Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/politics/Archive 4

template brokeness

There is template brokenness at the bottom of both Richard Worth and Rodney Hide. I suspect a change has been made to a template, but I'm not sure which. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. The correct code is {{s-par|nz}}. The template must have been changed to display a big red error when an unrecognised value is entered. —Andrew_stalk 00:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Orange guy referential recursion

Today on http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/IvoteNZ The orange guy said I'm in Wikipedia? Cool! (And a bunch of other stuff about elections in New Zealand) I'm not sure whether this counts as a press mention or wikipedia used as a source, but it sure is referential. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The facebook link is [1]. The article is Elections in New Zealand#Orange Guy.-gadfium 03:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The FB link won't last permanently due to the wall being continually updated, and archiving with WebCite and Wayback Machine doesn't work. Ideas? Do we really care? —Andrew_stalk 03:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't worth trying to archive for posterity, but we can feel good about someone noticing our work.-gadfium 04:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Electorate & by-election Templates

Template	Usage	Produces
{{NZ electorate link}}	{{NZ electorate link|Auckland Central}}	Auckland Central
{{NZ election link year}}	{{NZ election link year|1853}}	1853
{{NZ election link}}	{{NZ election link|2011}}	2011 election
{{By-election link year}}	{{By-election link year|Te Tai Tokerau|2011}}	2011
{{By-election link}}	{{By-election link|Mana|2010}}	2010 by-election
{{By-election link small}}	{{By-election link small|Botany|2011}}	2011 by-election
{{Party index link}}	{{Party index link|Independent politician}}	Independent

Frustration at having to make up dozens of electorate & by-election links while editing List of New Zealand by-elections led me to create these templates:

Some #REDIRECT pages may be necessary to resolve those electorate article that don't follow our standard naming format. FanN | talk 05:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Created meta/shortname, meta/color and meta/shading templates for Political Party, to act as place-holders for unknown affiliation while editing (by-)election, politician &c. pages.
BTW - the meta/shortname returns   - {{Independent politician/meta/shortname}} added for comparison

	Shortname	Colour	Article
	Political party list	#F8F9FA	Political party list
	Independent	#DCDCDC	Independent politician

Created {{Party index link}} - it is similar to {{Party name with colour}} except it doesn't format itself as two cells so it is easier to use with or without a table structure.
So far I've used it as a key on electorate articles so that repeated affiliations can be stripped from tables

Key (table layout)

Independent

Liberal

Reform

Key (inline layout)

  National   Labour   Green   ACT   Māori Party

FanN | talk 02:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Good work all around! Schwede66 07:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Schwede.
I've edited template table above to include a few more templates; I've not written any documentation yet - see Bob Semple article for use of {{NZ electorate link}}, {{NZ election link year}} & {{By-election link year}} within {{NZ parlbox}} - FanN | talk 01:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Election results tables

We've got a vast variety of styles for election results tables and I thought it would be useful to have an agreed template to work towards. I've thus copied an abbreviated table here that shows all the features that I think is current best practice. Please comment, so that what we've got here does in fact represent consensus.

Key^{Note 1}

  Independent   Reform   United Labour   Labour   National

ElectionNote 2	WinnerNote 3
1866 electionNote 4		Edward Stevens
1871 election		William Reeves
1875 electionNote 5		Cecil Fitzroy
1879 election		John Hall
1881 election
1883 by-electionNote 6		Edward James Lee
1884 by-election		Edward Wakefield
1884 election
1887 election		John Hall
1890 election		Alfred Saunders
1893 election
1896 election		Cathcart Wason
1899 election		Charles Hardy
1902 election
1905 election
1908 election		George M. ThomsonNote 10
1911 election
1914 election		Andrew WalkerNote 11
(Electorate abolished 1919–1946)Note 7
1946 election		John McAlpine
1949 election
1951 election
1954 election
1957 election
1960 election
1963 election
1966 election		Colin McLachlan
1969 election
(Electorate abolished 1972–1978, see Rakaia)Note 8
1978 election		Colin McLachlan
1981 election		Ruth Richardson
1984 election
1987 election
1990 election
1993 election
1994 by-election		David Carter
(Electorate abolished 1996–2008, see Banks Peninsula)
2008 election		Amy AdamsNote 9

• Note 1: Use a 'Key' to show all the parties that have been represented in the electorate.
• Note 2: Set column width to 100px (unless notes require a wider column).
• Note 3: Set column width to 175px (unless long names require a wider column).
• Note 4: Give a wikilink to the election in the format 'yyyy election'
• Note 5: In 1860–61 and 1875–76, the general elections were held either side of new years in the various electorates. Pipe to the year that is applicable for the electorate, and don't show the year range.
• Note 6: Template:By-election link small can be used to achieve the font for by-elections, which could otherwise be created by <small>''small tags and italics marks''</small>.
• Note 7: Where there's a break in the electorate's history, show this like this.
• Note 8: And if you know which electorate replaced it, then wikilink to it.
• Note 9: Show only the incumbent in bold.
• Note 10: Where party allegiance for a representative changes at an election, simply change the party colour accordingly.
• Note 11: Where party allegiance changes during a parliamentary term, look at the hidden notes in the table code how to achieve this table layout.

How does that sound? Schwede66 01:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for writing up the notes for this - I think this would make a good Documentation for {{NZ election link}}.
My points are:

Election	Winner
1914 election		Andrew Walker

• Note 1: Key on a separate line from the {{Party index link}}s
• Note 3: Long Names should be wikilinked to their most significant data of [firstname] [surname] - so William MacDonald
  rather than William Donald Stuart MacDonald, exceptions in the case of any of the three Edward Wakefields etc.
• Note 5: I prefer <font size=-2> or <small> for 1860–61 election and 1875–76 election to avoid confusion with #REDIRECTs
  to non-existant 1861 election and 1876 election
• Note 9: I avoid bolding incumbents as they are understood from context - they're last on the list.
• Note 11: To avoid the rather small party colour cells set cell height - I'd use height=36 as a compromise that
  doesn't increase the overall row height too much, as the other option of putting &nbsp; in each colour cell would.
• 12: I have been reorganising List MP tables with this same layout (which has revealed a further problem
  in identifying list MPs' electoral records, which are often not recorded)
• 13: Section Headers often read ==Members of Parliament for [electorate name]==, the "for [electorate name]" is redundant,
  and removing it clarifies macron use and renamings (Auckland West/West Auckland and Wanganui/Whanganui)
• 14: Demote Sections Members of Parliament and List MPs to subsections of History

FanN | talk 05:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Election	Winner
1928 election		Sydney George Smith
1931 election
1935 election

• Note 3: Column width=175 and colspan=2, the first instance of party bgcolor cell should be set to width=5
• Note 11: To ensure party bgcolor cells display correctly, split rowspan of party bgcolor to isolate a change of allegiance from any previous or subsequent term(s)

FanN | talk 11:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

These are all good additions and if you wish, Fanx, please feel free to copy this across to {{NZ election link}}. I do prefer, though, to display the correct election year for the 1860–61 and 1875–76 elections. On an electorate basis, the election was held on a specific date and we should show the corresponding year in the table. I agree that we should not wikilink to a non-existing election year article, and we can easily achieve this by not using a election link template, but using a good old pipe like this one for 1860: [[New Zealand general election, 1860–61|1860]] Schwede66 18:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The above tables do not comply with MOS:COLOUR; colour alone should not be used to convey information (in this case political parties). An alternative is to use the layout I have used at Kelston (New Zealand electorate)#History, which contains an extra column. The other advantage is that it makes referring back and forth to a key unnecessary. Schwede66 pointed out that party affiliations are one click away, but this is a complication when articles are being read in print form, especially if the print-out is in black-and-white. My suggested format would be just as easy to use when there are changes in party affiliation. For example, I have remoulded an excerpt from the above table:

Election	Party		Winner
1908 election		Independent	George M. Thomson
1911 election		Reform
1914 election		United Labour	Andrew Walker
		Labour

I appreciate that could be a lot of work to go over all the electorate articles, but moving forward with new electorates would be a good start. Thoughts? Adabow (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm decidedly unkeen on that idea. If you use that argument, you'll have to apply it to our election results templates, too, as they also don't comply. Gets my no! vote. Schwede66 03:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Election 2011 taskforce

Draft Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand/Election_2011_taskforce page created. If there's anything you want to put your hand up for please drop by and add your name to a task. FanN | talk 03:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We did some good work back then, including getting draft biographies written in project space prior to the election. If others concur that we should start bios of the next people on the party lists, please say so. I wonder whether Helen Mulford, who is number 9 on the New Zealand First list, might be an MP soon. Schwede66 05:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Members of the House of Representative category

I have added a tag to the category Category:Members of the New Zealand House of Representatives that it includes (all) members of all the subcategories eg by party, location of electorate, or by position eg prime minister, defence minister or cabinet minister etc. This is so that all members can be found readily without having to go into several subcategories (and more when subcategories are added for the North Island, with subcategories of the North Island for Auckland, Wellington and possibly other cities to come). At the moment some premiers/prime ministers do appear (eg William Fox (New Zealand)) and some do not appear (eg Robert Muldoon) in the “Members etc” category. Note: some ministers eg Mark Fagan were in the upper house (MLC), so will not be included. Hugo999 (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean. It says: "The following 200 pages are in this category, out of 475 total." We've had something like 1300 MPs in total. Can you please elaborate? Schwede66 17:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

At present quite a few MPs are obviously not included in the main category, and you have to check one of the subcategories for a particular name if that MP happened to be (say) a Premier or Prime Minister. I expect that most MPs in one or more of the location categories are in the main category still; but in theory once the North Island categories including cities are completed, the main category (Category:Members of the New Zealand House of Representatives) could be empty of articles, with all MPs in at least two subcategories (apart from independent MPs not in a party category, who could only be in one, the location category). But for convenience you should be able to look in one category to find any MP by name and I will check some subcategories (eg Defence ministers) sometime and include them in the main category also. Hugo999 (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that you are manually adding categories, which seems a bit laborious. It also results in over-categorisation, but I can see the usefulness of having one 'complete' category of MPs. I wonder whether a hidden category (populated by a bot) would be a neater way of going about this. That said, I don't know how to set that up, but I'm sure others will know. Schwede66 00:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is overcategorisation to have a common category including all MPs, and making that category “hidden” (if that is possible?) seems to defeat the purpose of having one category including all MPs. There is an index to go directly to the first letter of the surname. Other categories eg films by year have a main category including every film produced in the particular year (currently c2,000); so that it is not necessary to guess the country or type and go to several subcategories to find a film. Hugo999 (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

By-election templates

We once had a lengthy discussion on by-elections (now archived). The conclusions were contained in two contributions:

So how's this? Let's have one template covering the period post 1890 (i.e. prior to party-politics), another template until 1946, and a third one post 1946. So the first template would cover the first 10 parliaments, and I suggest that we have each parliament as a group within the template. The second parliament would cover the next 17 parliaments, and the third one the rest. I don't have a strong opinion whether 1890 and 1946 are suitable transition years, I'm suggesting this here to move the discussion on. I'd value your thoughts. Schwede66 10:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I see 1938 as a significant point to break from one era to another. I tend to view NZ electoral/parliamentary eras as; Pre-party era (1853-1887), One-party (Liberal) era (1890-1908), Multi-party era (1911-1935), Two-Party (Nat/Lab) era (1938-1993) and MMP era (1996-present). We could also consider 1890-1935 as one Historic, or Early party era. Fanx (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've now started the first template. Whilst not complete yet, it reflects what we discussed back then. And it's really easy to compile this because of the great work by Fanx of getting the list of by-elections completed (awesome work!). I'll carry on with this and will then start rolling it out and getting the old templates deleted. Chip in if you wish. Schwede66 18:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, finished this one. Feel free to move it into mainspace and start using it; it's now in mainspace. Schwede66 20:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here’s a list of links for the remaining navigation boxes:

• Template:NZ by-elections, 1891–1911
• Template:NZ by-elections, 1912–1938
• Template:NZ by-elections, 1939–1995
• Template:NZ by-elections, 1996 – present Schwede66 21:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's all implemented now. I have put the eight old templates up for deletion. Schwede66 22:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work on these templates, and I feel it makes more sense listing by eras than by decades, as often there were too few by-elections (other than redlinks) within a decade and splitting parliaments created more problems. FanN | talk 01:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Electorate results

There seems to be a general consensus to move to a new format of electorate results in the election pages [2]. Does anyone object if I add a third place coloumn to the table for MMP elections? The width is still well within the page size and stopping after third place doesn't seem any less arbitary than stopping after second? Mattlore (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Electorate results for the New Zealand general election, 2011

Electorate	Incumbent		Winner		Majority	Runner up		Third place
East Coast		Anne Tolley			4,774		Moana Mackey †		Darryl Monteith †
Epsom		Rodney Hide		John Banks	2,261		Paul Goldsmith †		David Parker †

I've added it to the template as an optional field. Mattlore (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not keen on extending the format to third or subsequent places since this is supposed to be a summary of results, as there is a link to the electorate included where full results can be found we should keep it there. Second place (and its variation from first) is what defines the majority, and is a good place to stop - that we are moving to a new template is as good an opportunity to dispose of whatever third place information we've recorded as we're likely to get, so let's not blow it. Additionally, adding more names and colours means the main information (seat held or lost, incumbent returned or defeated) is subsumed within the extended data and unless 3rd place is, was, or subsequently becomes a Green or NZ First list MP then they're likely to remain non-notable - and irrelevant. FanN | talk 06:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is more details on another page then I am fine with it just remaining a summary. As I said to Lcmortensen‎ today, I'm really only intent on adding it for 96-02. For 2005 on, the candidates are listed on a separate page and that's fine.

In the 1884 election I have listed the entire full list of candidates. Any ideas on how to fit that into the new system? Maybe it should just remain in the old format? Mattlore (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice work on the 1884 article! In my opinion, what we do prior to 1890 will be different from what we are discussing here, as there weren't any parties around. So there's no point using this template with the fancy party colours when they are all just grey for Independents. Schwede66 08:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Earlier this year Schwede & I worked on standardising results tables for the first four elections - 1853, 1855, 1860–61 and 1866 - as sortable templates using {{sortname}}, {{NZ electorate link}}, province, MPs' Parliamentary terms - using {{ntsh}} and {{dts}} to sort election dates. see templates for 1853, 1855, 1860–61 and 1866.
For a different model specific to pre-MMP party era, see how I treated the 1993 election article. In both cases whoever came 2^nd, 3^rd or n^th has been deprecated. FanN | talk 09:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess where we are disagreeing Fanx is you see it as a summary of results, while I would see it as a place for the full results where available (for the more recent ones obviously this also utilises subpages). I believe the encyclopedia is an appropriate place for these election results, such as with 1884, and I don't see why we should limit ourselves to just a summary. Mattlore (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If it were to become a place for full results the election articles would be overwhelmed with irrelevant data - and data beyond 2^nd place in an electorate is irrelevant within the scope of a general election article. As you say more recent (MMP era) elections have 'subpages' (I presume you mean the candidates & party lists we discuss in the section below) and as we have this recorded there as well as on the current electorate pages I cannot see any reason to keep on repeating the information. I'm not against expanding articles to 2^nd place - I don't see it as entirely necessary, but that it can sometimes be useful where it contains earlier unsuccessful electoral histories of later MPs. In all instances I've referenced above we expanded the data - for 1853 to 1866 improvements to sortability were made and election dates were added; the 1993 article had new seats, seats held, retiring MPs and gains/losses noted. 1993 never had runners-up listed - unlike 1990 which has had them listed for over seven years. The only time I recall removing 2^nd (and subsequent placings) was in this edit which is the redesign that appears to be the genesis of your improved template model. In summary, 2^nd place occasionally useful in pre-party era and Liberal Party era, useful in multi-party era, pointless for most of the two-party era, and mostly redundant in MMP era as detailed info appears in electorate histories (near full coverage of 2005, 2008 & 2011 elections, variable coverage of 2002, poor for 1999 and non-existent for 1996) but for consistency's sake we should include 2^nd places. For 3^rd and subsequent places there's no rationale that outweighs the obscuring of the important data with Too Much Information. If there is a pressing need to include data from the 1884 election then update the electorate pages (see Te Aro) or just provide an external reflink to 1884 election results @ paperspast. FanN | talk 14:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, again the fundamental difference on this issue between us is what you see as irrelevant I see as encylopedic. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Mattlore (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been working my way through election results starting in 1853, converting the results pages to templates (so that they can be used in both the election and the parliament article), and adding parlboxes to the MP articles. I have just arrived at the 1884 election, so it might be worthwhile bringing up this topic again. Firstly, I've added a column listing each MP's term. Secondly, I agree that it is encyclopaedic to have each electorate's results shown somewhere. For the time being, they are recorded in the results table, and I'm fine with that. Thirdly, I believe it is useful to have these tables sortable, but using the rowspan parameter (which the table in its current form requires) and sortability don't go together. Hence, I suggest that ultimately, the detailed election results go into results tables that get added to electorate articles (just the same as we are doing it for current elections). That of course a big job and it certainly doesn't fit into my work programme this year, but eventually this should happen and it might surface on my to do list in 2014 or thereabouts. So ultimately, we'll have the pre-1890 election results tables all look the same (like 1881 and earlier). Is that ok with everybody?

And one further issue - up until 1881, the hardcoded table is always sorted by electorate (alphabetically), but the 1884 table is sorted by geographically. Any objections me changing the 1884 table to alphabetical order? Mattlore, the original table is your work, so I'd appreciate your comment. Schwede66 18:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Schwede. No preference over how they are sorted - I just did it geographically to follow the source. With the potential future creation of full electorate results on electorate pages then it would also be easy enough, using templates, to create a page along the lines of Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2011 by electorate for each election, as I still think this information is more useful sorted by election than by electorate.

For the time being the articles could have a "summary of results" and "detailed results" sections if you want a summary table that conforms to the earlier elections? Mattlore (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Mattlore. A series of [[Candidates in the New Zealand general election yyyy by electorate]] pages sounds like an excellent idea. I can't say that I'd be keen on both a 'summary' and a 'details' table that duplicate a lot of the data. Primarily, I like templating the results so that there is one source to change if updates are needed; having two different results tables would go against that principle. One thing is for sure, though—we won't be running out of useful things to do for years to come! Schwede66 05:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Candidates by party or Party lists

Following on from this discussion. The more I consider it the more I think Candidates in the New Zealand general election xxxx by party is more useful than Party lists in the New Zealand general election, xxxx. Thoughts? All I really am proposing is renaming, adding a table at the end of party lists listing the electorate candidates not on the list (I was reading a useful article the other day that listed them somewhere...) and including the non-registered parties. Mattlore (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge Party lists into Candidates by party, with list table first and any non-list candidates secondary. I already merged Lianne Dalziel, Damien O'Connor, Ross Robertson and Louisa Wall into the 2011 party list article as there was no way to make sense of placings without recording electorate wins by non-list candidates, although the structure of the the template meant I couldn't record their previous list positions without borking the math. FanN | talk 08:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds OK as more inclusive Hugo999 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Chairman of Committees

The Chairman of Committees (New Zealand) article doesn't have a list of office holders yet. The role was effectively that of the Deputy Speaker. I can start the list based on the one for the Speaker (example below), but I've got two high level queries:

• Is it useful to have the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees shown in the same list, as the roles were obviously related to one another?
• Should we be dealing with party colours in a different way to what's been used in the Speakers table (those colours are too subtle, in my opinion)? Schwede66 18:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Example based on Speaker list

#	Name	Took office	Left office	Speaker's party	Governing party
1	Frederick Merriman	1854	1855	None	None
2	Hugh Carleton	1856	1870	None	None

Why don't we use "Template:{{{Speaker's party}}}/meta/color" for the colours?-gadfium 19:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Being included in the same list makes sense, but I wonder whether it can be done without becoming too messy (naturally, not all Speaker and Chairperson terms end at the same time). —Andrew_stalk 21:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaker of the Legislative Council

Ok, I've tidied up the pages for the Speakers of the New Zealand Legislative Council over the weekend, and the table on the list page has similar issues. I've drafted something using three sample lines, which should cover all the possible issues. Does anybody have any thoughts on possible further improvements before I recode the whole table? Schwede66 05:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Old look

	Name	Took Office	Left Office	Speaker's Party	Governing Party
1	William Swainson	1854	1855	None	None
2	Frederick Whitaker	1855	1856	None	None
	William Fitzherbert, 2nd time	1887	1890	None	None
	William Fitzherbert, continued	1890	1891	None	Liberal

New look

Key

  Independent   Liberal

	Name		In office	Gov't
1		William Swainson	16 May 1854 – 8 August 1855
2		Frederick Whitaker	8 August 1855 – 12 May 1856
(5)		William Fitzherbert 2nd time	21 September 1887 – 23 January 1891

draft layout

proposal on "gov't" column

with correction to Fitzherbert's term

	Name		In office	Government
1		William Swainson	16 May 1854 – 8 August 1855		pre-responsible government
2		Frederick Whitaker	8 August 1855 – 12 May 1856
					Sewell Ministry
3		Thomas Bartley	12 May 1856 – 1 July 1868
					first Fox Ministry first Stafford Ministry second Fox Ministry Domett Ministry Whitaker–Fox Ministry Weld Ministry
					second Stafford Ministry
4		John Larkins Cheese Richardson	1 July 1868 – 6 December 18781
					third Fox Ministry third Stafford Ministry Waterhouse Ministry fourth Fox Ministry first Vogel Ministry Pollen Ministry second Vogel Ministry first Atkinson Ministry second Atkinson Ministry
					Grey Ministry
5		William Fitzherbert	14 June 1878 – 22 April 18871
					Hall Ministry Whitaker Ministry third Atkinson Ministry first Stout–Vogel Ministry fourth Atkinson Ministry
					second Stout–Vogel Ministry
6		George Marsden Waterhouse	22 April 1887 – 21 September 1887
(5)		William Fitzherbert 2nd time	21 September 1887 – 23 January 1891
					Scarecrow Ministry
7		Harry Atkinson	23 January 1891 – 28 June 18921		Liberal Government
8		Henry Miller	8 July 1892 – 6 October 1897
			6 October 1897 – 9 July 1903
9		William Campbell Walker	9 July 1903 – 5 January 19041
10		John Rigg (acting)	5 January 1904 – 7 July 1904
11		Alfred Cadman	7 July 1904 – 23 March 19051
12		Richard Reeves	23 March 1905 – 30 June 1905
13		Charles Christopher Bowen	30 June 1905 – 4 July 19102
			4 July 1910 – 4 July 1915
					Reform Government
14		Charles John Johnston	7 July 1915 – 13 June 19181
15		Walter Carncross	1 November 1918 – 10 July 19242
			10 July 1924 – 10 July 19292
					United Government
			10 July 1929 – 10 July 19342
					United/Reform Coalition
			10 July 1934 – 18 July 1939
					First Labour Government
16		Mark Fagan	18 July 1939 – 2 August 19442
			2 August 1944 – 31 December 19471
17		Bernard Martin	29 June 1948 – 8 March 1950
					First National Government
18		Thomas Otto Bishop	15 March 1950 – 31 December 1951

¹ Died in office
² Reappointed at end of member's term

FanN | talk 00:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking good. Seems I wasn't thinking in a straight line re Fitzherbert's term... From 1891 onwards, my preference would be to show governments rather than ministries. Schwede66 00:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fitzherbert was an old error dating back to the original page creation or the source material.
I've merged cells for overlapping ministries - this requires forcing cell height to prevent the staggered rowspans from collapsing into a single row.
Should we consider ordinals - 1st Fox Ministry or 2^nd Vogel Ministry - or is this against MoS?FanN | talk 03:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Copied to article, added notes for 3 ex-PMs FanN | talk 04:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 to do list

I have a few things that I'd like to achieve this year and I thought that it might be useful to share this, because once we start collaborating on these things, we can achieve a lot more and go about it more thoroughly. For starters, I'll just put a bullet list up with only few indications of priority:

• add a parlbox to each MP article (638 to go as of today – not too onerous)
• get the nine missing 'nth Parliament of NZ' pages up
• write the Mayor of Lower Hutt page – the last remaining city mayor page
• rationalise the various New Zealand prime ministers navboxes (I'm thinking of keeping the basic one, getting rid of all the fancy ones, and having the information provided in succession boxes instead)

Things that I'll be doing on the side without a particular target:

• write the history section for pre-1950 electorate articles and convert the table formatting of the electorate history to the agreed format
• add succession boxes covering electoral succession (one electorate at a time appears to work best)
• improve on MP biographies whenever I feel like it

Things that could be tackled when the 2012 to do list is complete:

• improve article quality of 'top' and 'high' importance articles that are classed as 'stub' and 'start'
• get at least a stub article for each member of the Legislative Council into article space
• related to the above, have a list article covering all the MLCs (nowhere near as many as we have had MPs)
• write Ministry article (i.e. tackle the red links in the Governments of New Zealand navbox)

With regards to the Legislative Council, what is holding me back is that my reference book (Scholefield's Parliamentary history of New Zealand) goes only to 1949, so I'm missing the last year of appointments including the Suicide squad (New Zealand). If anybody had the list of appointments from 1949 onwards, I'd get the list article going and the number of redlinks would show us how much work is involved.

I'm sure there's other things that I've had on my mind, but that's all that I could think of for now. Schwede66 04:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Schwede:

A possible article I have in mind for 2012 is “Record of members of parliament of New Zealand” along the lines of Records of members of parliament of the United Kingdom, with oldest, youngest, longest and shortest serving etc.

Re Mayors of Lower Hutt I have a History of Lower Hutt with a list of borough and city mayors from 1891 to 1970 (when Kennedy-Good took office)

Re MLCs and working towards an article on every MLC as for the MHRs, I have borrowed the 1984 edition of J.O. Wilson which has all the MLCs; and though not by date it would be simple to pull those (20?) appointed 22.6.1950 as members of the suicide squad. However Polson was actually appointed on 15.3.1950, was he regarded as a member of the suicide squad? On MLCs, is a separate category for those who were ministers from the upper house (like David Wilson) worthwhile; this seems to me to be a mark of distinction for some MLCs.

Re MLCs generally I favour (as said above) having the main category include all MLCs as for MHRs (and electorates) so that there is one category where any MLC can be found by name (as for all MHRs, and also for all electorates). With a template to go straight to the first letter of surnames there is no problem with categories containing several thousand names. Navigation is only slow with very large categories like Category:Living people containing over 552,000 articles, and the need to use a template based on the first two letters which means that finding names in that category is slow. Hugo999 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Hugo. Re the MLC top level category, that won't soon be necessary any longer, as we'll have the list article. The list article will, for some time, be more useful than the top level category, as it will also contain all the redlinks (i.e. it will the the complete record, whereas the category will of course only list those articles that already exist). That said, I think it won't take long (in the big scheme of things) and we'll have a stub for all the members.

Re a separate category for MLCs who were also ministers, I think that is a good idea. Schwede66 19:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

List of MLCs

Well, Hugo999 was so kind to look up the members of the Suicide squad and I've used that as a basis to start the list article for Legislative Council members. I'm doing this in the following way:

1. compile members of the suicide squad (done)
2. add all blue links from Subcategories of Category:Members of the New Zealand Legislative Council (done)
3. add all blue links from Category:Members of the New Zealand Legislative Council (done up to and including the letter 'P')
4. add the remaining names as redlinks (having done this for a few letters, there are quite a few articles that I find that should have been added to the MLC member category, but often that info is missing from the article)

So this is progressing quite well. If anybody feels like it, they could carry on adding blue links starting with letter 'R'. I would add the terms when back from a short wikibreak. Schwede66 19:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Article has been published. Schwede66 20:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand electorate categories

(discussion copied from Alan Liefting's talk page) Fanx (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are you recategorising NZ electorates to NZ [Region] electorates? Splitting them up now means a visitor or editor accessing through categories needs good geographic knowledge, or will have to search through several regional categories to find anything. At the very least this change should have been proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/politics before being started. FanN | talk 08:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I am doing a lot of recategorising. Which particular category are you concerned about? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned about removing electorates from Category:New Zealand electorates to Category:Historic electorates of the Auckland Region (and other regions) as in this edit.

• There was no consensus on this as it was - to my knowledge - never discussed
• I don't believe splitting the original category into ever-smaller subcats is useful.
• The historic electorates already have a listing in {{Historic electorates of New Zealand}}.
• The usefulness of the original category was that it wasn't split, apart from Māori electorates - which form a special class of their own, and apart from the historic Goldfields electorates (now subsumed within Otago) should be the only separate category.
• It is an arbitrary categorisation with many of the current electorates having historical connections, with Nelson existing in one form or another since 1853, this makes Nelson as historical as Wanganui and Rangitikei - and far more historical than Clevedon.
• New Zealand electorates have a habit of being recycled, they'll disappear for a parliament or two, or 17 only to be annoyingly resurrected at some later redistribution.
• Electorates tend to straddle regional boundaries, and as their boundaries shift at successive redistributions they may only spend a single parliament within a tiny portion of a region before retreating.
• You cannot correctly categorise any pre-1989 electorate as being within a Region that didn't exist before 1989.
• Apart from the later mechanism to determine North Island seats in relation to South Island seats, New Zealand electorates stopped being categorised geographically at the 1881 redistribution - I can't see any justification to change now. FanN | talk 11:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Replies in order:
    • I don't see the need to discuss something that improves WP.
    • Splitting a category to keep it under the 200 page limit helps aid navigation for readers.
    • Categories and templates can happily coexist. Indeed, The existence of {{Historic electorates of New Zealand}} would actually support the splitting Category:New Zealand electorates.
    • Category:New Zealand electorates is more useful if it is split into current and historic electorates. Readers are more interested in the former.
    • Categories are a black and white/yes or no option. They cannot be used shades of grey.
    • The historic electorates can easily be reassigned to the current category.
    • An electorate can easily be assigned to two separate regions.
    • I don't agree, however there are limits to how we categorise historic events into a modern context. Take this example that I recently found: [3]. A massacre in 1599 was categorised in Category:Military history of the United States. The US would not exist for another 150 years at that time! In our case I see nothing wrong with allocating historic political definitions into a modern context. Having a explanatory note in the category page is required to prevent any confusion.
    • Um, don't know what to say for this one.
      • I hope I have allayed your concerns but if not you may want to take it to the WPNZ discussion page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see some merit having the historic electorates in their own category, and I can see some merit having all electorates in one category. Other than that, I'm with Fanx. Schwede66 00:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I see the greatest advantage of Category:New Zealand electorates would be to have current electorates alone. The New Zealand electorates page and {{Historic electorates of New Zealand}} give the historical info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion that this discussion be moved to NZ Politics/Talk - can we do that before we continue this topic? FanN | talk 01:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. And you don't need my permission. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Improvement" by the nature of this discussion would appear to be POV
• Splitting a category to improve navigation is laudable, in this case splitting has made navigation more difficult.
• The existence of {{Historic electorates of New Zealand}} and {{Electorates of New Zealand}}, as they are already split, cannot be a reason to split the Category:New Zealand electorates - I'd argue that the case of two templates supports keeping them in a single category, and not a reason for a dozen categories.
• "Useful", is being able to access all areas from the one category, if useful for visitors means current electorates then consider Category:Current New Zealand electorates - alongside Category:New Zealand electorates, not instead of. Usefulness also needs to consider editors, being the most frequent visitors to historic electorate pages - making it more difficult for editors invariably means lower article quality in the long run.
• Schrödinger's category aside, it is possible for an electorate to be both current, and historical. The impossibility of either state existing to the exclusion of the other is a reason for not splitting. You can have your cake, and eat it too - as long as you aren't forced to categorise a historical/current cake electorate as either current OR historical.
• Yes, electorates can be recategorised, although with one category this point is moot.
• Heaven help us if Taupō is ever abolished/renamed and ends up being listed in four regions.
• You seem to have two opinions on this. It is OK to correct a US Military history categorisation [for an event] that took place over a Century before the establishment of the US while it is similarly OK to assign an electorate to a region that didn't come into existence until more than a Century after said electorate ceased to exist. "... allocating historic political definitions into a modern context" doesn't wash in light of your earlier comment that "Categories are a black and white/yes or no option".
• Until the 1875 redistribution and the 1879 election electorates were constrained by the provincial boundaries. The provinces were abolished in 1876 and the 1881 election was run on electorates established at the 1881 electoral redistribution. Since the provinces were just as real, their respective electorate boundaries were wholly within a single province, and they lasted as long as the current regions have I propose that all electorates (historic and current) be recategorised by province. Yes, I jest; but I feel it makes slightly more sense than the arrangement under discussion.FanN | talk 04:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems that you have an issue with a sort of shoe horning of historical subjects into a modern classification system. We have to bend temporal rules somewhat to make WP usable. For instance the History of New Zealand article documents events prior to Abel Tasman's discovery of Nova Zeelandia and Category:Māori history is part of Category:History of New Zealand. I think the same can be done with historical electorates. An explanatory note can easily be put in the categories explaining the practicalities of the categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we limit this discussion to the topic instead of descending to what you perceive to be my "issue" with one of the points raised? The straw man argument that the History of New Zealand article somehow shows a precedent for the "shoe-horning" of any article into any future context one cares to imagine is a diversion of the topic into areas that don't concern it, and the distinct correlation that early polynesian settlement of New Zealand/Aotearoa has with modern New Zealand history/society/culture in no way suggests any correlation between old electorates and new regions. Old (and some current) electorates correlated to old provinces, and new regions somewhat reflect the old provinces - in scale if not in purpose - and that's about all there is to the matter. I thought I'd made it clear that my objections to these recategorisations were based on far more than these supposed historical connections, am I to take it that that discussion is over? FanN | talk 20:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this worth keeping?

Is it worth keeping Bright Future (policy)? Unreffed, hard to find refs and a dead ext link to the official govt page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I would keep it. 1999 is an era where you won't find much info online. But that doesn't mean that it isn't notable. I'm sure that books will cover the Fourth National Government of New Zealand, and this will be covered. Schwede66 06:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

link on page fixed. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Great! I have tweaked the article and I am now cool (in modern vernacular usage...) with keeping it. It needs refs though. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Internet data on by-elections

I'm interested in creating articles on by-elections but I can't seem to find any data that is not online. I don't really have the time to go to a library but am interested in knowing if there is any other way to find data on New Zealand by-elections aside from getting a book from the library (or buying one). I'd be interested in creating by-elections articles relating to Dunedin and the South Island, if that is of any help. JaumeBG (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There should be something in newspapers up to c1945, online in Papers Past ([4]). Though the papers covering up to 1945 (Auckland Star & Evening Post) are not South Island papers, they would give the byelection results. PS: To create articles you would have to become a registered user. !Hugo999 (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you still keen? I'm happy to help (have just amended your 1922 Dunedin North entry), as I've got the 1985 edition of New Zealand Parliamentary Record. If you write the articles, leave me a note (here is good) and I'll come after you and put the references in. The book doesn't list who stood for election, nor does it give votes etc; only who won it. So you will have to find that info from elsewhere (Hugo's suggestion above is a good one). Schwede66 23:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I just looked it up on Papers Past, and apparently Papers Past only goes on until 1945. Dunedin North had a by-election in 1945 and 1953, so I can't find information on 1953. Concerning the 1945 by-election, I have found no concrete actual figures concerning the amount of votes: [5], [6], [7]. From next Friday I will have two weeks of holidays, so maybe one day I will walk into the local library in hopes of finding information. JaumeBG (talk) 04:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Some sources for you:

• detailed results
• some commentary
• results last general election
• bio for Walls Schwede66 09:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Dunedin North by-election, 1945 has been created. JaumeBG (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There is also http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?a=p&p=about&c=niupepa&l=mi&nw=utf-8 which does for Māori language newspapers what paperspast does doe English. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Dates of by-elections 1911-1991 with names of previous member and winner are given in Appendix I of Wood, G. A. (1996) [1987]. Ministers and Members in the New Zealand Parliament (2 ed.). Dunedin: University of Otago Press. ISBN 1 877133 00 0. For full details of candidates (surname and initials) and voting for 1946-1987 see Norton, Clifford (1988). New Zealand Parliamentary Election Results 1946-1987: Occasional Publications No 1, Department of Political Science. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington. ISBN 0-475-11200-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Unfortunately the Wellington Public Library & National Library only have non-borrowing copies to use at the library. Hugo999 (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Naming conventions for prime ministers

I've proposed a formal move request for George William Forbes. Depending on what others think, I may put up a range of other PMs (and Premiers) up for renaming, so you might like to put your considered opinions forward. Schwede66 05:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Canterbury Association

Memorial tablet in the western entrance porch of the ChristChurch Cathedral showing the members of the Canterbury Association

The Canterbury Association was an English group of Anglicans that hatched a colonisation scheme, and the Canterbury region is the result of their grand plan. Some of them emigrated to New Zealand, but many of them never had the intention of coming here. So far, so good. The Canterbury Association existed for only a few years before it got dissolved. In a quest of finding out a bit more about the group, its membership was researched for a series of books on The History of Canterbury. In Volume I, the group's membership is listed (in Appendix IV) - I count 84 members. After Volume I was published, a memorial tablet was installed in ChristChurch Cathedral.

The vast majority of them already have articles on Wikipedia. I'm guessing that all of them would meet notability criteria. I once created a category and am working my way through the list (so far, I have done 30 members; a further five that I've looked at don't have an article yet).

My question to you - should members of the Canterbury Association come under the scope of this Wikiproject? I would think that this is the case. But before I go ahead and tag the articles, I thought I better ask. Schwede66 23:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to cross-link it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism ahead of Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand/politics, both because it seems more like an religious project than a political one and because the articles look like they have better links to NZ than to the church, so WPA have a better chance of adding content that leads to WP:BALANCE. Of course, a case can be made for adding to both, would not be a bad thing. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ratana infoboxes

All the infoboxes for MPs who represented Ratana are broken (see Eruera Tirikatene and Haami Tokouru Ratana for example). I can't work out what the problem is, so this will need to be solved by some one more techie than me. Helenalex (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't see what the problem is. Can you describe what it is that is broken? Schwede66 01:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem was Ratana lacked Template:Ratana/meta/shading. I have now fixed it by giving it the same colours as the Māori Party. By chance do you use IE Helenalex? It might be another IE only problem. Mattlore (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Updated Wikipedia:Index of New Zealand political party meta attributes FanN | talk 08:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

ACT New Zealand

A large portion of the history section of ACT New Zealand has been removed because it has lacked references for over two years, and has accumulated a number of other maintenance templates. I think a lot of this would be really easy to reference, particularly the election results. Other parts may need to be rewritten to avoid original research. Anyone feel like having a go at this? The article looks pretty silly with the remnant of the history section starting at 2008.-gadfium 20:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

minor error on page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33rd_New_Zealand_Parliament

To report a minor error on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33rd_New_Zealand_Parliament (and I am not confident enough to fix it)

The list of by-elections includes the 1963 Northern Maori by-election, and lists the winner as, and links to, Matiu Ratana. This is an earlier MP who died some 14 years before in 1949. The correct name is Matiu Rata - can be verified via the Northern Maori page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.80.116 (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting this. I have fixed it. - SimonLyall (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The by-election was also missing from both the bio parlbox and the electorate article. I have fixed that one. Schwede66 10:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Parliamentary term

We've had referenda about increasing the length of parliamentary terms in 1967 and 1990. John Key is now promoting the idea again, a Stuff.co.nz poll shows 61% support for it, it would require 75% support from MPs, but Key says that he'd only change if this was also supported in a referendum. So, should we have an article on the latest proposals yet, and if so, what should we call it? Future New Zealand parliamentary term referendum? Schwede66 08:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggest either adding it as a new section in Electoral reform in New Zealand or expanding the Parliamentary term section of Electoral system of New Zealand. The proposal doesn't yet seem to be mentioned at Referendums in New Zealand, either, where a comment after the "Constitutional referendums" (shouldn't it be 'referenda'?) table would probably not hurt either. Once a referendum is actually scheduled would probably be an appropriate time for a new article to be compiled. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I think it is a little too early for a stand alone article. Mattlore (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Daveosaurus. By the way, the issue of referendums or referenda was discussed at Wikipedia:New Zealand collaboration/History#Referendums in New Zealand before the article was created. An earlier discussion about the corresponding Australian article was persuasive: Talk:Referendums in Australia.-gadfium 23:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Good feedback - thanks! Good to know the background on the plural issue. Schwede66 07:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Have added the info to electoral system of New Zealand. Schwede66 08:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand local elections, 2013

We should have a few articles on local elections; the mayoral elections in the bigger centres are certainly deserving of an article. So far, we have Christchurch sorted; we should also have articles for Auckland and Wellington at the very least. Schwede66 06:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

So far, there doesn't look like there's going to be any significant competition in the Auckland mayoral election. If anyone was planning a serious challenge to Len Brown, I would have expected them to have launched a campaign by now.-gadfium 06:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You never know. By my reckoning, 85% of Christchurch people consider Bob Parker useless, but it was only today that a challenger has been revealed by the media (as yet unconfirmed). Len Brown looks like a safe pair of hands; I'll give you that. How's the race shaping up in Wellington? Surely, somebody high profile will try and oust the green mayor. Schwede66 06:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a bit of speculation about the Auckland mayoralty and the possibility of Maurice Williamson running, although how much of that involves journalists and bloggers interviewing themselves I don't know. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if Williamson runs the election will certainly be more interesting. It may be appropriate to later have an article on the Auckland mayoralty elections even if it is a one-horse race, but I don't think it's worth having one at this point which would consist mainly of announcements by fringe candidates and speculation on major ones.-gadfium 21:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

By the end of the election day, the New Zealand local elections, 2013 article was in good shape. Good team effort; well done! If anybody feels inclined to pretty things up, the 2004 article has results boxes by region. At the very least, the way how incumbents are shown in that table is probably worth adopting. Schwede66 19:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Electorate names

I really don't think that it is either necessary nor desirable to disambiguate New Zealand electorate articles when disambiguation is not needed. And as for convention, we have discussed this before and there was no such thing as consensus. Schwede66 00:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that appending (New Zealand electorate) to all electorate names is disambiguation, it's just standardising names across the whole category - see East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (UK Parliament constituency) or any of hundreds thousands of (UK Parliament constituency) articles. See also Division of Jagajaga, and every other Australian electoral Division - ditto Jamaica (Kingston East and Port Royal (Jamaica Parliament constituency)) - and just about everywhere else. Canada (Toronto Centre) and Zimbabwe are the only significant examples where constituency names are similarly fudged as it is here (see Category:Constituencies by country. This is obviously not an issue with Paris' 1st constituency, Tokyo 1st district or New York's 1st congressional district as their political systems establish unique alpha-ordinal names, but everywhere else (either on a government level or on each national/politics wikiproject) conspicuous effort is made to ensure all constituencies' names rigidly adhere to a specific format. As far as I'm concerned it is both necessary and desirable to have all NZ electorate articles conform to the same standard. FanN | talk 10:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wasn't aware that this kind of exists as a naming convention for other parliaments. What do others think? Schwede66 22:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see both sides here. Whatever the case, there's certainly no need for the (New Zealand electorate) in the modern Maori electorates. Adabow (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Just how are Te Tai Tonga, Te Tai Tokerau and every other Māori seat in between not New Zealand electorates? The only significant definition (for purposes of defining them as part of the NZ Parliament) is that they are New Zealand electorates - to separate them may be meaningful to those that live in NZ and/or work on this wiki project but to an outsider it would suggest that they are not in fact New Zealand electorates, but possibly part of some Māori Parliament. Since they are equally New Zealand electorates alongside Auckland Central, Ōhariu and Clutha-Southland (all missing a further identifier) I see no rationale for arguing for one case but not the other. Including historical electorates I count around 70 (including Māori & historical Māori electorates) that would need changing - most have a REDIRECT in the required namespace so a straight move is not generally possible. There's also the bizarre case of Karapiro that has been renamed several times while managing to avoid the obvious renaming. FanN | talk 11:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Members of New Zealand provincial councils

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have copied this discussion to Category talk:Members of New Zealand provincial councils; please contribute there if you have further thoughts. Schwede66 05:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a Category:Members of New Zealand provincial councils with currently just over 100 articles. There have been hundreds of provincial councillors (I own a 1925 version of the 'New Zealand parliamentary record', which lists all of them), and whilst not all of them are notable, the number of articles is going to increase by quite some over time. I'm thinking of turning this into a meta-category, with membership of the respective provincial council as the subcategory. I'm unsure how to name this, but here are the options that I can think of:

• Category:Foo provincial councillors, or
• Category:Members of the Foo Provincial Council

Your thoughts would be welcome. Schwede66 08:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Category:Members of Foo Provincial Council - the definite article is redundant. FanN | talk 10:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it matters which, as long as the style is kept consistent from the get-go. It should be remembered though that some of the provinces had total populations in the low thousands - comparable with pre-1989 boroughs - so many of the councillors are never likely to end up being notable, unlike (for example) MHRs or MLCs. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to start with a List of Members of the Foo Provincial Council (probably a table with which terms the were members) so we could do the disambiguation and references can be accumulated for the borderline cases. Personally I think that most if not all of these are going to be notable, but it'll take time to find the references. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A list is fine - for those that don't have, or don't warrant articles, and any lists would naturally be within each provincial category - alongside those wiki-worthy members. The current category should be a super-category to direct us to Members of Canterbury, Members of Taranaki, etc Provincial Council. Lists of Superintendents should be in main lists as I doubt there's enough of them to warrant separation. FanN | talk 07:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's do both the categories, and the lists of councillors. I'll start with the categories now. There were 41 Superintendents, so nowhere near enough to split it into a large number of subcategories, but that list article does exist already. Note that Superintendents weren't regarded as members of a Provincial Council, at least not in Canterbury. That said, I'm not sure that there was only one set of rules across the provinces. Schwede66 18:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maryan Street

A new account - presumably operated by Street - has edited the Maryan Street article to adjust the dates that she was Labour Party president. I don't have a problem with COI here as the change, if accurate, is not controversial. However, the change conflicts with the dates in New Zealand Labour Party#List of presidents (and the previous version of Maryan Street also conflicted). Assuming the dates in Maryan Street are correct, the list of presidents needs an adjustment. Does anyone have a suitable source to do this?-gadfium 21:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem with the minor COI - I've more of a problem that if the dates are true then that throws out our timelime of NZLP Presidents. Short of asking the current Pres I know of no other source. FanN | talk 13:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Structure of electorate articles

I'm suggesting that we change the standard structure of electorate articles and would like to get thoughts from my fellow editors. What we have at the moment is as follows:

• Lead
• Population centres
• History
• Members of Parliament

• List MPs

• Election results (in descending order)
• Refs etc

What I'm suggesting is as follows:

• Lead
• Population centres
• History

Detail much reduced, just outlining when it was created, abolished, major notable things, held by a particular party since when, bell-weather seat, etc

• Members of Parliament

• List MPs

• Election results (in ascending order)

Much of the detailed history should be located with the election results, i.e. some commentary on the results, and the whole thing presented in chronological order.

• Refs etc

Currently, history detail and election results are not together. It doesn't make sense to me that the election results are in descending order. I've done Christchurch East as a fairly complete article, but with the old structure. What do you think? Schwede66 05:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the UK electorates have results grouped by decade headers (we could also put in hidden anchors, or set the ToC so that anything below level three headers aren't shown) and are listed from most recent to least. I think it would be better to summarise the election results holistically in the history (as is), rather than have a patchwork of results interspersed between tables. Awesome work on that article, by the way! Adabow (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ratana

Ratana used to be a strong political force, holding all of the Māori electorates at some point. They are, however, not included in the list of political parties in New Zealand nor in the template of historic parties. Any reason why not? They were closely aligned to Labour, but they should get their own entry, shouldn't they? Schwede66 03:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

absolutely. It may be best to create a separate article for their political party. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source. Schwede66 18:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Stub Contest

A Stub Contest has been organised for next month.

The Stub Contest is a short intensive contest focusing on de-stubbing and expanding as many of Wikipedia's stub articles as possible.

This is being done as a competition (there are book vouchers to be won), but I suggest that we can do this regardless of this. As of today, 3,652 articles are classified as belonging to the WikiProject on New Zealand politics. Of those, 1,536 are rated as stubs. 68 are mid-importance articles, with the balance low-importance. How about we try to make a good dent into the list of stubs? We could, for example, aim to have all the mid-importance articles brought up to at least start class. Keen?

Here are links to various lists of stub articles:

• 68 mid-importance stubs
• 1,468 low-importance stubs
• 1098 biographies

The way I see it, there might be three aspect to this:

• Increase the length of an article so that they are no longer a stub. A good rule of thumb is to have at least 1,500 bytes of prose.
• Remove any stub tags from the article page.
• Re-rate the article class on the talk page.

Some articles are already long enough and if so, only steps two and three might be necessary.

Who would like to join me? Schwede66 03:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)