it was 31 first timers (plus 2 returnees). I've just heard on the news that this time, we have 40 new MPs. What a landslide election that was!
I was wondering whether somebody would want to compile a list of newbies. That hasn't been done previously but it's useful to do for maintenance purposes. Easier to go through the articles and check for completeness if you know which articles to look for. Schwede 66 06:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
My interest is about 1), 2) & 3) aspects of the Infobox on the right edge and 4) Party colours as displayed throughout this page.
1) For 2020 six parties are shown. For the previous election seven parties. It might be easier to read this section of the Infobox if the parties selected were shown alongside on one another, below the preamble text.
2) The rows under each party, to my eye, differently displayed for the previous election and the current election.
The current 7 row headings are:
a) Last election 14 seats, 10.70%
b) Seats before 14
c) Seats won 8
d) Seat change Decrease 6
e) Popular vote 162,443
f) Percentage 6.27%
g) Swing Decrease4.43 pp
I suggest the following 4 row headings:
a) Last election 14 seats, 10.70%
c) Seats won 8 seats, 6.27&
d) Seat change -6
e) Popular vote 162,443, -4.43%
In other words:
Delete row 2 - with MMP, parties seem to go out of their way to avoid by-elections so as to avoid any provisions of the Electoral Act that might be triggered by a change of party.
Combine rows c) and f) so they look like existing row a)
Combine rows e) and f) to give a similar feel to rows a) and c) and give a (relevant) focus to the % change
Deprecate the words "Increase" and "Decrease"
Replace the word "Decrease" with "-" in front of the number (integer or percentage) or continue with up and down arrows. /n
I appreciate this will involve adjusting the series table that feeds this Infobox. So be it. I am sure the suggested layout will ease editing issues going forward. I am happy to be involved if someone can instruct me where to find the underlying series table.
3) The intensity of party colours to show change in Party Vote by Electorate.
The issue, for me, being at the higher rates of change all colours tend to very dark shades that, for me, make them almost indistinguishable from one another in this part of the Infobox. This leads into interest 4) Party colours themselves.
For this section I suggest:
3a) This part of the Infobox gets it own, larger, section; or
3b) The shades of colours used in the first two segments and the changes table are adjusted, where necessary, to easily see a differentiation. See 4) below for a discussion.
4) Party colours as displayed throughout this page.
I appreciate the party colours are a given external to this page. And shown in sufficient size and alongside other distinguishing information, such as Party name or the name/photo of the leader(s) the exact shade is not relevant. On the other hand, such as in these thumbnail maps and devoid of other distinguishing info, some colours in small boxes can be easily confused when getting the message across quickly is the aim.
For 2020 those that colours that seem to be similar in small parcels on screen are those for Labour and Maori. I would like to be able to distinguish between them at a glance, especially when other distinguishing information is not present.
I am sure there is definite externally sourced hex code for each colour and any change, even for good reason, may invite controversy. For example: the colours used throughout this page appear to be: \n Labour = #D82A20 (RGB = 212, 042, 032) \n Maori_ = #B2001A (RGB = 178, 000, 026) \n
From the logos registered with the Electoral Commission I selected a reasonably consistent section from each. \n
The browser app in
https://imagecolorpicker.com/en/ found the dominant colours in .jpg files of the parties logos to be: \n
Labour = #D82C1C (RGB = 212, 044, 028)
Maori_ = #D4061F (RGB = 212, 006, 031)
These are very close, with that for the Maori Party being a tad darker.
The browser app in
https://html-color-codes.info/colors-from-image/ found the dominant colours in .jpg files of the parties logos to be:
Labour = #D72B1F (RGB = 211, 043, 031)
Maori_ = #D4292F (RGB = 208, 041, 047)
These are very close, again with that for the Maori Party being a tad darker.
But all three are slightly different from one another to suggest there is not one agree shade for either party.
I suggest, coupling this page wide issue with the Infobox issue at 3) above, that two obviously different shades are each other an which retain that difference when lightened and darkened for interest 3) above.
My suggestion for each these two parties is:
Labour = #FF0000 (RGB = 255, 000, 000)
Maori_ = #DD7979 (RGB = 221, 121, 121)
These seem to lighten well for 10% and 20% reductions. Darkening is a bit of a challenge as the colours are quite dark to start with.
I look forward to comments.
AlwynWellington (
talk)
03:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey! Just looking at the "general election" section, I feel as though the visual complexity of a table and prominence of the party rainbow gives undue weight to the status quo - no sources that I've seen actually make a special mention of the pre-election parliamentary organisation, and someone mindlessly scrolling down could very easily see the parliament layout and think that's the new one rather than read the impossibly tiny, low-contrast disclaimer underneath. I've gone ahead and removed the template, especially since we already describe the pre-election parliament with more relevant detail in the first paragraph of the Background section, but thought that I'd leave this little blurb here so people can see why I've removed it. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday, the words "two referendums" in this article were changed to "two referenda" and an edit summary said Corrected grammar (the plural of referendum is referenda, NOT referendums
. That opinion is not widely accepted. Firstly,the word "referendums" is an English word, not Latin. Secondly, my revert has returned the article to the status quo usage that is widespread in Wikipedia. See the following articles
Referendums by country,
Referendums in New Zealand and
1894–1987 New Zealand alcohol licensing referendums.
Moriori (
talk)
01:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Changes are necessary in some of #3 Schedule to take into account that writs were issued and the election has taken place. Mcljlm ( talk) 06:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please explain this table? I suspect additions have been made at some point that aren't formatted properly, but the column Electorate/List makes very little sense at this point. My impression is that every candidate in this table should be a list candidate, so maybe the entries for Genter and Garcia should have their former electorate seats listed in this column.
Further: is it also the case that this table only lists candidates who have moved to the list from holding an electorate? Or are we listing every candidate who formerly stood for an electorate in 2017 and then didn't in 2020 (i.e. Genter)? I am doubting both the clarity/completeness (what needs improving) and the purpose/usefulness (whether it should even exist) of a list like this. — HTGS ( talk) 01:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
In the latest yyyy New Zealand general election article, there is always a word "Next" in the infobox that points to the subsequent election. And it regularly gets changed to a particular year, which is WP:CRYSTAL as we can have a snap election at any time. In the current parliamentary term, only if an early election hasn't been called by October 2022, we know that the election will be held in 2023. It takes a wee while for an election to go through the process after being called and it must be held within the time frame specified of the law. So by October 2022, we'll know that it will be held in 2023. Before then, a snap election may be held in an earlier year. Anybody changing "Next" to "2023" will have their edit reverted. Schwede 66 21:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Much as we are proud of the Labour Party's success, it was not a landslide as usually defined. The party received 48 percent of the votes, not a majority, and only 10 seats more than the other parties (put together).
The term landslide applies where the governing party gets say 60 percent of the votes and 80 percent of the seats or more. A landslide election is one where one party takes so many seats that it leaves few or no seats to the others. That is how Wikipedia defines landslide. if that is the definition, then NZ's 2020 election was not a landslide election. A decisive victory, yes but not a landslide.
Un-balanced landslide results do actually happen in some FPTP elections. Thankfully, NZ's MMP elections are held more proportional-ly than that, and the result was more balanced than that. A different term should apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.222.51 ( talk) 06:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)