Talk:2014 New Zealand general election

DYK nomination

Template:Did you know nominations/Next New Zealand general election

File:Hone Harawira - cropped.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Historic election dates

Hello Lcmortensen, do you really think that removing the table with historic election dates, and turning the whole thing into prose, is an improvement? Schwede66 09:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing all together is in order both du e to consistency and that such trivia can better go on the elections in new Zealand page. It doesn't pertain to this.(Lihaas (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)).

Move

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)).

 Done-gadfium 21:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox size

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)

I think all the parties should be there; if it needs to be smaller, the text could be made more concise.

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)

I've had a read of the Template:Infobox election and its talk page including the archives. The infobox width issue appears to come up with some regularity. The infobox defaults to three columns, and the only exception to that is if you have only four parties in the infobox; there is a workaround available to force that layout to a 2x2 matrix. So, deleting one of the parties from the infobox and reducing it to seven parties will not address the underlying issue. There is certainly reason to include Mana, as the party did have representation in the previous parliament (I wouldn't apply the same logic to an independent). So, two issues here. First - do we want to reduce the infobox to two columns, i.e. have only four parties shown? The answer is probably no. Second, if we have to live with three columns in the infobox (which appears to be the case), does it matter whether or not we keep Mana/Internet there? Schwede66 05:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. It's an improvement anyway. 124.148.107.35 (talk) 08:25, 22 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)

Could you please be more specific and explain what critical info is missing? Schwede66 23:22, 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 can appreciate that for some users' access to this page is problematic when {{infobox election}} takes up so much real estate on their monitors/screens. Might a solution be found in adding a |state= parameter such as that on {{navbox}} - with the parameter natively set to "expanded". Then it would be up to the reader to opt to show or hide the infobox. I appreciate it may not get support for a global change, but there's no serious reason as to why {{infobox election collapsible}} couldn't exist as well. I suppose it could also manage to show the first four parties, then have an option to 'show more'. FanN | talk | 07:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. I guess the issue with smartphone users is any kind of infobox that creates multiple columns. So to make it really work for handheld devices, the collapsed version of the infobox should probably contain a single column only. Collapsing or expanding sideways is thus what we need. Schwede66 18:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsuccessful list candidates

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)

It's not clutter, it's useful information. It doesn't take up much space, it's near the bottom of the article and the information has been included on every other election article. We had the discussion last time and the decision was to keep it, in this modified format.

I don't understand the insistence on having to refer to a second page when the information can be included in this condensed format on the main page without greatly influencing the size of the page. Mattlore (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this list is useful to have. What I particularly like about it is that it's easier to quickly glean the situation from this rather comprehensive table than to understand the Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2014 by party tables. Schwede66 18:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be an "all or nothing" rule. Why should a non-incumbent list candidate get their name in the main article for being a loser (for the lack of a better word)? Why don't we also list every losing candidate for each electorate on the main article as well?

And it is false that it's included in every other election article - there's no list of unsuccessful candidates for any election before 1993. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 19:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should also include this info in articles since the beginning of the two-party era. Schwede66 20:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have now restored that list. Schwede66 07:11, 23 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)

And I was hoping we could bring the article up to GA quality - I don't think this will be possible with such a redundant list smack bang in the middle of it. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Welsh election article lists every candidate, and in a much more confusing fashion than the condensed table we are discussing. Wales also uses an MMP electorate system. As Fanx said, the notability of list candidates relates to the fact that they contested this election, which is why its appropriate to mention them in this article. It is harder to be nominated as a list candidate than an electorate one, as a party has to jump through additional loops to be registered. Also, Wikipedia:Article size discusses readable prose, not markup size. If size is your only objection, then there is other information that could be culled from this article besides the table.

I'll also post a note in WPNZ to get more opinions. Mattlore (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

When I started here, the answer would have been keep it and make them all red links. I'm aware that policy has now changed, however. I actually like User:Lcmortensen's GA idea---keep it and see whether it survives GA Review. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it provides useful information (which seemingly isn't available in this form anywhere else) and should be kept — Ballofstring (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Lcmortensen, great to hear about your GA thoughts. I'd be most happy to help. If the GA review says that the list should go, so be it. That said, I'm sure that this discussion here where we are trying to work towards a consensus would in no small measure contribute to the GA reviewer's opinion on the matter. Schwede66 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Electoral map by party vote

Results by electorate

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)

Yes, that would be interesting. A very blue map for the general electorates, I suppose. I note that The Press had such a map on its front page on 22 September. Schwede66 05:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The only catch is that while National may have the highest party vote in an electorate, a Labour-Green coalition may have formed a government based on the electorate's total party vote! Lcmortensen (mailbox)

The alternative would be a colouring based on left-right coalition prospects, but there will always be parties difficult to categorise on this basis, and I think that makes the idea unworkable.-gadfium 08:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I was also thinking of four choropleth maps showing the party vote percentage for National, Labour, Green and NZ First in each electorate. For example, Clutha-Southland on the National map would be dark blue, while the Maori electorates would be a very light blue. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have generated support maps for each party in the past, (for my own interest), and they do show interesting patterns which would informative. This seems the best idea, and would show more information that the a largely blue map would. Ridcully Jack (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What about Maori-electorate-only maps for the Maori party and Mana? Or is this too tricky? Mattlore (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite possible, but with only 7 electorates, perhaps not very interesting? There might be pockets of Mana (and Maori??) support in general electorates. Watch this space?? Since these are a bit time-consuming to put together, I might wait until special votes released. Ridcully Jack (talk) 01:30, 23 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. Schwede66 04:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Chloropleth maps would be fantastic. Thanks in advance.-gadfium 22:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking of shading the most support (whatever percentage that might be) with a full saturation colour, and the least support (whatever that percentage might be) with white, for each party. Using the meta-colour for each party would make the maps distinctive, but would it be better to use a set colour (Orange Guy / Electoral Commission orange) or shades of grey? Ridcully Jack (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

My initial preference would be to use the meta-colours for each party. That way, if they are displayed side by side on this article it is a lot more intuitive. Mattlore (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Work needed towards GA status

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: Schwede66 18:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• there's too much detail in the lead, and much of it should be moved to the article body
• once done, the lead should be rewritten to give an overview of what is written in the body (much of the body's content is not currently mentioned in the lead)
• there are many statements that are unsourced, including whole paragraphs
• italicise those links where the article name itself is also italicised (e.g. newspapers)
• we could consider having the headings 'Dates' and 'Electorate boundaries' as subheadings to 'Background'
• we could consider having the heading 'Retiring MPs' as a subheading to 'Background'
• possibly expand 'List-only MPs' with all incumbents who don't contest an electorate (e.g. Dyson, Carter) and mention English in that context; possibly have as a subheading to 'Background'
• review tense throughout the article
• Changes in MPs - needs details how these changes relate to parties

I would also add that we would need to look at the campaigning section, and try to make prose out of the timeline. My intention was the timeline was going to be a temporary until we could make some order out of it. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

National's phantom list

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. FanN | talk | 01:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've commented on Talk:Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2014 by party‎; they're not phantom but, like every election, the commission only publishes 65. The others are still eligible for election. Mattlore (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In order to accept this claim we would need proof that the EC only published the first 65 names in previous elections, otherwise it is just an unreferenceable claim. Until EC publishes their full election statistics, including full lists we can only judge the list by what is currently available on the EC website. If and when they change this detail we can only use current and verifiable information. FanN | talk | 04:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The E9 has been released so now there is no confusion, National did have a list of 75. Mattlore (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That there was a longer list wasn't the issue. What was important was the need for it to be cited and verifiable. All we need do now is determine why Elections NZ deems it necessary to publish misleading and/or incomplete information. FanN | talk | 13:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Electoral Act 1993 provides for only the first 65 list candidate names for each party to be printed on the party list provided to electors in newspaper notices, in the EasyVote pack, and at voting places - see (section 147(2)(d) and (3)(b) and section 157(2)(a) refers). --LJ Holden 19:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Lewis, I suspected it was in the Act but hadn't had the time to look it up. Mattlore (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

All good, I had reason to during the campaign... --LJ Holden 20:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha. :) Mattlore (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lol ... thanks for the clarification Lewis FanN | talk | 04:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, you got a decent laugh out of me, too. Schwede66 04:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Votes summary (Pie v Bar)

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)

I thought the bar was more appropriate because there is some discrepancy even though it may be small between party vote and the actual number of seats obtained. Personally I also find it hard to tell the difference between party votes if it is in a pie chart, (thinking about the 2008 election between Labour and National), though laid out on the bar, a clear difference can be seen. Additional, many other election pages uses the graph such as the Danish, Spanish, Italian, Scottish, Japanese and US to name a few, therefore to maintain continuity throughout the site I thought it would be appropriate to add the bar graphs to the New Zealand elections as well. Humongous125 (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, I wouldn't use %'s in the bar graph - I'd use actual seat and vote numbers respectively. Mattlore (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The bar graphs can only appear in percentages. But I see no reason why they can't be used along side the pie-chart as well like United Kingdom general election, 2005#Results. The pie-chart, I understand shows how the entire 100% of the vote was split up between the parties, while the bar-graphs are showing the scale of these votes beside each other and how it has translated into seats in parliament. And though the bar-graphs are also in percentages, it is showing that despite National gaining 47% of the vote, they obtained 49% of parliaments seat and the graphs allow a visual representation of that. Humongous125 (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If you add an extra pipe you can display the bar graph totals in real values. I would be happy with the two bar graphs and a pie chart for total seats. Mattlore (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Parliament seats National   60 Labour   32

Ah, didnt realise you could do that. Yeah, sounds like an agreeable plan of action. Humongous125 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

So something that looks like this? Humongous125 (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Popular Vote National   1,131,501 Labour   604,534 Green   257,356 NZ First   208,300 NZ First   95,958 Māori   31,850 ACT   16,689 United Future   5,286 Others   54,146

Parliament seats National   60 Seats Labour   32 seats Green   14 Seats NZ First   11 Seats Māori   2 Seats ACT   1 Seat United Future   1 Seat

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of :) But again, just my thoughts on the matter! Mattlore (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Having had a think about it, the graphs don't show the percentage of seats obtained where a comparison can be seen with the vote which I thought was important. But I'll go with what everyone is happy with! :) Humongous125 (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Eighth Party

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)

Because Mana had a seat in Parliament before the election. That's our criteria for which parties get listed in the infobox.-gadfium 22:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox dispute

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)

External links modified (February 2018)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929223147/http://www.colinjames.co.nz/ODT/ODT_2011/ODT_11Jun14.htm to http://www.colinjames.co.nz/ODT/ODT_2011/ODT_11Jun14.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102160005/http://www.labour.org.nz/media/ross-robertson-retire-parliament-and-stand-local-board to http://www.labour.org.nz/media/ross-robertson-retire-parliament-and-stand-local-board

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)