Talk:2005 New Zealand general election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Neutrality of Controversies section[edit]

I added {{POV-section}} to the Controversies section because it is biased against Labour, not so much in its contents but in its lack of coverage of the alleged improprietries of the other parties. By including only the Labour ones it makes the other parties look clean. I just know that someone will reply, "so add the other cases" but I thought I would add the tag anyway and see what happens. The current content could do with better copyediting and sourcing as well. - Drstuey 13:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Key policy platforms section[edit]

I'm going to be bold and remove this section completely, I think it is unencyclopedic because:

  • It is biased that this section only mentions the two major parties, rather than the others.
  • None of the previous general elections pages has a section such as this.
  • The section is almost original research.
  • It is too arbritary, too long.

The article could do with a section on the key issues of the campaign instead - however this should be sourced from primary sources - if you can find a political analyst that lists what they thought were the key issues of the campaign then that should be included, not this fancruft! - Drstuey 13:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose boldly restoring this valuable section to remind posterity (in encyclopedic detail) what lay behind the iwi/kiwi election. -- If the mention of only two parties offends, npovise into handling more more parties. -- If articles on previous elections lack such details, include them there. -- "Almost original research" has more value than silence. -- One expects arbitrariness in a collaborative wiki, and length likewise. If length offends, fork. -- The Party documents and opinion polls provide the primary sources -- let's summarise them. Build the Web! -- 12:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

electorate image mistake[edit]

The two articles New Zealand general election, 2005 and New Zealand general election, 2005: in depth results each contain a separate image with a similar name. New Zealand general election, 2005 - electorate results (old).png 2005 New Zealand general election - electorate results.png Both images seem to contain mistakes and one has the wrong party colours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Leader's seats[edit]

I presume that these are the seats that the leaders held on election day, ie that they had won at the previous election. Thus, Winston Peters was the MP for Tauranga at the time of this election, even though he lost that seat in the election. The 2008 election article similarly shows each party leader with the seat they currently hold, if any.-gadfium 19:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken - I had thought it was seats immediately after. My mistake. Fanx (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


I like the discussion of the polls here, but am wondering whether the numbers should be moved to the 2005 Opinion polling page? Now that there is a graph, that probably serves the purpose much better than a table of numbers... --Trevva (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Elected members re-write[edit]

I've significantly changed the table on elected MPs returned at election, firstly so we can have some sort of uniformity across elections from 1853 to 2011 plus. Most of the information (who came 2nd, who came third) is available on the individual electorate pages ... only they weren't direct accessible from the page except by clicking through on a winning candidate. Gone too is the meta/shading and the full page-width table, both of which I felt made the table difficult to read. results are now in template format and shared with 48th New Zealand Parliament - a page with similar issues as this one. FanRed XN | talk 02:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Zealand general election, 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)