Jump to content

Talk:Australia–New Zealand relations

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

Dubious statements

[edit]

Why does the image under the Sport heading of an Australian Football League match show the Indian Australian Football League team playing against the New Zealand Australian Football League team ? Isn't this article about relations between Australia and New Zealand ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.28.15 (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC) I have tagged:[reply]

The 1901 Australian Constitution included provisions to allow New Zealand to join Australia as its seventh state, even after the government of New Zealand had already decided against such a move.

as Dubious. I believe a citation needed for date of NZ decision - although they weren't signing up I understand NZ wanted to keep options open which is a slightly different sense than that conveyed by the article.--Matilda talk 20:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel this is a dubious statement, an unreferenced one, but there is no doubt that New Zealand could have considered becoming a part of the Commonwealth, it was part of NSW for a long time so its not that much of a stretch, i think the dubious tag should be removed and a replaced with a ref tag. Taifarious1 05:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the tag. My concern is the Constitution included provisions to allow New Zealand to join ... even after the government of New Zealand had already decided against such a move because although they weren't signing up I understand NZ wanted to keep options open which is a slightly different sense to that conveyed at present and the date of a decision is probably critical to getting the right inference.--Matilda talk 06:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should take a look here and see if you think this is a suitable enough reference: [1], It does not offer a definitive date, but it states that New Zealand becoming a part of the federation became increasing undesirable in the 1890's before the commonwealth was established. It will be hard to find a pinpoint date to its actual decision but thats very close. Taifarious1 07:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am modifying this statement from the political union section. "The distance between Wellington, New Zealand and Sydney, Australia, is 1,378 miles (2,218 km), making it seem even more obvious of Hall's remark." Irrelevant, as the capital of Australia at the time was Melbourne, and that was the context that this was refered to in. Nudge67 (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The capital of the time was yet to be determined and was going to be neither Melbourne nor Sydney. It would perhaps be more useful if you could find a distance that was 1200 miles that Hall was referring to - is it in fact that at their closest point NZ and Aust are 1200 miles apart? The distance to Perth is only marginally relevant as it is on the same continent - note also that WA was dubious about joining - the referendum was probably influenced by the number of gold diggers in the 1890s who were originally from Victoria - moreover WA did try to secede. --Matilda talk 20:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Hall had been referring to Melbourne-Wellington distance he presumably would have said 1500 or 1600 miles --Matilda talk 20:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "Children born to Australians in New Zealand are granted New Zealand citizenship by birth as well as Australian citizenship by descent.[50]" references "NYT NZ fury" which does not mention getting Australian citizenship by descent. Children born to Australian parents while outside Australia on or after January the 26th of January 1949 are entitled to apply for Australian citizen, the home affairs and immigration website discusses this, I will update the article to refer to it. https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/citizenship/become-a-citizen/by-descent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris James Hall (talk • contribs) 08:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked the claim regarding Australians receiving New Zealand social security after two years as 'citation needed', as the original citation "NYT NZ fury" did not mention this.

The NZ Government website on Australians eligibility for NZ social security payments does not support it either [2] - the situation seems to be quite complex, with different eligibility periods for different payments. I've removed this claim. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Things to be added

[edit]
  • Similarity
    • Flags
      • New Zealand: The current flag was introduced in 1869. It was initially used only on government ships, but was adopted as the de facto national flag in a surge of patriotism arising from the Second Boer War in 1902. To end confusion between various designs of the flag, the Liberal Government passed the Ensign and Code Signals Bill, which was approved by King Edward VII on 24 March 1902, declaring the flag as New Zealand's national flag.
      • Australia: The flag of Australia was chosen in 1901 from entries in a worldwide design competition held following Federation.
  • Trade

--Matilda talk 01:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Influential?

[edit]
Resolved
 – Matilda talk 07:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in the lead section The relationship between Australia and New Zealand is somewhat similar to that of other small countries with their much larger or more influential neighbour, i find, is a little bias, whos to say that one nation has more influene of eachother in the case of NZ and AUS, larger neighbour is a given, but more influential not so much. Some could say that NZ has had a much larger influence, i.e. giving women the vote, going nuclear free, Edmund Hillary, Earnest Rutherford, New Zealands position in Pacific Island nations, Fonterra, NZ-China FTA and even LOTR! These things dont mean anything to the way NZ and AUS relate to eachother and i dont think its fair to include that statement in the lead section, or anywhere for that matter. Taifarious1 02:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have issues with the lead paragraph beyond the question of influence. It currently reads:

The relationship between Australia and New Zealand is somewhat similar to that of other small countries with their much larger or more influential neighbour, such as Canada and the United States, although this is modified by the fact that Australia and New Zealand are both middle powers as far as global affairs are concerned. Some have defined the relationship as less one of friendship than of brotherhood, beset by sibling rivalry.[1]

The reference only supports the last sentence. The lead of Canada – United States relations is perhaps a useful comparison:

Canada – United States relations span more than two centuries, marked by a shared British colonial heritage, conflict during the early years of the U.S., and the eventual development of one of the most successful international relationships in the modern world. The most serious breach in the relationship was the War of 1812, which saw American invasion attempts on then British North America. Friendship would be solidified in the 20th century with the shared experience of the world wars and a close alliance during the Cold War.

I propose to remove the offending words and, borrowing from Canada – United States relations rewite as:

The relationship between Australia and New Zealand is somewhat similar to that of other neighbouring countries with a countries with a shared British colonial heritage, such as Canada and the United States. Some have defined the relationship as less one of friendship than of brotherhood, beset by sibling rivalry.[1]</

--Matilda talk 06:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, i think its very effective and it cuts out all the speculation of the relationship between both nations. I propose we change it as the current lead is very speculatory and bias on a number of levels. Taifarious1 07:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
Resolved
 – Taifarious1 talk 07:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the sentence: The only major exception to these privileges is for individuals with outstanding warrants or criminal backgrounds deemed dangerous or undesirable for the migrant nation and its citizens. be under the 'intra-migration' section, it seems a bit useless to be in the lead section and has no bearing on the relationship as a whole. Taifarious1 05:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree - makes sense - too fine a detail for the lead--Matilda talk 05:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Have made the changes. Taifarious1 07:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A source for trans-tasman commentary

[edit]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4134551a26503.html from New Zealand's Sunday Star Times --Matilda talk 22:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Similarities' and 'Differences' have no place in an article about 'Relations'

[edit]

As the existence of the first have no bearing on the quality of the last. The dimensions of relations would be, say .. commerce, diplomacy, sport, war (with each other, or as a joint enterprise), cultural exchange. 'Commonalities' may be a dimension of 'relations', but there is not a common currency. I will remove the 'sim' and 'diff' and work to include reference to entities which cover both nations eg. medical specialist bodies which offer accreditation or registration for specialists from either —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mestmaster (talk • contribs) 14:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information on respective websites of their foreign ministries

[edit]

These are added as external links and proposed as wealthy sources of information for the further development of the article. In other words, the official government 'take' on the relationship and significance of each country to each other, from either's perspective.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Prospect of currency union

[edit]

CERprophet (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Differences section - what?

[edit]

"Differences: The European population of Australia from early times contained a large Irish Catholic minority, many of whom were hostile to the British overclass, in comparison to New Zealand which was largely settled by English and Scots loyal to the British Crown. This resulted in some significant differences in attitude to authority; New Zealand never had an equivalent to the Eureka Stockade[citation needed] revolt, and republicanism has been less of an issue than in Australia. In this respect, as well as in stereotypes (see below), the differences between New Zealand and Australia resemble those between Canada and the United States, respectively."
Questions, questions: What British overclass was this, the Hollywood version? What was the attitude of the working class people in OZ from England, Scotland etc. How did they feel about the overclass? Did convicts transported from other parts of the British Isles like the overclass? Over in NZ what about the Scots who left home after the Clearances? And the comparison with the US, did the widely discriminated against Irish feel at home in the US republic when they got there? Bah! The section is a parade of stereotypes thrown together by a folk nationalist. Hakluyt bean (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Tomson's call to ban kiwi migration to Australia

[edit]

Perhaps this should be mentioned, also there was recently another mention for political union: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/contributors/join-oz-new-zealand--its-for-the-best-20091112-ib8r.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.90.38 (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree these issues are worth covering. Please amend the article as you see fit. One of our mottos is Be bold!. You are probably also aware of our neutral POV policy, so don't add your own opinion about these proposals.-gadfium 07:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 121.74.243.92, 2 April 2010

[edit]

the statement that new zealanders can receive welfare benefits after living in australia for two years is incorrect and has been for a few years. New Zealanders must obtain an australian permanent resident visa to receive welfare benefits and must apply for this in the same manner as any other country. This is in addition to the 2 year waiting peroid that still remains. Source http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/factors/nz_policy.htm 121.74.243.92 (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to our attention - yes, that's definitely an error in the article, so I've fixed it. Orderinchaos 09:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aus-NZ or NZ-Aus

[edit]

"Why should Australia always go first?" is a compelling question. One answer is that it usually goes first in things like ANZAC, ANZCERTA, Aus-NZ Food Authority, SANZAR, and everywhere that the distinction can be made on List of Australia-New Zealand-related articles. Australia shouldn't always go first. It should only go first in published names and agreements such as the examples already given. Otherwise New Zealand can go first, or Australia. Being first named is being first thought of, but not being more important because neither is more important in the explanation of this subject matter. It wasn't an Australian who first successfully made it to the top of the world's highest mountain, it was a New Zealander and a Nepali working together . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popecreator (talk • contribs) 06:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


this was raised a short time a go the preference should be in all cases to follow alpabetical precedence in all cases where there is no clear distinction e.g. mount everast new zealand should go first, this allows for simplicity and reduces the potential for edit wars where ppl keep moving back and forth based on ideological grounds.

for reference i am australian

Digmores (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

was just reading over it in greater detail and it tends to flip between australia-new zealand to new zealand-australia without context.

we should go one way or the other thoughts

Digmores (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems a bit petty. Not sure why Mount Everest was brought up? Why didn't you say it was a "Nepali and a New Zealander"? Format (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with recent edits

[edit]

This article was a GA nominee - see - 04:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)|nominator=Thoroughgoodness (talk)|page=1|subtopic=Politics and government|status=|note=

It should be removed from GA nomination due the fact the nominator is a banned user: -

Note: the nominee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thoroughgoodness and subsequent socks who have worked on this article are socks of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DavidYork71 - SatuSuro 07:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


In the 'Gallery' section there is a picture with the caption 'Warmongering propaganda urging men from the British Dominions to enlist in the Great War (1915)'.

I take issue with the use of the pejorative (and subjective) term 'warmongering', and feel it should be omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.179.122 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove this as a good article nomination. It was nominated by a banned user and so any comments are not likely to be replied to. If another editor believes that it could be a good article they can renominate. I would remove some of the pictures first though. AIRcorn (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article

[edit]

Germany–Japan relations is an article of same type (ie. bilateral relations of counterpart countries) to have achieved WP:GA status in WP:FOR. France–New Zealand relations is B-class. They are the models for this article to ascend the quality scale. This article already compares as better than the France-NZ one. It is substantially deeper in its treatment of sport, military, currency/monetary/economy, exploration, sport, diplomacy, trade, telecommunications, migration and history. It also treats politics and law. It has more and a greater diversity of source references and it also acknowledges that things go further back than just the beginning of World War I (try up to 130 million years). It is fantastically illustrated in comparison. Who then cares that it doesn't incorporate lengthening lists of visits by delegates and ministers in recent years? Promote it.Sayazakardalamdubursaya (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think this article now has a high possiblility of becoming a very Good Article thanks to the work of User:Sayazakardalamdubursaya, the time and dedication this new user has put into this article I feel is Branstar worthy. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now knowing what I know of the nominator, I change my vote to neutral, regardless in the fact he has positively contributed a great deal to this article, he has vandalized other pages, and chose a most profane user name, hidden in a different language, and is also a sock of a banned user. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are the edits good enough to WP:IAR and allow some of the reverted edits[3] to remain in the article? Not too bothered about the minor wikilinking, but there are some substantial referenced sections there. AIRcorn (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he's known for frequently adding false information (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/DavidYork71) I think not. WP:DENY appears to apply given that he's such an extreme block evader. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed some good changes from a quick glance. Is there anything stopping a good faith, knowledge editor (thinking more of Phoenix and other regular editors here) going through and individually re-adding any they feel are warranted. AIRcorn (talk) 08:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing at all. I thought that some of the changes looked fine as well, but they need to be assumed to be bad given the editor's history. If someone wants to re-add them (after checking them against a source, of course) that would be great.
'Exhausting community patience' and not 'getting facts wrong' was the charge that the User:DavidYork71 contributor was put to reply to in the face of attempted intimidation by ban. Taking the time to review what is being supposed as its promoted version, there's no detected factual errors and its content is more up-to-date and more comprehensive, and that's on all points. It gives a better exposition of the entire sweep of the bilateral relationship and it is a greater credit to Wikipedia to have it that way and show it that way. The number of displayed images in the gallery section at the end should be settled whether that be twelve (four rows) or fifteen (five rows). I stump for twelve. Even Jesus kept his group of disciples that small. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.110.242 (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 21 July 2012

[edit]

Hi,

A large number of the pictures on this page seem to not match their legend ( e.g. A picture of the SKA being lengened as Russell Crow).

From my reading of the article it seems to links to the pictures have been moved, as the legends make sense in the context of the article, but the pictures do not.

116.89.107.12 (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The captions look okay to me. I think some recent edits fouled them up and then fixed them again. You might have been seeing a cached version of the page. RudolfRed (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banks-Sherwin report

[edit]

There's been 30 years of CER and now there's a report which is the driving force for the agenda of the next 30 years of CER. This report had a small para (one or two sentences) when it was a foreshadowed thing. Now it's a real thing and it's not just a review of a small corner or subsection of the A-NZ relationship (like just the aviation market, or just rules of origin), it's encompasses the whole box and dice to try and do just about everything short of the attempted NZ inclusion into Federation in 1900 and monetary union pipe dream. It warrants the expanded coverage, for example, initiating changes to how CER will be managed + outcomes monitored and reported on. It's additionally leading the way to student loans for kiwis in Australia, Aus permanent residence and citizenship for some of the buggers too, and the novation of the trans-Tasman tourist visa. It's a deeply considered, wideranging, much-heralded, (formerly) eagerly-anticipated report. If I could nominate a more significant overview upon the A-NZ relationship I might only say the ANZCERTA itself, but to be fair, that differentiates itself as an Agreement/Treaty.Rotoruan (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources say that this report has been influential? Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

obviously kiwi wikipedians had a lot more input into this article then the okker wikis

[edit]

because it really is very biased towards NZ. Oh, and Steve Price did not play in the 2008 RLWC final.Theodore D (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree and will see if other versions show a bit more balance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.18.134 (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a dunce on the overall subject matter here, but looking further into [4], a lot of useful and more detailed and up-to-date perspectives have been lost:

  • the productivity joint scoping study of 2012
  • CER-driven initiatives post 2010
  • NZ supporting Oz onto the UN Security council
  • the people of either country helping each other through earthquakes, mine disasters, and Victorian bushfires
  • womens rugby. indoor bowls. asian volleyball championships. inline hockey. handball. lacrosse. roller derby. baseball
  • Korfball
  • Standards (metrication, accounting standards)
  • the most recent joint Ministerial Communiques, joint PMs statements, and where to find the scoping study for improved competition policy. That stuff really drives the agenda for future relations and as to whether they become closer and more cooperative or further apart. I heard that criminal checks can disclose in Australia if someone has been a naughty kiwi back home. Is it true?

The more expansive version is better because rather than someone calling it out for 'biased toward NZ', it's tone and style was for the introduction of non-Australians and non-NZers to understand the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.18.134 (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Korfball stays or I quit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.18.136 (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd concede those things although adding it does invite consideration of WP:SIZERULE and the need to split or cull down/out what's not important. With 11 substantive sections the best lead would use a sentence to summarise each rather than being caught up on something that happened to Ansett some years ago. The banned editor involved was banned for fringe or extreme POV (ie. biased or unbalanced or simply a minority worldview). It would be odd to ascribe pro-NZ bias to them, being they were from Australia. I just don't see the NZ-bias myself.~~

Current Aus PM

[edit]

pls change photo. It's now turnbull not abbott — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Syndic8 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Australia–New Zealand relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Checked --Usien6 msg • his 16:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Australia–New Zealand relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Australia–New Zealand relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Australia–New Zealand relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australia–New Zealand relations. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australia–New Zealand relations. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Australasian relations" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Australasian relations. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#Australasian relations until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 15:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison table

[edit]

I've removed the comparison table from the article. These are unusual in articles on bilateral relations, and the table was a compilation mainly of trivia (area, population density), weird and probably wrong factoids (national carrier), outdated statistics and outright misinformation (a bizzare claim that NZ has only a single international airport and Australia two). Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia–New_Zealand_relations&oldid=1205505759"