Talk:1996 New Zealand general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Registered parties with party lists[edit]

Note that the 2003 reference says that there were 21 party lists in 1996 (p22), but the 2007 reference says 22 not 21 (p87). I have taken the 2007 book as correct (particularly as the chapter is by David Henry the Chief Electoral officer. But the article Party lists in the New Zealand general election, 1996 lists 6 successful parties who mad it to Parliament plus 15 unsucessful parties, total 21 not 22 (?) Hugo999 (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case you still have your actrix email address, you will have the relevant info in your inbox by now. What I've sent you are the official party lists. 670 people were put nominated on 21 lists. Schwede66 03:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Zealand general election, 1996. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I've reverted you photos changes. License on the old ones looks okay and they are a lot nicer. Could you explain the reason for your substitution? - SimonLyall (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mostly cause they didnt fit time wise for 1996. like Anderton 2010 (+14 years) vs 2000 (+4 years), bolger 2008 (+12) vs 1996 (0), clarke 2005 (+9) vs 1997 (+1), Peters 2008 (+12) vs 1991 (-5). the prebble photo i just cropped cause it looks weird to have heads and then one full body photo. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okay. It's a bit of a balance between the two requirements. Especially with limited numbers of photos available. I was prompted by this comment on twitter - SimonLyall (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok im not gonna change it, though i think maybe some compromise could be not the directly most recent photo but closer than the ones you reverted back to TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
im going to copy this conversation over to the talk page for the article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]