Talk:Candidates in the 1999 New Zealand general election by electorate

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Asia Pacific entry[edit]

Fanx, how do I code the Asia Pacific entry for Ohariu-Belmont so that the list ranking shows? We should probably write some documentation for Template:NZ election box begin. Schwede 66 07:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Freedom Movement and Piri Wiri Tua. Schwede 66 20:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Create Template:Asia Pacific United Party/meta/color then change template ref NZ election box minor party candidate to NZ election box candidate. However, since Asia Pacific was registered but had no list it is somewhat different to the same electorate's designation of none for the NZ First candidate who wasn't included on his party's list. Do we therefore need to differentiate them? Fan

| talk | 22:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so. Not being on a party's list is different to a party not submitting a list. Maybe we should have the discussion on the template page and invite others via the politics group pages. Schwede 66 22:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fanx, upon reflection, using the 'minor' template doesn't even give an opportunity to provide a list entry. So if we define as 'minor' those parties that are either unregistered, or those registered parties that choose not to provide a party list, it should all work out fine. I suggest the articles should discuss the situation (only registered parties can provide lists, but some choose not to do so, and this year they were parties xy and z). Do you agree? Schwede 66 05:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Pacific was an anomaly in being registered but not submitting a list, although I seem to recall another minor party being late on the day and not getting a list accepted. As many of the templates are paired (Template:MMP election box ... candidate, and Template:NZ election box ... candidate) then re-purposing Template:MMP election box historic party candidate as Template:NZ election box historic party candidate may also be a suitable fix. Party lists in the New Zealand general election, 1999 should also show Asia Pacific's anomalous status, since we otherwise assume that only unregistered parties do not have lists. Fan

| talk | 14:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fanx, maybe it's not as uncommon as you think. I've documented it at the electoral system article and since the introduction of MMP, it's happened eight times that a registered party didn't submit a party list. The problem with using the "historic party" template is that when that case happens next (later this year?), the party that fails to submit a list isn't historic at that point, but very much still in existence. Regarding being late, that was Alamein Kopu's claim in 1999 for Mana Wahine Te Ira Tangata. Meanwhile, I've created the meta templates. Schwede 66 19:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Historic" & "Minor" designations were for those parties either had no article or no meta templates but needed to be accommodated, and weren't likely to get them ... at least in the short to medium term. For some of them (such as Asia Pacific) there's a case for adding the meta, but some parties will always fail to meet notability standards and need to remain 'minor'. Perhaps 'Historic' could be repurposed as a 'non list' template (or similar), with the three party vote fields merged, and with a '(no party list)' comment in the field. Fan

| talk | 22:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. Fanx, could you do the honours and edit the relevant templates accordingly? And amend the documentation? That'll be much appreciated. Schwede 66 18:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting with a breakdown of all current templates in MMP election box & NZ election box in my userspace - I'm sure we've some redundancies in there. Fan

| talk | 07:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't isolated to 1999 either. As recently as 2014, the Alliance were a registered party but did not submit a list and only stood 1 electorate candidate.Kiwichris (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]