1411:, but I have worked on a large number of Knowledge (XXG) 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.
4044:
1198:
1370:
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
1330:, 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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.
4205:
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.
3138:
4158:â 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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 â you're the one close to it, not me. Per
297:
3128:
4180:"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).
638:
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.
1497:. I understand you have your reasons and I am keen to resolve this matter, but we can't tear up Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. Knowledge (XXG) 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.
2425:
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.
3650:
3844:
2196:: 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.
60:
217:
186:
126:
2506:(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
108:
1020:
4139:
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).
3859:
227:
3525:
2700:
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 â 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
32:
4230:
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.
321:
1880:(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 MÄori Party and United Future retained their seats, National would be at the threshold to form a Government right now.
77:
4029:
4021:
3986:
3978:
3813:
3802:
3767:
3759:
3603:
739:
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...
2740:*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 ... is about the most POV claim I can recall from you; I'm grateful you've acknowledged that with "
1934:
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
Knowledge (XXG) election articles, that those were the top 7 parties. And they're not.
3460:
3352:
3316:
3263:
3164:
3085:
3014:
2979:
2783:, 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.
2757:
2678:
2598:
2438:
2359:
2304:
2150:
1463:
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.
2517:, 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).-
2257:. 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.
4497:
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
4219:
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
4123:
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
4107:
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
2908:
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
2331:
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
1933:
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
1918:
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
1910:
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.
1462:
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
1388:
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
738:
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
4304:
what I've been saying here â 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
3338:
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
3249:
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
3208:
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
1369:
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
904:
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,
887:
Any result that changed parliament should be included. The MÄori 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
637:
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
4369:
Iâve noticed this page has changed a bit lately and I just think it looks daft with 5/6/7/8 parties in it! Itâs mad, most of these little parties where wiped out...yesinclude them in the results box (with absolutely everyone) but theyâre just not important to the outcome of this election...so donât
4352:
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
4247:
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
4176:
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
2424:
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
1736:
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
1717:
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
1262:
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
845:
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 MÄori 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
402:
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
3380:
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
3302:
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
3232:
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
3150:
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.
2965:
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
2731:
I didn't claim it was mentioned on the project page though, I did say "tell it to ", 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 Knowledge (XXG) activity solely from your
2569:
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
687:
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
464:
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
4305:
NZ general election). I'll apologize for that specific remark that you refer to, but that doesn't detract from the substance of it â 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
2136:
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
1315:
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
928:
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
4331:
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
4204:
With regard to your points, you haven't yet provided support for your assertions â 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
4138:
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
4103:
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.
1852:
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
1432:
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
4229:
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 Knowledge (XXG)'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
2699:
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
2664:
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
1984:
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
1898:
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
846:
well, or excluding the MÄori 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.
2828:
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
2813:
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
2252:
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
775:
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
565:
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
2387:
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
2584:
If suppressing information was the "simple solution" then why have Knowledge (XXG) 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
4335:
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
2286:
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
4283:
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
1316:
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.
2510:, 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.
3042:
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
1702:
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.
772:"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.
4309:
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 Knowledge (XXG).
4200:
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 â on a per-article
2778:
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
569:
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
4498:
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.
1853:
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.
2939:
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
540:
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.
2570:
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.
1428:, 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
616:
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.
3000:
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.
3443:
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
3059:
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.
2332:
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.
4353:
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.
4425:
In addition, I think it's wrong to change the infobox to the proposed change "pending further engagement" - general practice on Knowledge (XXG) is to retain the status quo until a consensus is reached, not to let the change stand.
2239:
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.
860:
I've added TOP to the infobox and removed UF. I'd be happy to see both TOP and MÄori go, that is to only include parties that won seats, which is the most common approach taken by election infoboxes by a considerable margin.
2402:
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.
4604:
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?
1364:
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
586:) 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.
3439:
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
4394:
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.
1280:
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".
2554:
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
1500:
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.
3910:
2049:
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.
577:
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
4153:
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,
2137:
addressed in the n 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).
1389:
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.
1300:
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.
3435:
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
1818:
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...
403:
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?
4043:
1197:
909:
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
1907:
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.
688:
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)
2814:
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.
4099:
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.
1684:
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.
732:
3426:
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.
1515:
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?
2229:
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".
2733:
2585:
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.
3131:
The situation after the vote count, showing the the relative strengths of the parties in their pre-government formation positions. This also represents the possible National-NZ First coalition.
3141:
The Parliamentary seating plan showing the eventual Labour-NZ First coalition supported by the Greens. The only future change being the election of a new Speaker and a rearrangement of the
361:. 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.
4186:
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.
3590:
2931:
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.
762:
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".
933:
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.
905:
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
3487:
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
330:
200:
4638:
948:
4658:
4233:
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.
990:; the current infobox is far too cumbersome â 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.
980:, 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
311:
4477:
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.
2346:
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.
3694:
4633:
3064:'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 -
3699:
151:
133:
113:
2737:
657:
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.
574:. 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.
2232:
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
805:
801:
3432:
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.
1792:
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
1533:
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.
2272:
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.
1758:
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.
1804:, 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.
287:
4653:
3404:
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.
707:
about Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on what constitutes a reliable source. Self-published works are generally not regarded as reliable sources without peer review.
306:
196:
4183:
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.
4648:
277:
4332:
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.
1433:
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.
2619:
Also agree with Kiwichris â this is simply standard practice as I noted above, and Knowledge (XXG) needs to be consistent in how it presents information.
4628:
3429:
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.
831:
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.
4673:
4668:
3072:
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.
613:
335:
253:
2780:
929:
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.
380:
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
4048:
Map of the general election. Electorate results are shown on the left, Maori electorate results in the centre, and the list members on the right.
1202:
Map of the general election. Electorate results are shown on the left, Maori electorate results in the centre, and the list members on the right.
2249:
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.
1911:
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,
827:
Why is the MÄori Party listed as the sixth party? Shouldn't it be The Opportunities Party? The are the largest party that didn't win any seats.
3933:
3920:
3709:
3492:
3065:
1835:
1174:
2872:
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.
4643:
3714:
2704:
2661:
2657:
2653:
2649:
1603:
1242:
984:
4606:
4354:
3581:
2532:
for a more permanent solution to suppress the ordinal numbering, since the work-around at the moment is not exactly a permanent solution.
2102:
elections, Labour won the popular vote but National won the most seats and formed the government. Shouldn't Labour go first in this case?
240:
191:
4459:
4371:
4337:
3893:
3878:
3137:
1154:
1149:
914:
that says parties should be included on the basis you assert. If other NZ election articles have done the same, they should be changed.
689:
658:
644:
672:
Forecasts are usually okay provided they are from reputable independent sources, I don't think the ones you provided comply with that.
4663:
4249:
4234:
4187:
4140:
4109:
3926:
4297:
4293:
4289:
4285:
4155:
3549:
3539:
2514:
2507:
2099:
2095:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1459:
1044:
1034:
358:
4336:
unchallenged because of an abuse to the block system. I would encourage others to come to this talk page to discuss this matter.
2645:
1915:. 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).
1830:
Of those 4 parties, we can strike off two because they never held seats going into the stated elections. They were non-entities.
579:
465:
Sabin and (soon to be) David Shearer), then they aren't a retiring MP. Same criteria should apply to previous election articles.
2894:
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?
4275:
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
2883:
2794:
2721:
2630:
2484:
2414:
1547:
1001:
88:
4327:
This is an incorrect citing of Wiki policy which only serves to undermine your argument. Nowhwere does it say "to win a seat
2529:
758:
I have reverted references to triple tracking of rail lines as parts of policies. The terminology is bad on several grounds:
517:
2652:
infobox. While the current situation with six parties listed is better than it was under previous UK election articles (the
4474:
4455:
4060:
1895:
1877:
796:
As noted in the edit log, I've just inserted temporary graphs (polynomial/ linear regression), awaiting to be replaced by
1450:
Well, we disagree on that point. And that's fine. Anybody following New Zealand politics to some extend will be aware of
4431:
4400:
3569:
3564:
3488:
1493:. We do not write articles for people already familiar with a topic, e.g. for those "following New Zealand politics":
1486:
1429:
3303:
fuckups by well-meaning morons that really shouldn't even have a job in Trump's cabinet let alone as a wiki-editor.
4162:, there is nothing that disallows me from removing warnings on my talk page, especially if they're not justified.)
4071:
3679:
3127:
1286:
1223:
1089:
641:
cf. The 2017 UK Election Page, which mentions quite a number of models by both the media and private individuals.
59:
2665:
electoral systems and cultures see different priorities, and no 'one size fits all' solution is going to suffice.
2866:
2463:
2043:
1737:
we not be able to resolve this by simply changing the recent election pages to match the established convention?
1366:
911:
1485:, but that's not how Knowledge (XXG) works. New Zealand editors don't get a veto over New Zealand articles: see
4610:
4086:
3684:
1834:
was founded in January 2014 and never achieved any electorate or list seat before being dissolved in 2016, and
1831:
1109:
4358:
94:
4463:
4341:
3632:
2094:
Jumping back a bit: the argument "shouldn't a better performing party in the popular vote go first.". In the
1838:
was established in 1995, never held a seat before contesting the 1996 election, and won no seat as a result.
693:
662:
648:
4427:
4396:
4375:
2966:
can be refreshed, or make a 'null edit' to the article (open 'edit this page', make no changes, and save).
296:
4315:
4253:
4238:
4210:
4191:
4167:
4144:
4129:
4113:
2546:
I still think we are chasing our tails over semantics. Therefore I renew my suggestion that the infoboxes
813:
744:
2934:
3412:
3389:
3241:
3217:
3051:
2956:
2537:
2107:
2055:
1689:
1618:
1282:
1253:
894:
712:
252:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2233:
1494:
17:
4521:
in the infoboxes of British & Canadian general election articles. What the view here, of changing
2277:
2262:
2201:
1939:
1924:
1858:
1590:
1506:
1438:
1416:
1335:
1268:
956:
938:
919:
866:
851:
481:
249:
44:
76:
4583:
4551:
3500:
2899:
2878:
2834:
2789:
2716:
2625:
2560:
2479:
2409:
1824:
1742:
1542:
1522:
1470:
1396:
1371:
1306:
996:
593:
431:
391:
368:
4276:
3068:(Labour) was speaker in the 1993-1996 Parliament under a National government, and the Independent
2470:
977:
4503:
4482:
4108:
more complicated. I made these changes and have been asked to refer to this talk page. Thank you
2914:
2819:
2732:
work within the UK politics pages I find it strange that you choose to downplay any interest ...
2575:
2393:
2337:
1990:
1885:
1843:
1809:
1796:, Alliance lost all of its 10 seats but was still included in the infobox. Ditto for NZ First in
1763:
1723:
1708:
1665:
1379:
1321:
836:
781:
622:
546:
415:
232:
4614:
4589:
4571:
4557:
4538:
4507:
4486:
4467:
4435:
4404:
4379:
4362:
4345:
4319:
4257:
4242:
4214:
4195:
4171:
4148:
4133:
4117:
3504:
3474:
3415:
3392:
3366:
3339:
go about this, but it is proving impossible to get any reasonable response from commons admins.
3330:
3277:
3244:
3220:
3178:
3099:
3054:
3028:
2993:
2959:
2918:
2903:
2888:
2838:
2823:
2799:
2771:
2726:
2692:
2635:
2612:
2579:
2564:
2541:
2523:
2489:
2452:
2419:
2397:
2373:
2341:
2318:
2281:
2266:
2205:
2164:
2111:
2059:
1994:
1943:
1928:
1889:
1862:
1847:
1813:
1767:
1746:
1727:
1712:
1693:
1594:
1552:
1528:
1510:
1476:
1442:
1420:
1402:
1383:
1339:
1310:
1290:
1272:
1257:
1006:
960:
942:
923:
899:
870:
855:
840:
817:
785:
748:
716:
697:
681:
666:
652:
626:
599:
550:
535:
511:
474:
449:
437:
419:
397:
374:
4544:
When you say, "Prime Minister of election" I take it you mean "Prime Minister after election"?
1919:
to go Alice in Wonderland and start saying that the party that came 13th is the seventh party.
137:, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to
31:
4567:
4534:
4311:
4226:
Is it not true to say that 0.5% of the vote and 1 seat is NOT a nationally significant result?
4206:
4163:
4125:
3888:
2943:
2519:
1129:
809:
740:
2254:
3806:
3405:
3382:
3293:
3234:
3210:
3044:
2949:
2533:
2193:
2103:
2051:
1685:
1677:
1647:
1622:
1249:
889:
708:
677:
531:
470:
145:
2550:
include parties who won seats at the election in question, thereby eliminating debate over
1490:
3649:
3069:
2273:
2258:
2197:
1985:
infobox should instead say something like "Parties that gained, retained, or lost seats".
1935:
1920:
1871:
1854:
1586:
1502:
1447:
1434:
1412:
1331:
1264:
1169:
952:
934:
915:
862:
847:
37:
A news item involving 2017 New Zealand general election was featured on Knowledge (XXG)'s
4159:
766:
2236:) and sees UF as the 7th party listed in the infobox, what will they presume from this?
4578:
4546:
4082:
3873:
3669:
3496:
3467:
3359:
3323:
3270:
3171:
3092:
3061:
3021:
2986:
2895:
2873:
2830:
2784:
2764:
2711:
2685:
2620:
2605:
2556:
2474:
2445:
2404:
2366:
2311:
2157:
1820:
1753:
1738:
1673:
1669:
1632:
1614:
1537:
1536:
The infobox created by Lcmortensen above is a huge improvement on the present one btw.
1517:
1482:
1465:
1425:
1391:
1302:
1134:
1114:
991:
797:
607:
588:
583:
508:
446:
426:
386:
363:
704:
125:
107:
4622:
4499:
4478:
2910:
2815:
2571:
2389:
2333:
2226:
1986:
1881:
1839:
1805:
1759:
1719:
1704:
1651:
1643:
1628:
1451:
1408:
1375:
1327:
1317:
832:
777:
728:
618:
542:
501:
485:
411:
3843:
2530:
Template talk:Infobox election#Suppress "first party", etc. in parliamentary version
4563:
4530:
4067:
3664:
1718:
comprehensive. If it's adopted, I would want the parties that lost seats retained.
1655:
1219:
1094:
571:
424:
Yes, I find the naming convention a bit odd, too. But I don't know any background.
216:
185:
3142:
2641:
1455:
1019:
673:
527:
489:
466:
245:
3858:
776:
inappropriate on the grounds that passenger services will not normally use it.
493:
222:
1876:
I assume you're looking at elections that don't have MMP? Take a look at the
149:
and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit
3449:
3399:
3375:
3341:
3305:
3252:
3227:
3203:
3153:
3074:
3037:
3003:
2968:
2948:
if you could create the NZ party vote map and 'Gov vs Opp' maps? Thank you.
2808:
2746:
2667:
2587:
2427:
2382:
2348:
2293:
2139:
505:
497:
443:
320:
38:
4124:
they held seats prior to the election, even if they lost all their seats.
1903:
been represented previously. So the decision taken over that infobox was
139:
3381:
this ASAP due to a 'no-usage' and to avoid confusion from other users.
4576:
Works for me and I suggest that's a more appropriate label anyway.
3495:, pages which contain this information in a more relevant article.
3209:
house seating plan is released, we can update the image once more.
3136:
3126:
1190:
This lists parties that won seats. See the complete results below.
949:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#Infobox_again
1638:
Changing the parties included (we all agree on National to ACT):
566:
eligible for re-election, regardless of being on a party list".
2640:
Consistency? Tell that to the UK politics project that excludes
357:
For the time being, the article page should stay a redirect to
765:
The quoted references refer to it as "third main line". It is
727:
I have just added on RNZ data, as per the suggestions made by
70:
26:
410:? It's always struck me as odd and out of line with sources.
1800:
when it lost all of its 7 seats. Ditto for InternetâMana in
1585:
A summary so far. I hope this is right. More input welcome!
1374:
mentality and you would be wise to brush up on MMP instead.
319:
295:
58:
1913:
but they still do so respecting the order of the results
516:
For reference see these two previous edits the first by
524:
521:
51:
1082:
406:
On an aside, do you know why the naming convention is
4223:
Is the info box not a summary of the National Result?
2291:
problem - please stop trying to make it our problem.
161:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Elections and Referendums
244:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
3596:
3578:
3298:, I see you've already fucked it up again, so what
1214:
1055:
3447:Report me if you like, I don't actually GAF now.
1732:It seems we have been breaking the convention of
4055:
2829:parties that won seats and parties that didn't.
806:File:NZ opinion polls 2014-2017-minorparties.png
802:File:NZ opinion polls 2014-2017-majorparties.png
2039:I think the best way around this is to talk at
480:Yes, I was thinking that as well. The retiring
4639:WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
164:Template:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
4659:High-importance New Zealand politics articles
4529:, for New Zealand general election articles?
1074:
8:
3516:
2513:I would expect that someone will soon start
1011:
4634:C-Class Elections and Referendums articles
3515:
1208:
1196:
1192:
1064:
1010:
180:
102:
3631:
1894:That's not an accurate reflection of the
1660:Against the status quo (dropping Maori/UF
1263:best performing parties in the election.
4370:get why they should be in the summary.
3233:"scenario", again, to avoid confusion.
262:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject New Zealand
182:
104:
74:
18:Talk:New Zealand general election, 2017
3493:Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand
4654:C-Class New Zealand politics articles
3483:Cabinet and ministerial roles section
134:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
7:
4629:Knowledge (XXG) In the news articles
1662:, or we could keep Maori and add TOP
1642:For the status quo (with Maori/UF):
238:This article is within the scope of
131:This article is within the scope of
4649:Mid-importance New Zealand articles
4517:Howdy. Via two Rfcs, we've now got
3824:
3613:
307:the New Zealand politics task force
93:It is of interest to the following
2459:Scottish and German elections use
167:Elections and Referendums articles
25:
4298:2002 New Zealand general election
4294:2008 New Zealand general election
4290:2011 New Zealand general election
4286:2014 New Zealand general election
4156:Australian federal election, 2016
3517:2017 New Zealand general election
2515:Next New Zealand general election
1066:
1012:2017 New Zealand general election
769:to refer to it as something else.
612:It appears that you are correct.
382:2017 New Zealand general election
359:2014 New Zealand general election
4674:WikiProject New Zealand articles
4454:Do you think the much hyped-up "
4042:
4028:
4027:
4020:
4019:
3985:
3984:
3977:
3976:
3857:
3842:
3812:
3811:
3801:
3800:
3766:
3765:
3758:
3757:
3648:
3602:
3601:
3523:
3458:
3350:
3314:
3261:
3162:
3083:
3012:
2977:
2755:
2676:
2596:
2528:I've brought up a discussion at
2436:
2357:
2302:
2148:
1324:) 1:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1018:
580:Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
265:Template:WikiProject New Zealand
225:
215:
184:
124:
106:
75:
30:
3634:Prime Minister Bill English.jpg
2246:b) United Future came seventh.
282:This article has been rated as
3585:61 seats needed for a majority
2542:23:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
2524:22:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
2420:23:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
2398:22:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
2374:20:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
2342:21:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
2319:20:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
2282:14:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
2267:14:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
2206:14:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
2165:04:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
2112:04:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
2060:03:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
1995:18:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1944:12:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1929:12:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1890:12:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1863:10:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1848:09:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1814:05:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1768:17:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1747:04:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1728:03:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1713:15:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1694:00:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1595:13:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
1553:23:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
1529:19:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
1511:13:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
1477:19:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1443:10:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1421:10:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1403:20:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
1384:19:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
1340:13:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
1311:08:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
1291:07:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
1273:06:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
1258:04:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
1007:14:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
961:14:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
943:12:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
924:12:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
900:14:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
888:in 2011 and Alliance in 2002.
871:10:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
856:10:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
841:21:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
627:20:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
600:19:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
438:03:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
420:02:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
398:02:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
1:
4669:Low-importance MÄori articles
4527:Prime Minister after election
4519:Prime Minister after election
4508:20:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
4436:23:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
4405:23:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
4380:23:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
4363:11:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
4346:16:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
1896:German federal election, 2013
818:23:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
551:22:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
536:02:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
512:02:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
475:01:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
450:18:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
328:This article is supported by
304:This article is supported by
256:and see a list of open tasks.
4644:C-Class New Zealand articles
4615:14:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
4590:19:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
4572:19:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
4558:19:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
4539:16:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
4487:23:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
4468:07:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
4458:" relevant for the article?
4320:15:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
4258:15:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
4243:15:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
4215:14:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
4196:14:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
4172:14:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
4149:14:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
4134:14:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
4118:12:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
3505:05:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
3475:11:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
3416:22:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
3393:22:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
3367:09:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
3331:08:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
3278:07:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
3245:07:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
3221:02:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
3179:05:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
3100:16:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
3055:11:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
3029:06:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
2994:00:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
2909:it pretty self-explanatory.
2705:Infobox legislative election
2253:article and, indeed, in the
1604:Infobox legislative election
1243:Infobox legislative election
985:Infobox legislative election
3489:52nd New Zealand Parliament
2960:23:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
2927:Some updates and fixing-ups
2919:18:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
2904:01:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
2889:15:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
2839:05:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
2824:12:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
2800:23:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
2772:23:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
2727:22:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
2693:21:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
2636:11:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
2613:10:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
2580:22:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
2565:02:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
2490:11:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
2453:03:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
976:Coming from the request at
786:03:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
749:06:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
520:and the second by myself :
4690:
3250:is getting beyond a joke.
3149:
2781:new article search results
2710:is vastly preferable IMO.
2469:. Also, there is only one
1407:I am not a New Zealander,
717:05:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
698:08:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
682:07:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
667:07:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
408:Foo country election, year
375:04:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
288:project's importance scale
250:New Zealand-related topics
4523:Subsequent Prime Minister
4220:have said is "nonsense"?:
4078:Subsequent Prime Minister
4053:
4040:
3820:
3610:
3589:
3560:
3533:
3521:
2552:First Party, Second Party
1211:
1168:
1148:
1128:
1108:
1088:
1063:
1028:
1016:
947:I've put in a request at
912:Template:Infobox election
792:Polling Graphical Summary
754:Revert of triple tracking
653:17:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
327:
303:
281:
210:
158:Elections and Referendums
119:
114:Elections and Referendums
101:
3582:House of Representatives
2862:Just an update on this,
2388:contribute suggestions.
442:I have moved the page.
723:Seat projection margins
582:) and Mei Reedy-Taare (
241:WikiProject New Zealand
4664:C-Class MÄori articles
3146:
3132:
324:
300:
83:This article is rated
64:
3580:All 120 seats in the
3140:
3130:
1832:Independent Coalition
1212:Prime Minister before
951:for more input here.
703:You may want to read
353:2017 general election
323:
299:
87:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
62:
4177:doesn't always hold.
1878:2013 German Election
1599:Changing infobox to
331:the MÄori task force
268:New Zealand articles
3518:
1836:Christian Democrats
1460:Father of the House
1013:
4428:FriendlyDataNerdV2
4397:FriendlyDataNerdV2
3906:(party foundation)
3600:2,630,173 (79.8%)
3147:
3133:
484:list doesn't have
325:
301:
233:New Zealand portal
89:content assessment
65:
4493:Moving results up
4097:
4096:
4093:
4092:
4036:
4035:
3946:14 seats, 10.70%
3930:
3907:
3727:32 seats, 25.13%
3724:60 seats, 47.04%
3556:
3555:
3545:23 September 2017
3478:
3370:
3334:
3281:
3186:
3185:
3182:
3103:
3032:
2997:
2775:
2696:
2616:
2456:
2377:
2322:
2168:
1663:
1487:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
1248:would look like.
1235:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1207:
1206:
1188:
1187:
1059:2,563,740 (78.8%)
1051:
1050:
1040:23 September 2017
460:Retiring MPs list
350:
349:
346:
345:
342:
341:
179:
178:
175:
174:
69:
68:
52:25 September 2017
16:(Redirected from
4681:
4586:
4581:
4554:
4549:
4300:, etc. which do
4279:, to win a seat
4056:
4046:
4031:
4030:
4023:
4022:
3988:
3987:
3980:
3979:
3943:11 seats, 8.66%
3924:
3905:
3861:
3846:
3815:
3814:
3804:
3803:
3769:
3768:
3761:
3760:
3695:12 December 2016
3652:
3637:
3635:
3612:
3611:
3605:
3604:
3565:outgoing members
3535:
3534:
3528:
3527:
3526:
3519:
3477:
3470:
3465:
3462:
3461:
3448:
3410:
3403:
3387:
3379:
3369:
3362:
3357:
3354:
3353:
3340:
3333:
3326:
3321:
3318:
3317:
3304:
3297:
3280:
3273:
3268:
3265:
3264:
3251:
3239:
3231:
3215:
3207:
3181:
3174:
3169:
3166:
3165:
3152:
3123:
3122:
3102:
3095:
3090:
3087:
3086:
3073:
3049:
3041:
3031:
3024:
3019:
3016:
3015:
3002:
2996:
2989:
2984:
2981:
2980:
2967:
2954:
2947:
2938:
2886:
2881:
2876:
2871:
2867:Infobox election
2865:
2812:
2797:
2792:
2787:
2774:
2767:
2762:
2759:
2758:
2745:
2724:
2719:
2714:
2709:
2703:
2695:
2688:
2683:
2680:
2679:
2666:
2650:UK 2017 election
2633:
2628:
2623:
2615:
2608:
2603:
2600:
2599:
2586:
2522:
2487:
2482:
2477:
2468:
2464:Infobox election
2462:
2455:
2448:
2443:
2440:
2439:
2426:
2417:
2412:
2407:
2386:
2376:
2369:
2364:
2361:
2360:
2347:
2321:
2314:
2309:
2306:
2305:
2292:
2167:
2160:
2155:
2152:
2151:
2138:
2048:
2044:Infobox election
2042:
1875:
1757:
1661:
1619:Ivar the Boneful
1608:
1602:
1550:
1545:
1540:
1525:
1520:
1473:
1468:
1399:
1394:
1283:Ivar the Boneful
1247:
1241:
1209:
1200:
1193:
1084:
1076:
1065:
1030:
1029:
1023:
1022:
1014:
1004:
999:
994:
989:
983:
897:
892:
611:
596:
591:
496:, but does have
434:
429:
394:
389:
371:
366:
270:
269:
266:
263:
260:
235:
230:
229:
228:
219:
212:
211:
206:
203:
188:
181:
169:
168:
165:
162:
159:
152:our project page
146:electoral reform
128:
121:
120:
110:
103:
86:
80:
79:
71:
54:
34:
27:
21:
4689:
4688:
4684:
4683:
4682:
4680:
4679:
4678:
4619:
4618:
4602:
4584:
4579:
4552:
4547:
4515:
4495:
4452:
4063:before election
4049:
3865:
3864:
3863:
3862:
3850:
3849:
3848:
3847:
3656:
3655:
3654:
3653:
3641:
3640:
3639:
3638:
3633:
3574:
3573:
3570:elected members
3567:
3524:
3522:
3512:
3485:
3473:
3468:
3463:
3459:
3456:
3406:
3397:
3383:
3373:
3365:
3360:
3355:
3351:
3348:
3329:
3324:
3319:
3315:
3312:
3291:
3276:
3271:
3266:
3262:
3259:
3235:
3225:
3211:
3201:
3177:
3172:
3167:
3163:
3160:
3098:
3093:
3088:
3084:
3081:
3070:Charles Statham
3045:
3035:
3027:
3022:
3017:
3013:
3010:
2992:
2987:
2982:
2978:
2975:
2950:
2941:
2932:
2929:
2884:
2879:
2874:
2869:
2863:
2806:
2795:
2790:
2785:
2770:
2765:
2760:
2756:
2753:
2722:
2717:
2712:
2707:
2701:
2691:
2686:
2681:
2677:
2674:
2631:
2626:
2621:
2611:
2606:
2601:
2597:
2594:
2518:
2485:
2480:
2475:
2466:
2460:
2451:
2446:
2441:
2437:
2434:
2415:
2410:
2405:
2380:
2372:
2367:
2362:
2358:
2355:
2317:
2312:
2307:
2303:
2300:
2224:
2163:
2158:
2153:
2149:
2146:
2046:
2040:
1869:
1751:
1606:
1600:
1583:
1548:
1543:
1538:
1523:
1518:
1471:
1466:
1397:
1392:
1245:
1239:
1203:
1191:
1017:
1002:
997:
992:
987:
981:
895:
890:
825:
808:are updated. -
794:
756:
733:discussion link
725:
635:
605:
594:
589:
563:
462:
432:
427:
392:
387:
369:
364:
355:
312:High-importance
267:
264:
261:
258:
257:
231:
226:
224:
204:
194:
166:
163:
160:
157:
156:
84:
63:Knowledge (XXG)
50:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
4687:
4685:
4677:
4676:
4671:
4666:
4661:
4656:
4651:
4646:
4641:
4636:
4631:
4621:
4620:
4607:149.20.252.132
4601:
4598:
4597:
4596:
4595:
4594:
4593:
4592:
4514:
4511:
4494:
4491:
4490:
4489:
4451:
4448:
4447:
4446:
4445:
4444:
4443:
4442:
4441:
4440:
4439:
4438:
4414:
4413:
4412:
4411:
4410:
4409:
4408:
4407:
4384:
4368:
4366:
4365:
4355:90.217.235.240
4350:
4349:
4348:
4333:
4273:
4272:
4271:
4270:
4269:
4268:
4267:
4266:
4265:
4264:
4263:
4262:
4261:
4260:
4231:
4227:
4224:
4221:
4202:
4184:
4181:
4178:
4095:
4094:
4091:
4090:
4085:
4083:Jacinda Ardern
4080:
4075:
4070:
4065:
4061:Prime Minister
4054:
4051:
4050:
4047:
4041:
4038:
4037:
4034:
4033:
4025:
4017:
4013:
4012:
4009:
4006:
4002:
4001:
3998:
3995:
3991:
3990:
3982:
3974:
3970:
3969:
3966:
3963:
3959:
3958:
3955:
3952:
3948:
3947:
3944:
3941:
3940:Last election
3937:
3936:
3931:
3923:
3918:
3917:Leader's seat
3914:
3913:
3908:
3904:
3901:
3897:
3896:
3891:
3886:
3882:
3881:
3876:
3874:Winston Peters
3871:
3867:
3866:
3856:
3855:
3854:
3853:
3851:
3841:
3840:
3839:
3838:
3836:
3833:
3832:
3829:
3826:
3823:
3822:
3821:
3818:
3817:
3809:
3798:
3794:
3793:
3790:
3787:
3783:
3782:
3779:
3776:
3772:
3771:
3763:
3755:
3751:
3750:
3747:
3744:
3740:
3739:
3736:
3733:
3729:
3728:
3725:
3722:
3721:Last election
3718:
3717:
3712:
3707:
3706:Leader's seat
3703:
3702:
3697:
3692:
3688:
3687:
3682:
3677:
3673:
3672:
3670:Jacinda Ardern
3667:
3662:
3658:
3657:
3647:
3646:
3645:
3644:
3642:
3630:
3629:
3628:
3627:
3625:
3622:
3621:
3618:
3615:
3608:
3607:
3598:
3594:
3593:
3587:
3586:
3584:
3579:
3576:
3575:
3568:
3562:
3561:
3558:
3557:
3554:
3553:
3547:
3542:
3531:
3530:
3529:
3511:
3508:
3484:
3481:
3480:
3479:
3450:
3445:
3441:
3437:
3433:
3430:
3427:
3423:
3422:
3421:
3420:
3419:
3418:
3342:
3306:
3289:
3288:
3287:
3286:
3285:
3284:
3283:
3282:
3253:
3196:
3195:
3194:
3193:
3192:
3191:
3190:
3189:
3188:
3187:
3184:
3183:
3154:
3148:
3134:
3111:
3110:
3109:
3108:
3107:
3106:
3105:
3104:
3075:
3062:Trevor Mallard
3004:
2969:
2935:DrRandomFactor
2928:
2925:
2924:
2923:
2922:
2921:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2857:
2856:
2855:
2854:
2853:
2852:
2851:
2850:
2849:
2848:
2847:
2846:
2845:
2844:
2843:
2842:
2841:
2804:
2803:
2802:
2747:
2668:
2588:
2511:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2498:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2428:
2349:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2294:
2223:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2140:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1931:
1916:
1908:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1697:
1696:
1681:
1680:
1658:
1636:
1635:
1625:
1582:
1581:Summary so far
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1534:
1498:
1423:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1233:
1232:
1229:
1228:
1226:
1222:
1216:
1215:
1213:
1205:
1204:
1201:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1183:
1180:
1177:
1172:
1166:
1165:
1163:
1160:
1157:
1152:
1146:
1145:
1143:
1140:
1137:
1135:Winston Peters
1132:
1126:
1125:
1123:
1120:
1117:
1115:Jacinda Ardern
1112:
1106:
1105:
1103:
1100:
1097:
1092:
1086:
1085:
1080:
1077:
1072:
1069:
1061:
1060:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1049:
1048:
1042:
1037:
1026:
1025:
1024:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
926:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
824:
821:
798:User:Limegreen
793:
790:
789:
788:
773:
770:
763:
755:
752:
724:
721:
720:
719:
685:
684:
634:
631:
630:
629:
614:This is a list
562:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
461:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
440:
404:
354:
351:
348:
347:
344:
343:
340:
339:
336:Low-importance
326:
316:
315:
302:
292:
291:
284:Mid-importance
280:
274:
273:
271:
254:the discussion
237:
236:
220:
208:
207:
205:Midâimportance
189:
177:
176:
173:
172:
170:
129:
117:
116:
111:
99:
98:
92:
81:
67:
66:
56:
35:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4686:
4675:
4672:
4670:
4667:
4665:
4662:
4660:
4657:
4655:
4652:
4650:
4647:
4645:
4642:
4640:
4637:
4635:
4632:
4630:
4627:
4626:
4624:
4617:
4616:
4612:
4608:
4599:
4591:
4588:
4587:
4582:
4575:
4574:
4573:
4569:
4565:
4561:
4560:
4559:
4556:
4555:
4550:
4543:
4542:
4541:
4540:
4536:
4532:
4528:
4524:
4520:
4512:
4510:
4509:
4505:
4501:
4492:
4488:
4484:
4480:
4476:
4472:
4471:
4470:
4469:
4465:
4461:
4460:114.23.226.82
4457:
4449:
4437:
4433:
4429:
4424:
4423:
4422:
4421:
4420:
4419:
4418:
4417:
4416:
4415:
4406:
4402:
4398:
4393:
4392:
4391:
4390:
4389:
4388:
4387:
4386:
4385:
4382:
4381:
4377:
4373:
4372:82.132.236.17
4364:
4360:
4356:
4351:
4347:
4343:
4339:
4338:86.164.66.187
4334:
4330:
4326:
4325:
4324:
4323:
4322:
4321:
4317:
4313:
4308:
4303:
4299:
4295:
4291:
4287:
4282:
4278:
4259:
4255:
4251:
4246:
4245:
4244:
4240:
4236:
4232:
4228:
4225:
4222:
4218:
4217:
4216:
4212:
4208:
4203:
4199:
4198:
4197:
4193:
4189:
4185:
4182:
4179:
4175:
4174:
4173:
4169:
4165:
4161:
4157:
4152:
4151:
4150:
4146:
4142:
4137:
4136:
4135:
4131:
4127:
4122:
4121:
4120:
4119:
4115:
4111:
4105:
4101:
4089:
4088:
4084:
4079:
4076:
4074:
4073:
4069:
4064:
4062:
4058:
4057:
4052:
4045:
4039:
4026:
4018:
4015:
4014:
4010:
4007:
4004:
4003:
3999:
3996:
3994:Popular vote
3993:
3992:
3983:
3975:
3972:
3971:
3967:
3964:
3961:
3960:
3956:
3953:
3951:Seats before
3950:
3949:
3945:
3942:
3939:
3938:
3935:
3932:
3928:
3922:
3919:
3916:
3915:
3912:
3909:
3902:
3900:Leader since
3899:
3898:
3895:
3892:
3890:
3887:
3884:
3883:
3880:
3877:
3875:
3872:
3869:
3868:
3860:
3852:
3845:
3837:
3835:
3834:
3831:Fourth party
3830:
3827:
3825:
3819:
3810:
3808:
3799:
3796:
3795:
3791:
3788:
3785:
3784:
3780:
3777:
3775:Popular vote
3774:
3773:
3764:
3756:
3753:
3752:
3748:
3745:
3742:
3741:
3737:
3734:
3732:Seats before
3731:
3730:
3726:
3723:
3720:
3719:
3716:
3713:
3711:
3708:
3705:
3704:
3701:
3700:1 August 2017
3698:
3696:
3693:
3691:Leader since
3690:
3689:
3686:
3683:
3681:
3678:
3675:
3674:
3671:
3668:
3666:
3663:
3660:
3659:
3651:
3643:
3636:
3626:
3624:
3623:
3620:Second party
3619:
3616:
3614:
3609:
3599:
3595:
3592:
3591:Opinion polls
3588:
3583:
3577:
3571:
3566:
3559:
3551:
3548:
3546:
3543:
3541:
3537:
3536:
3532:
3520:
3514:
3509:
3507:
3506:
3502:
3498:
3494:
3490:
3482:
3476:
3471:
3457:
3455:
3454:
3446:
3442:
3438:
3434:
3431:
3428:
3425:
3424:
3417:
3414:
3411:
3409:
3401:
3396:
3395:
3394:
3391:
3388:
3386:
3377:
3372:
3371:
3368:
3363:
3349:
3347:
3346:
3337:
3336:
3335:
3332:
3327:
3313:
3311:
3310:
3301:
3295:
3279:
3274:
3260:
3258:
3257:
3248:
3247:
3246:
3243:
3240:
3238:
3229:
3224:
3223:
3222:
3219:
3216:
3214:
3205:
3200:
3199:
3198:
3197:
3180:
3175:
3161:
3159:
3158:
3144:
3139:
3135:
3129:
3125:
3124:
3121:
3120:
3119:
3118:
3117:
3116:
3115:
3114:
3113:
3112:
3101:
3096:
3082:
3080:
3079:
3071:
3067:
3066:Peter Tapsell
3063:
3058:
3057:
3056:
3053:
3050:
3048:
3039:
3034:
3033:
3030:
3025:
3011:
3009:
3008:
2999:
2998:
2995:
2990:
2976:
2974:
2973:
2964:
2963:
2962:
2961:
2958:
2955:
2953:
2945:
2936:
2926:
2920:
2916:
2912:
2907:
2906:
2905:
2901:
2897:
2893:
2892:
2891:
2890:
2887:
2882:
2877:
2868:
2840:
2836:
2832:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2821:
2817:
2810:
2805:
2801:
2798:
2793:
2788:
2782:
2777:
2776:
2773:
2768:
2754:
2752:
2751:
2743:
2739:
2738:Welsh LibDems
2735:
2734:Sylvia Hermon
2730:
2729:
2728:
2725:
2720:
2715:
2706:
2698:
2697:
2694:
2689:
2675:
2673:
2672:
2663:
2659:
2655:
2651:
2647:
2643:
2639:
2638:
2637:
2634:
2629:
2624:
2618:
2617:
2614:
2609:
2595:
2593:
2592:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2577:
2573:
2568:
2567:
2566:
2562:
2558:
2553:
2549:
2545:
2544:
2543:
2539:
2535:
2531:
2527:
2526:
2525:
2521:
2516:
2512:
2509:
2508:2002 election
2505:
2491:
2488:
2483:
2478:
2472:
2465:
2458:
2457:
2454:
2449:
2435:
2433:
2432:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2418:
2413:
2408:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2395:
2391:
2384:
2379:
2378:
2375:
2370:
2356:
2354:
2353:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2320:
2315:
2301:
2299:
2298:
2290:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2264:
2260:
2256:
2250:
2247:
2244:
2241:
2237:
2235:
2230:
2228:
2222:Akld guy hack
2221:
2207:
2203:
2199:
2195:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2166:
2161:
2147:
2145:
2144:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2101:
2097:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2045:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2017:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1932:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1917:
1914:
1909:
1906:
1902:
1897:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1882:User:Clesam11
1879:
1873:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1828:
1826:
1822:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1794:2002 election
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1760:User:Clesam11
1755:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1735:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1705:User:Clesam11
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1682:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1659:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1605:
1597:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1580:
1554:
1551:
1546:
1541:
1535:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1527:
1526:
1521:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1499:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1475:
1474:
1469:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1452:United Future
1449:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1431:
1427:
1424:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1401:
1400:
1395:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1368:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1326:
1325:
1323:
1319:
1318:User:Clesam11
1314:
1313:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1244:
1237:
1236:
1227:
1225:
1221:
1218:
1217:
1210:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1184:
1181:
1178:
1176:
1175:David Seymour
1173:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1147:
1144:
1141:
1138:
1136:
1133:
1131:
1127:
1124:
1121:
1118:
1116:
1113:
1111:
1107:
1104:
1101:
1098:
1096:
1093:
1091:
1087:
1081:
1078:
1073:
1070:
1067:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1046:
1043:
1041:
1038:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1027:
1021:
1015:
1009:
1008:
1005:
1000:
995:
986:
979:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
945:
944:
940:
936:
932:
927:
925:
921:
917:
913:
908:
903:
902:
901:
898:
893:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
872:
868:
864:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
844:
843:
842:
838:
834:
830:
829:
828:
822:
820:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
791:
787:
783:
779:
774:
771:
768:
764:
761:
760:
759:
753:
751:
750:
746:
742:
736:
734:
730:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
701:
700:
699:
695:
691:
690:122.58.23.139
683:
679:
675:
671:
670:
669:
668:
664:
660:
659:122.58.23.139
655:
654:
650:
646:
645:122.58.23.139
642:
639:
632:
628:
624:
620:
615:
609:
604:
603:
602:
601:
598:
597:
592:
585:
581:
575:
573:
567:
561:Metiria Turei
560:
552:
548:
544:
539:
538:
537:
533:
529:
525:
522:
519:
515:
514:
513:
510:
507:
503:
502:David Shearer
499:
495:
491:
487:
486:Russel Norman
483:
479:
478:
477:
476:
472:
468:
459:
451:
448:
445:
441:
439:
436:
435:
430:
423:
422:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:
399:
396:
395:
390:
383:
379:
378:
377:
376:
373:
372:
367:
360:
352:
337:
334:(assessed as
333:
332:
322:
318:
317:
313:
310:(assessed as
309:
308:
298:
294:
293:
289:
285:
279:
276:
275:
272:
255:
251:
247:
243:
242:
234:
223:
221:
218:
214:
213:
209:
202:
198:
193:
190:
187:
183:
171:
154:
153:
148:
147:
142:
141:
136:
135:
130:
127:
123:
122:
118:
115:
112:
109:
105:
100:
96:
90:
82:
78:
73:
72:
61:
57:
53:
48:
47:
46:
40:
36:
33:
29:
28:
19:
4603:
4577:
4545:
4526:
4522:
4518:
4516:
4496:
4453:
4450:"Youthquake"
4383:
4367:
4328:
4306:
4301:
4280:
4274:
4250:5.81.176.220
4235:5.81.176.220
4188:5.81.176.220
4141:5.81.176.220
4110:5.81.176.220
4106:
4102:
4098:
4081:
4077:
4068:Bill English
4066:
4059:
3973:Seat change
3903:18 July 1993
3828:Third party
3754:Seat change
3715:Mount Albert
3665:Bill English
3617:First party
3544:
3513:
3486:
3452:
3451:
3407:
3384:
3344:
3343:
3308:
3307:
3299:
3290:
3255:
3254:
3236:
3212:
3156:
3155:
3077:
3076:
3046:
3006:
3005:
2971:
2970:
2951:
2944:Sleepingstar
2930:
2861:
2749:
2748:
2741:
2736:*cough* ...
2670:
2669:
2590:
2589:
2551:
2547:
2430:
2429:
2351:
2350:
2296:
2295:
2288:
2251:
2248:
2245:
2242:
2238:
2231:
2225:
2142:
2141:
1912:
1904:
1900:
1733:
1637:
1598:
1584:
1516:
1464:
1390:
1279:
1238:Here's what
1220:Bill English
1095:Bill English
1039:
975:
930:
906:
826:
810:Sleepingstar
795:
757:
741:Sleepingstar
737:
726:
686:
656:
643:
640:
636:
587:
576:
572:Te Tai Tonga
568:
564:
463:
425:
407:
385:
381:
362:
356:
329:
305:
283:
239:
150:
144:
138:
132:
95:WikiProjects
43:
42:
4456:youth quake
4248:last edit.
4005:Percentage
3911:30 May 2015
3786:Percentage
3408:Typhoon2013
3385:Typhoon2013
3294:Typhoon2013
3237:Typhoon2013
3213:Typhoon2013
3143:Front bench
3047:Typhoon2013
2952:Typhoon2013
2648:from their
2642:Plaid Cymru
2534:Lcmortensen
2234:WP:AUDIENCE
2194:Lcmortensen
2104:Lcmortensen
2052:Lcmortensen
1686:Lcmortensen
1678:Lcmortensen
1648:Ameliorate!
1623:Lcmortensen
1613:In favour:
1495:WP:AUDIENCE
1489:and indeed
1456:Peter Dunne
1250:Lcmortensen
896:Ameliorate!
823:Sixth Party
709:Lcmortensen
584:MÄori Party
490:Kevin Hague
259:New Zealand
246:New Zealand
192:New Zealand
49:section on
45:In the news
4623:Categories
4277:WP:E&R
3962:Seats won
3879:James Shaw
3778:1,152,075
3743:Seats won
2646:the Greens
2471:WP:E&R
2274:Bondegezou
2259:Bondegezou
2198:Bondegezou
1936:Bondegezou
1921:Bondegezou
1872:Bondegezou
1855:Bondegezou
1587:Bondegezou
1503:Bondegezou
1448:Bondegezou
1435:Bondegezou
1413:Bondegezou
1332:Bondegezou
1265:Bondegezou
1155:James Shaw
978:WP:E&R
953:Bondegezou
935:Bondegezou
916:Bondegezou
907:thirteenth
863:Bondegezou
848:Bondegezou
494:Mike Sabin
4312:MĂ©lencron
4207:MĂ©lencron
4164:MĂ©lencron
4160:WP:UP#CMT
4126:MĂ©lencron
3927:Northland
3816:11.76 pp
3497:Kiwichris
3436:projects.
2896:Kiwichris
2831:Kiwichris
2557:Kiwichris
1821:Kiwichris
1754:Kiwichris
1739:Kiwichris
1674:Kiwichris
1670:Number 57
1633:Kiwichris
1627:Against:
1615:Number 57
1483:Schwede66
1458:. He was
1426:Schwede66
1303:Kiwichris
633:Forecasts
608:Schwede66
498:Phil Goff
140:elections
39:Main Page
4500:Akld guy
4479:Akld guy
4072:National
4032:4.43 pp
4024:1.46 pp
4000:162,443
3997:186,706
3889:NZ First
3781:956,184
3680:National
3510:Info Box
2911:Clesam11
2816:Clesam11
2572:Clesam11
2390:Akld guy
2334:Akld guy
2227:Akld guy
1987:Akld guy
1840:Akld guy
1806:Akld guy
1720:Akld guy
1652:Clesam11
1644:Akld guy
1629:Clesam11
1621:, me, ??
1409:Akld guy
1376:Akld guy
1328:Clesam11
1224:National
1130:NZ First
1090:National
833:Akld guy
778:Akld guy
729:Elcalebo
619:Akld guy
543:Mattlore
518:Mattlore
412:Mattlore
197:Politics
4580:Schwede
4564:GoodDay
4562:Yup ;)
4548:Schwede
4531:GoodDay
4513:Infobox
4475:article
4302:exactly
4201:basis).
3870:Leader
3792:36.89%
3789:44.45%
3661:Leader
3597:Turnout
3491:and/or
3444:things.
2538:mailbox
2520:gadfium
2255:WP:LEDE
2108:mailbox
2056:mailbox
1690:mailbox
1664:): me,
1656:gadfium
1519:Schwede
1481:Sorry,
1467:Schwede
1393:Schwede
1254:mailbox
1071:Leader
1056:Turnout
713:mailbox
590:Schwede
428:Schwede
388:Schwede
365:Schwede
286:on the
85:C-class
41:in the
4087:Labour
4016:Swing
4011:6.27%
4008:7.20%
3925:(lost
3885:Party
3797:Swing
3685:Labour
3676:Party
3413:(talk)
3390:(talk)
3242:(talk)
3218:(talk)
3052:(talk)
3043:there?
2957:(talk)
2875:Number
2786:Number
2713:Number
2660:, and
2622:Number
2555:votes.
2476:Number
2406:Number
1901:hadn't
1666:Jol123
1539:Number
1491:WP:AGF
1119:35.79
1110:Labour
1099:46.03
1079:Seats
993:Number
674:Ajf773
528:Ajf773
492:, and
467:Ajf773
91:scale.
4473:This
3894:Green
3805:2.59
3606:1.90%
1430:local
1179:0.69
1159:5.85
1150:Green
1139:7.51
1068:Party
800:when
767:WP:OR
201:MÄori
4611:talk
4600:What
4568:talk
4535:talk
4504:talk
4483:talk
4464:talk
4432:talk
4401:talk
4376:talk
4359:talk
4342:talk
4316:talk
4307:plus
4254:talk
4239:talk
4211:talk
4192:talk
4168:talk
4145:talk
4130:talk
4114:talk
3934:List
3921:List
3710:List
3550:Next
3540:2014
3501:talk
3469:talk
3440:yet.
3400:Fanx
3376:Fanx
3361:talk
3325:talk
3272:talk
3228:Fanx
3204:Fanx
3173:talk
3094:talk
3038:Fanx
3023:talk
2988:talk
2915:talk
2900:talk
2835:talk
2820:talk
2809:Fanx
2766:talk
2687:talk
2662:2015
2658:2010
2654:2005
2644:and
2607:talk
2576:talk
2561:talk
2548:only
2447:talk
2394:talk
2383:Fanx
2368:talk
2338:talk
2313:talk
2289:your
2278:talk
2263:talk
2202:talk
2159:talk
2100:1981
2098:and
2096:1978
1991:talk
1940:talk
1925:talk
1886:talk
1859:talk
1844:talk
1825:talk
1810:talk
1802:2014
1798:2008
1764:talk
1743:talk
1724:talk
1709:talk
1676:, ??
1591:talk
1507:talk
1439:talk
1417:talk
1380:talk
1336:talk
1322:talk
1307:talk
1287:talk
1269:talk
1045:Next
1035:2014
957:talk
939:talk
920:talk
867:talk
852:talk
837:talk
814:talk
804:and
782:talk
745:talk
735:).
705:WP:V
694:talk
678:talk
663:talk
649:talk
623:talk
547:talk
532:talk
523:and
500:and
471:talk
416:talk
248:and
4525:to
3957:14
3954:12
3770:14
3749:46
3746:56
3738:32
3735:59
3453:Fan
3345:Fan
3309:Fan
3300:are
3256:Fan
3157:Fan
3078:Fan
3007:Fan
2972:Fan
2750:Fan
2744:".
2742:IMO
2671:Fan
2591:Fan
2431:Fan
2352:Fan
2297:Fan
2243:or
2143:Fan
1905:not
1734:NOT
1454:'s
1372:FPP
1367:MMP
1170:ACT
1122:45
1102:58
1083:+/â
509:947
504:.
482:MPs
447:947
278:Mid
4625::
4613:)
4585:66
4570:)
4553:66
4537:)
4506:)
4485:)
4466:)
4434:)
4403:)
4378:)
4361:)
4344:)
4329:is
4318:)
4296:,
4292:,
4288:,
4281:is
4256:)
4241:)
4213:)
4194:)
4170:)
4147:)
4132:)
4116:)
3989:6
3981:3
3968:8
3965:9
3807:pp
3762:3
3563:â
3538:â
3503:)
3472:|
3466:|
3364:|
3358:|
3328:|
3322:|
3275:|
3269:|
3176:|
3170:|
3097:|
3091:|
3026:|
3020:|
2991:|
2985:|
2917:)
2902:)
2870:}}
2864:{{
2837:)
2822:)
2769:|
2763:|
2708:}}
2702:{{
2690:|
2684:|
2656:,
2610:|
2604:|
2578:)
2563:)
2540:)
2473:.
2467:}}
2461:{{
2450:|
2444:|
2396:)
2371:|
2365:|
2340:)
2316:|
2310:|
2280:)
2265:)
2204:)
2162:|
2156:|
2110:)
2058:)
2047:}}
2041:{{
1993:)
1942:)
1927:)
1888:)
1861:)
1846:)
1827:)
1812:)
1766:)
1745:)
1726:)
1711:)
1692:)
1672:,
1668:,
1654:,
1650:,
1646:,
1631:,
1617:,
1609::
1607:}}
1601:{{
1593:)
1524:66
1509:)
1472:66
1441:)
1419:)
1398:66
1382:)
1338:)
1309:)
1289:)
1271:)
1256:)
1246:}}
1240:{{
1182:1
1162:7
1142:9
1033:â
988:}}
982:{{
959:)
941:)
931:No
922:)
869:)
854:)
839:)
816:)
784:)
747:)
715:)
696:)
680:)
665:)
651:)
625:)
595:66
549:)
534:)
526:.
488:,
473:)
433:66
418:)
393:66
384:?
370:66
338:).
314:).
199:/
195::
143:,
4609:(
4566:(
4533:(
4502:(
4481:(
4462:(
4430:(
4399:(
4374:(
4357:(
4340:(
4314:(
4252:(
4237:(
4209:(
4190:(
4166:(
4143:(
4128:(
4112:(
3929:)
3572:â
3552:â
3499:(
3464:N
3402::
3398:@
3378::
3374:@
3356:N
3320:N
3296::
3292:@
3267:N
3230::
3226:@
3206::
3202:@
3168:N
3145:.
3089:N
3040::
3036:@
3018:N
2983:N
2946::
2942:@
2937::
2933:@
2913:(
2898:(
2885:7
2880:5
2833:(
2818:(
2811::
2807:@
2796:7
2791:5
2761:N
2723:7
2718:5
2682:N
2632:7
2627:5
2602:N
2574:(
2559:(
2536:(
2486:7
2481:5
2442:N
2416:7
2411:5
2392:(
2385::
2381:@
2363:N
2336:(
2308:N
2276:(
2261:(
2200:(
2154:N
2106:(
2054:(
1989:(
1938:(
1923:(
1884:(
1874::
1870:@
1857:(
1842:(
1823:(
1808:(
1762:(
1756::
1752:@
1741:(
1722:(
1707:(
1688:(
1589:(
1549:7
1544:5
1505:(
1437:(
1415:(
1378:(
1334:(
1320:(
1305:(
1285:(
1267:(
1252:(
1075:%
1047:â
1003:7
998:5
955:(
937:(
918:(
891:âŁ
865:(
850:(
835:(
812:(
780:(
743:(
731:(
711:(
692:(
676:(
661:(
647:(
621:(
610::
606:@
578:(
545:(
530:(
506:J
469:(
444:J
414:(
290:.
155:.
97::
55:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.