Talk:Libertarianz

message: I have been trying to find out if Ian Fraser the founder of Libertarianz is the same person as Ian Fraser the broadcaster. My reason for wondering this is that Libertarianz leader Lindsay Perigo is also a broadcaster, and this would naturally link the two men—Copey
No no no!  Completely different people, I can assure you.  Ppe42 14:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed the party press release and replaced it with something from a more neutral POV. Feel free to add more links, but please don't copy party press realeases into wikipedia. I am aware that you may think it is all true, but it is hardly from a neutral point of view. Neil Leslie 10:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Party press release re Darton v Clark 

message: User:Robz0r removed the two images at the bottom of the article with the comment "Images - remove propaganda"
I reverted this change because there was an insufficient explanation of why the images (or the captions of the images) represent propaganda.  I am not sure how a picture of a political protest or billboard could itself be propaganda (although it could certainly portray propaganda).  The pictures are of actual events, with actual Libertarianz members, and IMHO the captions simply describe the facts behind the events (one protest of Parliament and one placing of an election billboard).
(Perhaps this was an instance of wiki-envy, since the entries of other NZ political parties do not have such attractive, illustrative public domain pictures of party protests, billboards or other events) :-)
Ppe42 11:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image removal

message: :Image:Bernard-video.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bernard-video.jpg

message: There's a link labelled "Banana Republic Day", but it goes to Banana Republic, which has nothing to do with this party or with New Zealand.  What's that about? Teemu Leisti (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  banana republic day 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Libertarianz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060705025458/http://www.darntonvsclark.org:80/ to http://www.DarntonVsClark.org
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Libertarianz. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208054417/http://electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_1996/pdf/3.4%20Party%20Lists%20of%20Unsuccessful%20Registered%20Parties.pdf to http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_1996/pdf/3.4%20Party%20Lists%20of%20Unsuccessful%20Registered%20Parties.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 1,176 ÷ 2,344,566 = 0.050159%. If you do :rounding the number is 0.1% of the valid votes. This is 1/10th of 1 percent. But 1/100th of 1% (0.05%) does not comport with MOS:LARGENUM. Why? 0.05% or 0.1% in the table is unimportant for the article's purposes. Per the LARGENUM guidance we should round the numbers to an appropriate number of :significant digits. In this table the Libertarianz did not get many votes – so encyclopedic notation the table could be "<1%" or "~0.1%" or "nil".  WP:NOTSTATS is another source of guidance.   – S. Rich (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the MOS is relevant here. (NOTSTATS, on the other hand, is not particularly relevant. There is no "excessive listing of unexplained statistics" here. Vote share for a political is relevant and clear, and there are only five entries.) I would also agree that hyper-detailed precision such as your example with six decimal places would be inappropriate, as would the full non-repeating value of 0.0501585368038264. However, we are talking about the difference between one decimal place vs two. Rounding to 0.05 is indeed minor – the difference is 4 votes. But rounding to 0.1 is a difference of 1169 votes – more than the change from year to year in all but one of the elections. (I omit the option of 'nil' because it goes against the MOS, which says "comparable numbers should be both written in words or both in figures".) So two decimal places seems appropriate to show the differences in vote share across elections. It is also consistent with how vote shares are shown for some other small NZ parties, such as the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party (the one just above Libertarianz in that 2008 election). --RL0919 (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this is a question that WP:WPE&R should address. I've looked there for MOS guidance, but found nothing helpful. (Perhaps an RFC might help.) My overall view (concern) is that each election is won by a single vote. That is, if there is a close split, the winner needs only one more vote than the looser. In a small meeting the split might be 4–6 (40–60%). If there are 100 votes, the winner needs 51 votes verses 49 for the looser (49–51%). If 1,000 votes, the winner needs 501 votes verses 499 (49.9–50.1%). If 10,000 votes the winner needs 5,001 votes verses 4,999 (49.99–50.01%). Once we get beyond 10,000 votes the "exact" percentage becomes less and less significant. So how does this apply to WP? Too often I see our (WP) election results tables with percentage numbers that represent 1/10,000th of the total votes. In this article the number is 5/10,000th of the votes verses 1/1,000th of the total.  In those very-very-rare actually close-close-close situations a 1/100th of one percent is significant. But overall do we serve the reader by saying "the election results were 49.00–51.00% or 49.90–50.10%? No, only in the 49.99–50.01% races does the precision become important. When we routinely present numbers that reflect 1/10,000th of the total count we only clutter the table with a meaningless level of precision. Typical readers are not concerned.  – S. Rich (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There were discussions (not RfCs) about rounding in 2015, 2018, and 2021, with no general conclusions. However, they all discussed it in the same context that you raise: presentation of the overall result of an election. But this is not an article about an election. It is an article about a small political party that never came close to winning an election. What is relevant in this article is not what precision is significant for winning. It is what precision is significant for the history of this small party's vote share over time. To make an analogy, we would not typically discuss the size of the galaxy in millimeters, and we would not discuss the size of an ant in light years. If the outcome of 2008 New Zealand general election can be shown in a satisfactory way with one decimal place or zero decimal places, that's fine by me, but that doesn't mean the vote share history of small parties should be represented the same way. (That said, in fact the vote shares at 2008 New Zealand general election are shown with two decimal places.) --RL0919 (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precision in the election results table