Talk:2017 New Zealand general election

2017 general election
For the time being, the article page should stay a redirect to 2014 New Zealand general election. Any time after 20 September 2014, i.e. the date of the 2014 general election, we can again turn this into an article for the next general election, which will be held in 2017 or earlier.  Schwede 66  04:38, 11 March 2014 (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 2017 New Zealand general election?  Schwede 66  02:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good question. From the article, "The Governor General must issue writs for an election within seven days of the expiration or dissolution of the current Parliament" and "The writs must be returned within 50 days of their issuance". These are both relevant, but don't set a minimum - which I imagine would be restricted by practical implications (printing ballot papers etc). Muldoon called a snap election on 14 June 1984, and it was held exactly a month later - maybe 1 December should be our close off date?
 * On an aside, do you know why the naming convention is Foo country election, year? It's always struck me as odd and out of line with sources. Mattlore (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I find the naming convention a bit odd, too. But I don't know any background.  Schwede 66  03:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have moved the page. J947 18:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Retiring MPs list
What is the criteria for listing retiring MP's. My assumption would be an MP indicating not to contest the 2017 election. If they resign before the term, where another MP will take their place in Parliament either from the party list or a by-election (ie Phil Goff, Russel Norman, Kevin Hague, Mike Sabin and (soon to be) David Shearer), then they aren't a retiring MP. Same criteria should apply to previous election articles. Ajf773 (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking that as well. The retiring MPs list doesn't have Russel Norman, Kevin Hague, and Mike Sabin, but does have Phil Goff and David Shearer. J947 02:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For reference see these two previous edits the first by Mattlore and the second by myself : and . Ajf773 (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Norman, Goff et al are relevant to the 51st Parliament article, but not to this article about the future election. However I would mention them if they resign and aren't replaced before the election - as happened to John Banks at the last election. Mattlore (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Metiria Turei
There's a bit of back and forth going on as to whether Turei stood in the election or not. Edit summaries read "She did not stand. She announced that she would retire from politics at the election but would campaign on behalf of the party right up to it" and "Standing in an electorate make you eligible for re-election, regardless of being on a party list".

Fact is that she was number 1 on the party list, and if the Greens were to get over the 5% threshold, she would thus have remained in parliament. A further fact is that she removed herself off the party list on 9 August, but remained an electorate candidate in Te Tai Tonga. There is no way that she would ever have won that electorate outright and her removing herself off the party list was therefore effectively retiring from parliament.

So does that mean that she did not stand for parliament? Of course it doesn't - she stood as an electorate candidate. If we followed the opinion that she did not stand in the election, then Emma-Jane Mihaere Kingi (Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party) and Mei Reedy-Taare (Māori Party) also didn't stand for parliament, as they were never going to win the electorate either. I don't think anybody would argue that Reedy-Taare or Kingi didn't stand for parliament, and the same logic should apply to Turei.  Schwede 66  19:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It appears that you are correct. This is a list of candidates in the Te Tai Tonga electorate, and Turei's name appears as a candidate. So it appears that even after stepping down from the Green list and announcing that she would retire from politics at the election, she in fact ran for election. Akld guy (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Forecasts
I seek to have my edit that was twice reverted (on 30th July) reinstated. I think these forecasts deserve a mention so that interested readers can refer to them if they wish. Their crucial strength over using the One News and NewsHub Forecasts is that they make predictions for key electorates- which is of extreme importance for the ACT, United Future, Mana and Maori parties- rather than just assuming no changes from 2014. The One News and NewsHub forecasts say nothing about probabilities, only the most likely outcomes, of the number of seats that each party will receive and the probability of various coalition outcomes for forming NZ's next government. Also, poll's in NZ have certain biases, some parties and are consistently underestimated and some overestimated, which is accounted for by these models.

cf. The 2017 UK Election Page, which mentions quite a number of models by both the media and private individuals.

122.58.23.139 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If there's no opposition by the afternoon of 2nd August 2017 NZ Time, I'll reinstate my edit. If this happens, feel free to add any further forecast models to the text. 122.58.23.139 (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Forecasts are usually okay provided they are from reputable independent sources, I don't think the ones you provided comply with that. Ajf773 (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The three I provided seem to be the only reliable and credible ones on the internet for NZ. They all take polls, do the stats and give a credible output. Please explain why you would consider them to be otherwise. The implication from Wikipedians seems to be that only media sources are "reputable independent sources" whereas private individuals are more independent than the media and often produce the more esteemed models (e.g. FiveThirtyEight when initially founded or Electoral Calculus in the UK) 122.58.23.139 (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You may want to read WP:V about Wikipedia's policy on what constitutes a reliable source. Self-published works are generally not regarded as reliable sources without peer review. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 05:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Seat projection margins
I have just added on RNZ data, as per the suggestions made by Elcalebo (discussion link).

I've slightly altered the "margin" part of the table, and just left the seats of the coalition arrangements of the parties stated. While support partners such as United Future, ACT, Maori would not be necessary for forming a governing coalition/ arrangement, I'm not too sure whether lumping them into the opposition is appropriate (as per the assumptions made when quoting figures such as (66-55) for the One News poll for National-NZ First coalition), since there is still a possibility of supply and confidence to be negotiated with the minor support parties. Likewise the case for the Maori party should Labour/Green/NZ First form a governing coalition...Sleepingstar (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Revert of triple tracking
I have reverted references to triple tracking of rail lines as parts of policies. The terminology is bad on several grounds:
 * I have followed rail issues for some time and have never seen the proposed Wiri-Westfield new track referred to as triple tracking. It is consistently referred to as a "third main line".
 * The quoted references refer to it as "third main line". It is WP:OR to refer to it as something else.
 * "Triple tracking" assumes that the reader knows that the NIMT is already double tracked between the two places. The reader might wonder whether it's currently single tracked and the proposal is to add two new tracks. "A third main line" addresses this and is explicit.
 * The proposed new track is not necessarily going to run alongside the two existing tracks. It might run in a new corridor, especially since it seems that it will be devoted to freight in order to free up the existing two tracks for passenger services, and consequently "triple tracking" might be inappropriate on the grounds that passenger services will not normally use it. Akld guy (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Polling Graphical Summary
As noted in the edit log, I've just inserted temporary graphs (polynomial/ linear regression), awaiting to be replaced by User:Limegreen when File:NZ opinion polls 2014-2017-majorparties.png and File:NZ opinion polls 2014-2017-minorparties.png are updated. - Sleepingstar (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sixth Party
Why is the Māori Party listed as the sixth party? Shouldn't it be The Opportunities Party? The are the largest party that didn't win any seats.
 * You've answered your own question. They didn't have a seat and didn't gain one. The list shows only those parties that gained, retained, or lost seats. Akld guy (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems misleading: the average reader isn't going to know that that's the rule for inclusion in the infobox. They will just presume the Māori Party did the 6th best. Infoboxes do not usually leave out a party that did better than a party that is included. I would suggest either including TOP as well, or excluding the Māori Party. Looking at other infoboxes on other election articles, although sometimes previously successful parties are included so one can see their drop in fortunes, they're more often simply omitted and they're never included while a more successful party is excluded. Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added TOP to the infobox and removed UF. I'd be happy to see both TOP and Māori go, that is to only include parties that won seats, which is the most common approach taken by election infoboxes by a considerable margin. Bondegezou (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Any result that changed parliament should be included. The Māori party lost seats so should be included, United Future lost a seat and should be included, TOP gained nothing and lost nothing so shouldn't be. Just as the Conservatives aren't included in 2011 or 2014 but there's Mana in 2014, NZ First in 2011 and Alliance in 2002. &clubs;   Ameliorate!  14:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked extensively at election article infoboxes and they do not generally include worst performing parties while excluding better performing parties. (It is unusual for them to include parties that haven't won seats.) When it says "fifth party" in the infobox, that should mean the fifth party, the party that did fifth best. It is misleading, indeed flat out wrong, to list as the sixth party, the party that did seventh best, or to list as the seventh party, the party that did thirteenth best. There is no way the average reader can know that "sixth party" in this infobox means "seventh but they did better last time so we're listing them here as sixth". There is nothing in the instructions at Template:Infobox election that says parties should be included on the basis you assert. If other NZ election articles have done the same, they should be changed. Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Last year, I looked at 50 infoboxes for the most recent general election in each European country. 31 included in the infobox every party that won seats and no others. 16 had fewer parties in the infobox than had won seats. Only 3 had more parties in the infobox than won seats: all 3 only had one party that hadn't won seats, and those parties had scored between 2.2% and 4.8% of the national vote, and had won seats in the previous election. No infobox included a worse performing party while excluding a better performing party. On that comparison, I suggest the best approach here is just to include the parties that won seats. Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've put in a request at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums for more input here. Bondegezou (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Coming from the request at WP:E&R, the general rule is that only parties that won seats should appear in the infobox. As New Zealand has a proportional election system, personally I'd say it would be better to use Infobox legislative election; the current infobox is far too cumbersome – it's over two pages long on my screen. It's meant to be a summary, but isn't really working as such if you can't see it all in one go. Number  5  7  14:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's what Infobox legislative election would look like. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 04:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the legislative infobox. Guidance on infoboxes is that they are meant to be small and compact summaries. However, this is a separate issue from what parties should be included. I remain very concerned that the current article lists a sixth and seventh party that are not the sixth and seventh best performing parties in the election. Bondegezou (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I support a switch to the new infobox, it's much simpler and better at conveying the information. Photos / information about leaders could be included further down in the article, perhaps under "Parties and candidates". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose a change in infobox type, the current is perfectly fine. I do think it should be condensed by removing the Maori Party and United Future and only include parties that won seats at this election. Kiwichris (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would also like to add my strong objection to changing the info box, there's nothing wrong with the current one - not to mention tables similar to the one shown on this new info box are already available in some form on this article already. I'm actually getting annoyed that people keep trying to remove parties from the infobox for no good reason. Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the infobox meant to reflect basic information, such as seat changes? So why are people removing viable info that reflects seat changes? I can't think of any valid reason to be doing this. User:Clesam11 (talk) 1:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , just on the topic of what parties to include, you ask about "people removing viable info that reflects seat changes". All options discussed show seat changes: the question you are asking is about which parties to include. If you want to show all parties that have lost seats, we can do that, but what do you think about the point that it is misleading to have a party explicitly listed as sixth that actually came seventh and a party explicitly listed as seventh that actually came thirteenth? The most basic point about Wikipedia is that it should show true things. No reader (who hasn't delved into this Talk page discussion) is going to know that there's some special rule for inclusion in the infobox that means that the party that actually came sixth isn't shown while the party that came thirteenth is shown under a false label. Bondegezou (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You're completely wrong in talking about parties that came sixth and seventh and thirteenth, and this possibly indicates that you're not a New Zealander and are not familiar with the country's election system. NZ uses the MMP system in which representation does not depend on who won the biggest share of the votes. For example, National won the greatest share of the votes, but the government is by no means decided as I write this and it will not be decided until at least the second week of October. The overwhelmingly best information that represents the state of the situation after the election is to show the parties that gained, retained, or lost seats, because it is on that basis that the government will be decided. The Maori, United Future, and ACT parties all had seats from 2014-2017 and supported the National government. It is crucial to understand that National, despite winning the biggest share of votes, has actually had the rug pulled out from under it bigtime, with the loss of the Maori and UF seats as partners. It is entirely possible that Labour could yet form the government, in a coalition with the Greens and NZ First. The overwhelmingly best information that represents the state of the situation after the election is to show the parties that gained, retained, or lost seats, because it is on that basis that the government will be decided. Please stop this nonsense about a minor party (TOP) which can have no influence on the formation of a government. Your thinking reflects a FPP mentality and you would be wise to brush up on MMP instead. Akld guy (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The one concern that I do share is the auto-numbering that the infobox generates; this could indeed be confusing for those who don't understand MMP. It's a discussion that we should have on that template's talk page. I reckon we should have the option of removing these labels. For MMP, they don't add any value, and as it's pointed out above, they can be confusing. Other than that, the parties shown in the ibox at the moment (i.e. including Maori and UF; excluding TOP) is something that I certainly agree with.  Schwede 66  20:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not a New Zealander,, but I have worked on a large number of Wikipedia election articles using a variety of electoral systems. There is not some magic whereby a party winning no seats under MMP matters compared to a party winning no seats under FPTP or STV or List-PR or SNTV or anything else. Absolutely the article should discuss the implications of the result compared to last time: that's something best done in the prose. Listing UF, who did 13th best in the election, in the infobox is misleading. You say TOP can have no influence on the formation of the government: they can't, that's true, but nor can Maori or UF, because none of them won seats. That's why the vast majority of election article infoboxes (for countries using all sorts of electoral systems) only list those parties that won seats. That's my preferred option. The government is not decided on who lost seats: it is only decided on who won seats. Talk about Maori and UF in the lede and in the article, but the best summary of the election results is how people did in the election: the party who did best goes first, the party who did second best goes second, and so on. The current infobox is obviously not true because UF were not the seventh party and no reliable source reports them as the seventh party. Bondegezou (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't see that removing the labels from the template solves the problem. We have a standard template that goes "first party", "second party", ... The reader isn't going to notice if certain NZ election articles omit those labels and have their own local interpretation of who to include. Your average reader is going to see 7 parties in the infobox and presume those were the top 7 parties. You need to make things clear for the reader: you can do that in text, you can talk about the significance of National losing a possible coalition partner, but infoboxes are blunt objects that present things in a simple way. Best performing party first, second best performing party second, and so on. Very simple. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, we disagree on that point. And that's fine. Anybody following New Zealand politics to some extend will be aware of United Future's Peter Dunne. He was Father of the House and a long-standing coalition partner. The party got 0.07% of the vote in 2017, and I would still include them in the infobox because they were in the previous parliament. It would appear that the majority of New Zealand editors agree with my thinking. If that's how we run things in this country, why should editors from outside of New Zealand get all excited about it? If we think that's the way it should be, I can't see a reason why it should be changed. After all, we may feel that this is the way to do it because we think that most readers of the New Zealand election articles would be interested in this. Sorry.  Schwede 66  19:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, but that's not how Wikipedia works. New Zealand editors don't get a veto over New Zealand articles: see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and indeed WP:AGF. We do not write articles for people already familiar with a topic, e.g. for those "following New Zealand politics": WP:AUDIENCE. I understand you have your reasons and I am keen to resolve this matter, but we can't tear up Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is an international collaboration that respects all editors, that is trying to write an encyclopaedia accessible to a broad audience. We can't presume readers know details: we explain those in the text. The article has some great text explaining these important aspects of NZ politics, but we can't assume someone looking at the infobox knows anything.
 * And we can't work towards a consensus if you are going to dismiss the input of particular editors on the basis of our nationality. It would be a positive step if you were to retract your comment about non-NZ editors. Bondegezou (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Bondegezou, you haven't taken in any of the arguments that have been brought up here. Maybe it's more correct that from your perspective, we can't work towards a consensus unless we agree with you?  Schwede 66  19:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Bondegezou is quite right here; in situations like this, no-one should be saying that the views of editors from inside the country are somehow less valid.
 * The infobox created by Lcmortensen above is a huge improvement on the present one btw. Number   5  7  23:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Summary so far
A summary so far. I hope this is right. More input welcome! Bondegezou (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Changing infobox to Infobox legislative election:


 * In favour:, , me, ??
 * Against: ,

Changing the parties included (we all agree on National to ACT):


 * For the status quo (with Maori/UF):, , ,
 * Against the status quo (dropping Maori/UF, or we could keep Maori and add TOP ): me, , , , ??
 * I'm neutral on the first, undecided on the second. It may be helpful to look back at the last few elections to get an idea of who we included, since this issue extends beyond just the 2017 election. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 00:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Welp, looks like those of us for the status quo are outnumbered. I personally would really miss the current infobox, it's simple and similar to those used on wikipedia for other elections around the world (including countries with MMP), and I really like it. Ah well. User:Clesam11 (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My preference for the status quo was made before the alternative infobox was proposed. I'm interested in Schwede66's proposal to take out the numbering from the current infobox, because I agree that it's misleading, but if that doesn't eventuate I'd prefer the alternative box, even though it's less comprehensive. If it's adopted, I would want the parties that lost seats retained. Akld guy (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems we have been breaking the convention of NOT including defeated parties in the last few elections, which is contradictory to the earlier method. Defeated parties are included in 2002 (Alliance), 2008 (NZ First), 2014 (Mana) but they are not in much earlier elections 1938 (Country), 1943, (DLP), 1969 (Social Credit) and 1987 (Democrats). Would we not be able to resolve this by simply changing the recent election pages to match the established convention? Kiwichris (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that those elections took place before MMP - minor parties losing/winning seats matters a lot more to how the Government is formed now than back then. User:Clesam11 (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's unclear what Kiwichris meant by "defeated parties". The first election under MMP was the 1996 one, so all the ones before that aren't a valid comparison. In the 2002 election, Alliance lost all of its 10 seats but was still included in the infobox. Ditto for NZ First in 2008 when it lost all of its 7 seats. Ditto for Internet–Mana in 2014, losing its seat. So, from the introduction of MMP, there is a clear pattern of including parties that won no seat after entering the election with at least one. Akld guy (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sort of. Not all defeated parties who were in parliament at the time of an election are included like Independent Coalition (2014), Pacific Party (2008), Mauri Pacific (1999), Christian Democrats (1996) etc... Kiwichris (talk)
 * Of those 4 parties, we can strike off two because they never held seats going into the stated elections. They were non-entities. Independent Coalition was founded in January 2014 and never achieved any electorate or list seat before being dissolved in 2016, and Christian Democrats was established in 1995, never held a seat before contesting the 1996 election, and won no seat as a result. Akld guy (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Look beyond New Zealand elections: there is no convention for including "defeated parties" over better performing parties. All other infoboxes include parties in the order of how they did in the election: you can't include a worse performing party over a better performing party, it is completely misleading. Most other infoboxes include just those parties that won seats. The best summary of the election is how the parties did in the election: of course the article should discuss parties that used to do better, but they're not a key part of the story. Bondegezou (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume you're looking at elections that don't have MMP? Take a look at the 2013 German Election (a country that also has MMP), they keep parties that lost all of their seats in the infobox. Considering how major a party losing seats can effect the formation of a Government under MMP, I believe it is important to include that information. As an example, if the Māori Party and United Future retained their seats, National would be at the threshold to form a Government right now. User:Clesam11 (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not an accurate reflection of the German federal election, 2013 article infobox. They include six parties in the infobox: those were the 6 top performing parties. They absolutely did not include a worse performing party over a better performing party. The fifth party, the FDP, had had seats in the previous election and lost them. The sixth party was new and hadn't been represented previously. So the decision taken over that infobox was not the same approach currently being taken here. As I understand, the decision there was taken that the fifth and sixth party were only just below the threshold for seats and so an important part of the story.
 * My position -- and it appears this is still the majority position -- is that you can't include the seventh and thirteenth parties while excluding the sixth or 8-12th parties. You have to respect the obvious point that the sixth party should be the sixth party. That's what non-NZ article infoboxes do. The simplest way of doing that is to just include parties that won seats, but a minority of infoboxes do include parties that didn't win seats, but they still do so respecting the order of the results. So, take your pick: just the parties that won seats, or the top seven parties in the correct order (i.e. with TOP, then Maori).
 * Most countries around the world use PR systems that have the same feature as MMP that a party losing seats can effect the formation of a government. That is, of course, true in some situations under FPTP. That is a matter to discuss in the prose. It should be mentioned in the lede. It is not a reason to go Alice in Wonderland and start saying that the party that came 13th is the seventh party. Bondegezou (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I entirely support discussing in the article the significance of a party losing all its seats and the implications on government formation. Listing a party in the infobox does not achieve that aim. The average reader will not know that that is why you are listing UF seventh in the infobox. Nothing in the infobox explains that point. It's an important point, so we write about it in the article, referencing RS, and we say something in the lede. If a reader just looks at the infobox and sees 7 parties, they will presume, even more so if they've seen other Wikipedia election articles, that those were the top 7 parties. And they're not. Bondegezou (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * They are, based on their significance, which is not based on the percentage of votes but on the number of seats won or lost. TOP had no seat and didn't win one or gain a list seat. It has no significance in the NZ MMP setting. Yes, the infobox's ranking as 1st, 2nd, 3rd parties is wrong and the infobox should instead say something like "Parties that gained, retained, or lost seats". Akld guy (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the best way around this is to talk at Infobox election about having an option to suppress party rankings. They already do so for presidential elections, so it shouldn't be too difficult. Placing information in other fields to suppress the rankings is not exactly kosher. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 03:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Jumping back a bit: the argument "shouldn't a better performing party in the popular vote go first.". In the 1978 and 1981 elections, Labour won the popular vote but National won the most seats and formed the government. Shouldn't Labour go first in this case? Lcmortensen (mailbox) 04:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Elections are more than the result post election day - for the most part they're all about the lead up to the election, and that starts the day after the previous election. What comes post election is the not inconsequential jockeying deal-making to form a government - but that is probably better addressed in the nth parliament article. The infobox needs to recognise the facts ante-polling day ... regardless how any other project decides to fudge this (& yes, I have seen, & worked on other projects).Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 04:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * the winner of an election is who won the most seats. National got more seats, so they came first, even if Labour got more votes. The primacy of the seat result as the basis of ordering in election infoboxes has been discussed several times before and that's the consensus. Obviously, when two parties have the same number of seats, then it makes sense to break the tie on the basis of vote share, and that's what is always done as far as I can see. Bondegezou (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Akld guy hack
has worked out a hack to remove the "first party", "second party" etc. labels. Thanks! That's an improvement. I hope we have agreement that you can't label the 13th party as the "seventh party".

I remain of the view that this is still misleading. If a naive reader comes to this article (and the manual of style tells us we're writing for a naive reader, as per WP:AUDIENCE) and sees UF as the 7th party listed in the infobox, what will they presume from this?

a) United Future are listed here because they previously held a seat in the last Parliament and so their absence from the new Parliament changes the dynamic of government formation by removing a party from the possible coalitions.

or

b) United Future came seventh.

The answer is obviously (b). So anyone not following the matter closely is going to think something that is not true. That is a very bad thing.

I understand why some editors are more interested in UF than in, say, the party that came 12th. I understand why some editors want to note parties that have dropped out of Parliament at this election. I agree those are important things to note. Absolutely, we should discuss those things in the article and, indeed, in the WP:LEDE. But an infobox is a blunt tool that has no room for explanation or subtlety. It displays 7 parties in order and readers will understandably presume that those were the top 7 parties in the election. The infobox can't do everything, so let it do what it can well, and put explanations and discussion elsewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have tagged this, the 2014 and 2002 articles all as disputed as the three that list in the infobox parties that did worse while excluding parties that did better. Bondegezou (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the problem isn't with the parties we list but with the template's ordinal listing ... and your slavish devotion to those numbers. That you see a problem with this project's listing of electorally significant parties rather than numerically significant parties is your problem - please stop trying to make it our problem. Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 20:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * In addition to removing the ordinal numbering by "hacking", I headed up the listings with "Parties that gained, retained, or lost seats". Readers should be in no doubt about what the listings consist of, even though it doesn't meet with the approval of Bondegezou. Like others here, I believe a better solution would be to change the template. Keeping my changes as a temporary fix until that's done seems to be the best option, bearing in mind how long it could take to get consensus on the template changes, if they ever get consensus. Akld guy (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A broad consensus on changing templates is not needed - if we make our own template that actually suits our reality. All we then need is consensus amongst this project's members. Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 20:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that you have some experience at creating election templates and a good interest in the topic. Would you be willing to start the template? I suggest, to avoid the wasteful process of us all rushing to create ones in our sandboxes, that it be developed in public so interested editors can contribute suggestions. Akld guy (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Having an infobox for elections for one country would be a very bad idea and I would strongly discourage its creation (if one was created, it will go straight to TfD). If the existing template needs improving, then do that. Number   5  7  23:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't specifically suggesting that such a template be limited to one country (although we do have some of those in this project) but rather something with a less dogmatic POV that could be used anywhere. We've made plenty of templates for this project, and editors have found them useful on other projects (Scottish & German elections use the MMP templates I created for this project, for this country, and to my knowledge no-one has tagged them with TfD). On other projects there seems to be the same bloody-mindedness about what should or shouldn't be included in their respective infoboxes - I respect the consensus on other projects regarding this (even if I don't agree with whatever that consensus may be), and expect the same consideration to be given here. Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 03:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Scottish and German elections use Infobox election. Also, there is only one WP:E&R. Number   5  7  11:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Thanks to Akld guy for working out how to avoid the numbering of the parties. I think including the parties which make a difference to the formation of the next government - ie those which have seats in either the previous parliament or the new one - is the most relevant information we can provide, so I'm in favour of keeping the contents of the infobox as they have been. A particularly striking example is for the 2002 election, where the Alliance lost all ten of its seats. This seems to me much more relevant to the makeup of the next parliament than the votes gained by the Christian Heritage and Outdoor Recreation parties, which were never in a position to win a seat or pass the 5% threshold.
 * I would expect that someone will soon start Next New Zealand general election, and I would strongly suggest that the parties listed in the infobox there be those (five) parties with seats in the current parliament, and not those which might be doing well in opinion polls (which would perhaps be the equivalent of listing parties doing best in an election after the election has taken place).- gadfium 22:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've brought up a discussion at Template talk:Infobox election for a more permanent solution to suppress the ordinal numbering, since the work-around at the moment is not exactly a permanent solution. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 23:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I still think we are chasing our tails over semantics. Therefore I renew my suggestion that the infoboxes only include parties who won seats at the election in question, thereby eliminating debate over First Party, Second Party etc... as those rankings will be correct in terms of seats won, rather than votes received. It would also be consistent with all other elections overseas that I am aware of which also rank parties by seats rather than votes.Kiwichris (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Kiwichris at this point. I think its coming to the point where the simple solution is to remove the parties that lost their seats. I would have preferred the losing parties to stay for reference, but at this point the infobox looks untidy with the disclaimer at the top and the party names appearing sloppily below the leaders names. Of course if we can get the infobox template to have an option to no longer display the placements i'd prefer we went for that, but for now I think we should just go with the more simple solution. Clesam11 (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If suppressing information was the "simple solution" then why have Wikipedia at all? The 'simple solution' as I'd see it, is to leave it alone until a real solution is found. If the problem is indeed one of semantics where the template has backed itself into a corner by the inclusion unnecessary ordinals then the solution clearly lies in changing the template, and not in removing information from this article to accommodate an otherwise unforeseen problem with the template. Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 10:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also agree with Kiwichris – this is simply standard practice as I noted above, and Wikipedia needs to be consistent in how it presents information. Number   5  7  11:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Consistency? Tell that to the UK politics project that excludes Plaid Cymru and the Greens from their UK 2017 election infobox. While the current situation with six parties listed is better than it was under previous UK election articles (the 2005, 2010, and 2015 UK election articles only show 3, 3, & 4 parties, respectively) it still doesn't reflect reality. I won't bore you with the details, but the issue of who to include, or exclude, from the infobox has been a point of contention in UK elections talk pages for as long as I can recall. Different electoral systems and cultures see different priorities, and no 'one size fits all' solution is going to suffice. Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 21:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The 2017 election was never discussed on the UK Politics WikiProject talk page, let alone the contents of the infobox, so I have no idea how you have drawn the conclusion that the WikiProject excludes the parties. I've also been involved in some of the discussions. Anyway, the consistency I was talking about was excluding parties that haven't won seats; my contributions on elections are almost exclusively on elections outside the UK, so I'm aware of the different types of results elections can produce – Infobox election is woefully inadequate for anything except two or three party systems (as it ceases to be an effective summary once you go beyond a single row of candidates/parties), hence why Infobox legislative election is vastly preferable IMO. Number   5  7  22:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim it was mentioned on the project page though, I did say "tell it to [them]", which is entirely different. A search of 2017 (or other years) UK election talk archives will assist you in clarifying the points I made previously. Given that I know your Wikipedia activity solely from your work within the UK politics pages I find it strange that you choose to downplay any interest ... Sylvia Hermon *cough* ... Welsh LibDems *cough, cough*, and the fact that you contribute to other electoral, or football, pages in preference to UK politics is irrelevant. ... and your claim that "Infobox election is woefully inadequate for anything except two or three party systems" ... for [reasons] ... is about the most POV claim I can recall from you; I'm grateful you've acknowledged that with "IMO". Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 23:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I downplayed my involvement in British election articles because as I said, I edit almost exclusively (note the almost) non-British election articles. Of course, you'll find some edits (like moving the Lib Dem article to the correct title after spotting it on the new article search results, which I go through and tag and do basic fixes on every once in a while), but it does sort of ignore the nearly 3,000 articles I've created on non-UK elections/referendums and tens of thousands of edits on them. The *cough cough* comment is a bit lame TBH and it's a shame to see the discussion being dragged down like this. Number   5  7  23:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's hardly suppressing information if the full results of the election are clearly available on the article itself. The infobox is only there to give a brief summary of the election anyway, the only way the information could be called suppressed is if someone was too lazy to actually read the article. Anyway, like I keep saying, i'd rather we removed the placements from the infobox eventually, but if that isn't a solution that can be reached soon then i'd prefer we went an alternative route. Clesam11 (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The full results are indeed available in the article in the "Results" section, which can be quickly accessed at the top of the page alongside the infobox. Users can then view the full results of all parties there. The irony is not lost on me that we have two separate templates housed there for parties that won seats and parties that didn't. Kiwichris (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Just an update on this, Infobox election has been amended to remove the "First party" etc labels, so the hack is no longer required and I've entered the data in the conventional way. Number  5  7  15:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So a template used on thousands of pages has been altered over a bit of bickering over this one page? Isn't that a tad drastic? Kiwichris (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really, it was problematic for countries with MMP - and considering the template we use is implied to be a one-size-fits-all for parliamentary elections made the change necessary. Even in countries without MMP, it really wasn't necessary to have placement labels, the ordering of the parties makes it pretty self-explanatory. Clesam11 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Some updates and fixing-ups
Hello. Since the election is pretty much over (except for the confirmation of who's ruling the government) I think we need to wrap-up this article and have a final update and fixing-ups. The NZ Election maps result image, there is typo where it states that Labour has 20 con seats, where it's suppose to have 29 seats. The 2017 Parliament seats image needs to be updated as it still showed the preliminary results before Oct 7. Also perhaps if you could create the NZ party vote map and 'Gov vs Opp' maps? Thank you. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no such "wrapping up" since wiki articles don't have an 'end date' when editing can be declared done, and the 2017 Parliament seats image had been updated post-special votes before you commented here. That it didn't show for you is a known issue - either flush your cache so that older data can be refreshed, or make a 'null edit' to the article (open 'edit this page', make no changes, and save). Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 00:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have updated the image again, to now reflect the position after NZ First's decision to form a coalition with Labour. The image is not an overwrite of the previous one, as that was representative of the party strengths after the election. <small style="border:#CCC 1px solid;padding:2px"><big style="color:#C00">Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 06:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, yep, I see that now and thanks. But also since it's now confirmed of a Labour-led gov, then wouldn't the speaker for sure be a Labour? Cuz the image says its still vacant? Also just to note, that if confirmed that WP becomes deputy, you might need to change a dot there? Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Party leaders should sit with their own block, regardless of their cabinet status, although as more NZ First MPs are getting cabinet positions some of them may be seated in the front bench, with some Labour MPs consequently further back. Trevor Mallard's stated intent is that he wishes to become the next speaker, but as we don't know the detail of the coalition deals there may be some reason why he doesn't get the job - Peter Tapsell (Labour) was speaker in the 1993-1996 Parliament under a National government, and the Independent Charles Statham was speaker for 12 years under all Reform and United PMs. A future update of the seating plan should reflect the reality of Parliament as it will be. <small style="border:#CCC 1px solid;padding:2px"><big style="color:#C00">Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 16:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * New Zealand Parliament caretaker govt, 2017.svg
 * New Zealand Parliament Lab-NZF coalition seating plan, 2017.svg.]]
 * valign= top|Is there a case for including both of these images within the main article? Not because of the coalition (NAT-NZF) that never was, but to illustrate the unique nature of this election, and the subsequent Government - a first for NZ with the party winning the most seats being outside of governance. <small style="border:#CCC 1px solid;padding:2px"><big style="color:#C00">Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 05:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * }
 * Sorry as I literally just seen your reply. For the image, yeah we could put it in because WP had a 50/50 to go either Labour or National during the negotiations. Also I saw in some images that the Deputy PM gets to sit beside the PM likewise during 1996, or JS with WP. And yep, until we wait for the house seating plan is released, we can update the image once more. Typhoon2013  (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also just to note about those images, just try and avoid confusion and conflict with other users. I have fixed the problem an you should've named one as "NZ Parliament seats, 2017.svg" to keep the naming flow like the 2011 and 2014 images. I have also requested to rename the other image to include "scenario", again, to avoid confusion. Typhoon2013  (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * FFS, I DID name it 'NZ Parliament seats, 2017.svg' until some interfering drive-by editor thought s/he knew better and jumped on a rename (as well as over-writing both files), creating all sorts of problems. So, if you don't mind - just leave it alone - another rename is the last thing we need. This is getting beyond a joke. <small style="border:#CCC 1px solid;padding:2px"><big style="color:#C00">Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 07:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

, I see you've already fucked it up again, so what are were two separate images are now one! Thanks a bunch for jumping on to something you have no FUCKING IDEA about!!!! Stop fucking things up when you clearly don't have the least fucking clue!!!! PS. If you think I sound angry, you aint seen half of it - I've wasted two days trying to sort out these fuckups by well-meaning morons that really shouldn't even have a job in Trump's cabinet let alone as a wiki-editor. <small style="border:#CCC 1px solid;padding:2px"><big style="color:#C00">Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 08:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Uploaded two new files, with (hopefully) self-explanatory names (New Zealand Parliament caretaker govt, 2017.svg & New Zealand Parliament Lab-NZF coalition seating plan, 2017.svg), because the originals are so hopelessly compromised by renamings, redirects, and over-writes. Not the normal way to go about this, but it is proving impossible to get any reasonable response from commons admins. <small style="border:#CCC 1px solid;padding:2px"><big style="color:#C00">Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 09:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it's a shame that you have problems about a minor thing, really. You pretty much just waited your time uploading an additional 2 (similar) images, but at least it's not getting used. I'm doing what's best for other projects and projects I've love to be involved in. I'll request a deletion for this ASAP due to a 'no-usage' and to avoid confusion from other users. Typhoon2013  (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also just to include that even if I'm a new user in this project, should your attitude remains the same with swearing (even if I do), I may have to report you. Typhoon2013  (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no non-usage, at least not until this is properly sorted. Sticking a delete notice on a file that is so ingrained and has so many issues aint a good idea. It will just make things far worse.
 * It is not a "minor thing", given that I'm now on my third day (and having done nothing else but this) chasing down screwup after screwup on these files.
 * As I said, you don't really know what is going on with these files, so why you should think that a random rename is likely to help ... that's beyond my understanding.
 * Your renaming, and the associated redirect pages made the two images above the same, and as one was supposed to show a Lab-NZF government but ended up plastering a National government across multiple pages and projects.
 * You're not the only ham-fisted editor to turn this "minor thing" into a fully-fledged disaster, someone else has done much much worse .... and if you thought my language here was intemperate - well, you aint seen nothing yet.
 * There are supposed to be three different files here, but with all the firestorms there's just not a chance to deal with them all, because every time we're close to unscrambling this poopfest, someone else starts over-writing and renaming things.
 * Report me if you like, I don't actually GAF now. <small style="border:#CCC 1px solid;padding:2px"><big style="color:#C00">Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 11:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Cabinet and ministerial roles section
Having a list of the new cabinet ministers housed here seems to me to be a bit beyond the scope of the article. Perhaps we could remove the list here and have a "main article" link to 52nd New Zealand Parliament and/or Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand, pages which contain this information in a more relevant article. Kiwichris (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Info Box
In light of the election result, I think it is appropriate to change the infobox to the following format as the election box is meant to briefly summarise the election, not duplicate the results table.

This removes ACT, Maori and United Future as these parties did not gain a nationally significant share of the vote or seats and therefore they are amply covered within the results table. Inclusion of these parties within the Info box is an unecessary duplication that adds nothing to the article.

The 4 parties included in the proposed info box all have national significance in either forming part of the government or official opposition, they all have nationally significant shares of seats and votes. This is a very simple election result to summarise; even if the Government formation is a bit more complicated. I made these changes and have been asked to refer to this talk page. Thank you 5.81.176.220 (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not with regard to the parties that now hold 0 seats: ACT should unambiguously be included in the infobox because it won a seat; given that only 5 parties are represented in the House of Representatives, it's unreasonable to exclude it. It's also relatively common to include parties in the infobox if they held seats prior to the election, even if they lost all their seats. Mélencron (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I dispute that ACT "should unambiguously be included" because they won a single seat, this is not normal practice at all, there are countless examples of parties that only achieved 1 seat in election articles across wikipedia where they are not icluded in the infobox. The infobox is not there to duplicate the results table (which is what your version does). It is there to provide a summary of the national result. 1 seat and 0.5% of the vote is by no stretch of the imagination a nationally sigificant result. This would be giving undue weight to that single party/MP, it is unecessary duplication (something wiki policy advises against) and does not properly reflect the outcome of the election (the current version does). 5.81.176.220 (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Typically the exclusion of small parties is simply because numerous parties won seats and not all should be included in the infobox as a result; however, this is not the case. Say, as a clear point of comparison, Australian federal election, 2016 – clearly only National/Labour/Greens/NXT are notable, but because of the small number of parties represented, there's little issue with including a 5th party with a single seat. Contrary to your assumption, infobox for future elections do typically reflect results tables, because by their nature they include the result of previous elections. Refer to me the Wikipedia policy that says that this shouldn't be allowed; in my time in editing election articles I and other editors have never encountered such a policy. (Furthermore, don't warn me with 3RR – you're the one close to it, not me. Per WP:UP, there is nothing that disallows me from removing warnings on my talk page, especially if they're not justified.) Mélencron (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of what you say there is conjecture: "Typically the exclusion of small parties is simply because numerous parties won seats": that is your interpretation of why you think that is but of course this is not always the case, there are so many election articles on wiipedia, what you say here just doesn't always hold.
 * "there's little issue with including a 5th party with a single seat" - this statement misses the whole point. This is not good grounds for inclusion in the infobox. There are articles where there are only 2 parties in an infobox where the 3rd or 5th etc parties have not been included despite gaining 2 or 3 seats (in smaller parliaments), the reason for this is they are of little to no significance in terms of summarising the election but of course their results are included in the results table (as they are here).
 * The info box is for a national summary national, of course it reflects the election results but it is not a duplication of the results table, it is a summary.
 * May I pointout that you made 3 reversions (across 2 articles) before you responded to my request to come to this talk page, making the warning you put on my talk page quite inappropriate. 5.81.176.220 (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You've made, including your original edits, a total of 7 reversions across both articles (4 on one and 3 on the other), whereas I've toed the line and stopped after 2 reverts on each individual article (which in any case is how 3RR is considered – on a per-article basis).
 * With regard to your points, you haven't yet provided support for your assertions – I've been editing election articles for a while now and I've seen a number of approaches to this, but on previous NZ/Australian election articles, parties that won seats have been included in the infobox. Election infoboxes exist to report election results: typically, those of the previous election and current seat numbers before an election has been held, and the election result after it has been held. Your assertions are nonsense; what I suspect you simply believe is that the infobox should somehow look nicer, which, while I'm slightly sympathetic to (I'm a stickler for making election articles look nice visually), isn't an argument. It's completely reasonable to include ACT as they won a seat. You haven't made a particularly convincing argument for why it shouldn't be included. Anyway, I'll have to go soon, so feel free to reply but I probably won't respond for a bit. Mélencron (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not put arguments in my mouth or misrepresent an argument. You have failed to say what specifically I have said is "nonesense", I have attempted to address your points, you have misrepresented mine by making this about the appearance of the article which is NOT my point. Please state what I have said is "nonsense"?:
 * Is the info box not a summary of the National Result?
 * Is it not true to say that 0.5% of the vote and 1 seat is NOT a nationally significant result?
 * Please, I am really curious to know what I have said that is nonsense? Most of what you have said involves your own personal analysis, which violates Wikipedia's policy on Original Research....so I'm not too sure what the substance of your argument is other than "there's little issue with including a 5th party with a single seat"...so we might as well? Sorry but on other election articles, the bar was set very high for inclusion. I do not believe in arbitrary cut offs or in making an election info box look pretty (from my perspective), I believe in making the info box reflect the result (which is what we're meant to do), not duplicating the results table for the sake of it.
 * As a side note, you have also used the word "b*llsh*t" in an edit log, this is also not appropriate, so I don't think you're the right person to be advising re conduct on wikipedia.5.81.176.220 (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, please can you stop making edits to this talk page and then editing what you have said to include new content, please can you just add a new comment, otherwise it does not read properly when you look at it chronologically as my last response was only to what you said before making your last edit. 5.81.176.220 (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I've already made my point, but I don't think you've exactly understood it. What I'm saying is that, at least when it comes to WP:E&R, to win a seat is considered a significant result that is accounted for election infoboxes. There are a number of case-by-case exceptions, but those are typically specific to circumstances which aren't applicable in this case. Your edits deviate from existing precedents on NZ articles as well: see 2014 New Zealand general election, 2011 New Zealand general election, 2008 New Zealand general election, 2002 New Zealand general election, etc. which do exactly what I've been saying here – they include parties with a single seat because to win a seat is inherently a notable outcome which should be noted in the infobox, as is to have previously held seats before the election and later lost them (which is pertinent to this article but not the one on the next NZ general election). I'll apologize for that specific remark that you refer to, but that doesn't detract from the substance of it – that you don't understand WP policy and threw a 3RR warning on my talk page when I'd only made 2 reverts on a single article, whereas you had already made 3 reverts plus the first edit you made to institute this change. With regard to your last comment, I don't know what you're talking about; I've kept the discussion in chronological order and it's common to amend comments after you've written them in discussions on Wikipedia. Mélencron (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an incorrect citing of Wiki policy which only serves to undermine your argument. Nowhwere does it say "to win a seat is considered a significant result that is accounted for election infoboxes". You then go on to prove the inaccuracy of this statement by saying "There are a number of case-by-case exceptions" - it is either wikipedia policy or it is not: In this case it is not. Everything you have said is entirely subjective, you can't even be objective when it comes to reading WikiPolicy, according to you it says what you want it to say, despite it not being written.
 * The reversion to include United Future is proof that there is no consensus for who should be included, they were not on the page prior to the 4 party version and now they are. I have restored the 4 party version based on the reasons outlined above and because the existing version has gone unchallenged because of an abuse to the block system. I would encourage others to come to this talk page to discuss this matter. 86.164.66.187 (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that this info box should just have the four parties in it as above. There is a results table on the page, why repeat it in the infobox? I have no time for this argument of "lets be as inclusive as we can". I agree with the above argument. I do not see why the infobox has been reverted back on the main page, there is no consensus for it (the number of parties keeps changing - eg. UnitedFuture In/Out), it is under discussion here. I will revert it back to the 4 parties pending further engagement from other contributors. 90.217.235.240 (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I’ve noticed this page has changed a bit lately and I just think it looks daft with 5/6/7/8 parties in it! It’s mad, most of these little parties where wiped out...yesinclude them in the results box (with absolutely everyone) but they’re just not important to the outcome of this election...so don’t get why they should be in the summary. 82.132.236.17 (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * On a presentational note, the proposed infobox has huge chunks of white space next to the leaders' photos for no apparent reason. This makes the infobox harder to read and isn't really something I've seen anywhere else. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In addition, I think it's wrong to change the infobox to the proposed change "pending further engagement" - general practice on Wikipedia is to retain the status quo until a consensus is reached, not to let the change stand. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

"Youthquake"
Do you think the much hyped-up "youth quake" relevant for the article? 114.23.226.82 (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This article says (quote) that there was "no youth quake". It says the number of voters was up on the 2014 turnout across all age groups, but nearly half of all young people still didn't vote. Akld guy (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Moving results up
I have made a significant change by moving results-related information above campaigning and party policy sections. Nothing has been added or deleted. The article ran in a timeline format with election results appearing almost at the bottom. I didn't think it was appropriate that a reader should have to scroll through lengthy text about the parties' policies, TV election debates and opinion polls to get to the election results. It made more sense to put the results up higher, and any reader interested in the policies and lead up could scroll down to them. Akld guy (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
Howdy. Via two Rfcs, we've now got Prime Minister after election in the infoboxes of British & Canadian general election articles. What the view here, of changing Subsequent Prime Minister to Prime Minister after election, for New Zealand general election articles? GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When you say, "Prime Minister of election" I take it you mean "Prime Minister after election"?  Schwede 66  19:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Works for me and I suggest that's a more appropriate label anyway.  Schwede 66  19:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

What
Why does it say Bill English won the 2017 New Zealand general election on the 2017 New Zealand general election page but on the List of prime ministers of New Zealand page it says Jacinda Ardern was elected 2017 and 2020? 149.20.252.132 (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)