Template talk:New Zealand Labour Party

Party Presidents

The Andrew Walker article states that he was a president pre 1917. Is the list in the template not complete? Schwede 66 08:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. When I created the template I just copied the names from New Zealand Labour Party#List of presidents, which only starts at 1931. I doubt that it went 15+ years without a president, so go ahead and add to the template and the Party article. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership elections

I wonder whether we should subdivide leadership to elections (already there) and contestants (to be added). Thoughts? Schwede 66 08:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New layout

Proposed new layout, akin to the UK Labour Party (note that the list of General Secretaries is incomplete). Was also thinking of adding a row for the chief whip. Thoughts? Kiwichris (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

{{New Zealand Labour Party|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
{{New Zealand Labour Party|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.

Transclusion maintenance
Check completeness of transclusions

Good! Have made some suggested edits; feel free to revert if you think that certain titles must be capitalised. It needs to make consistent use of endashes as per MOS:DATERANGE. Schwede 66 21:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the list of general secretaries, and fixed the en-dashes. Paora (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Started work on a row for chief/senior whip. Still incomplete and a few I'm not 100% sure on.Kiwichris (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 and Kiwichris: Shall we change the layout of the template now? I came along to this template to add the deputy leaders and I stumbled across this. It looks great! J 947 23:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Just make sure that it gets done properly, which means no cut-and-paste moves. If unsure what that means or why it matters, I can swap things round. Unless anybody brings up reasons why the change shouldn't go ahead, of course. Schwede 66 23:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66, why would you do a cut-and-paste move to change this? I don't understand. J 947 23:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J947 I said that because not everybody is aware that it's not something to be done as it causes a lot of work to fix it. However, I said that before I checked that the content was actually created on the talk page (i.e. not in a separate template or sandbox, say), so there wasn't another way of doing it to what you did. The background to all of this is of legal nature and just to be sure that we are not upsetting the apple cart, your edit summary should have stated 'copying content from talk page'. But it's pretty close and will do; just remember for next time. Schwede 66 18:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. J 947 18:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes should only be added to articles that are linked from within. Schwede 66 04:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from Schwede's talk page

Kiwichris started it. J 947 05:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Glover is contained within the navbox as one of the general secretaries. Schwede 66 05:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we also change the other party templates? J 947 03:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Schwede 66 04:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential split

Would anyone oppose splitting the current navbox out into separate templates? At this point the whole thing is quite overwhelming (I never enjoy having to open out more than one hidden section), and I don’t personally feel that (eg) Shadow Cabinet of Norman Kirk or Mason Affair need to link to every sitting member, nor vice versa. — HTGS (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it needs a wider discussion. By what we discussed and did in the section above, we made it inconsistent with other party templates. For example:

What we should aim for is consistency. Maybe post at the other template talk pages to rally the troops. Schwede 66 05:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]