Talk:Australia–Canada relations

Comparison of Australian and Canadian governments was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 18 October 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Australia–Canada relations. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Australia–Canada relations is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for Australia–Canada relations (14 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	859	859
History	13	55,507
Reluctant relations: 1886–1939	27,852	27,852
Awkward allies: 1939 to 1968	16,353	16,353
Pacific partners: 1968–present	11,289	11,289
Defence history and relations	3,061	3,061
Contemporary economic relations	2,327	2,327
Treaties	315	315
Opinion polls	1,530	1,530
Resident diplomatic missions	899	899
Twin towns and sister cities	287	287
See also	459	459
References	29	29
External links	812	812
Total	66,085	66,085

Labor/Labour

I've changed the spelling of the party name from Labour to (the correct) Labor. Tigerman2005 (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content merged from Comparison of Australian and Canadian governments

Quite a lot of the information re Australian constitutional law is fundamentally flawed. Important or not, I'm tempted to rewrite that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.43.61 (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've dumped it here, per its AfD. Most of it is just as unreferenced a pile of OR and SYNTH as what it's joining. On the plus side, the new stuff is better written, less long-winded, and better formatted; on the downside (pretty big downside), it has pretty much no bearing whatsoever on Australia-Canada relations. You could write "Comparison of Glenfarclas and Megan Fox," but sadly it would have very little to do with "Glenfarclas–Megan Fox relations"; the same fundamental problem applies here. Hopefully in the next few days I'll come back to this and take my battleaxe to a bunch of this prose. It's kind of sad, because I'm sure whoever wrote it all probably knew what they were talking about, but basically none of it has sources, references, or citations. If, between now and whenever I come back, anyone wants to clean this up, then by all means have at it. Glenfarclas (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it is part of an artilce on "relations" the best we can get out of the comparision is to serve as some background. Any in depth comparision would be need to be split out (but it seems editors do not want that).--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alliteration

Why is there alliteration in the history subsections, Reluctant relations, Awkward allies, Pacific partners. kinda weird, theres definitely no policy on this but i think it distracts and perhaps should be changed to a prose style. 114.76.41.165 (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, considering the length of this article with lack of citation and the lower extent of grammar errors than usual; this article really sounds like it's been taken out of a textbook and the alliterations may helped the students remember specific ideas(?). Anyways, this article really needs a bit of tinkering as the paragraphs are too long ard tiring to read.YuMaNuMa (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see numbers interspersed in the text which appear to be references of some sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.151.203 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is overwritten and seems to be the work of someone who wants to major in Eng. Lit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.5.58 (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

consular help for australians

Australian can use the services of some Canadian embassies around the world, in countries where there is no Australian consulate. Is the reverse true? How should this information be presented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.151.203 (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Head of state

I've changed the description of Elizabeth II as head of state of both Australia and Canada to read monarch. This follows the long-standing convention in similar articles, such as Elizabeth II, British Commonwealth, Commonwealth realm etc. See Australian head of state dispute for the various views and sources as to why we cannot name the Queen or the Governor-General as the sole occupant of that role.

A more general observation. There are huge unsourced slabs of text in this article, marked as unsourced for years. Where did all this text come from, and perhaps we could usefully tip most of it over the side, if we cannot find sourcing and nobody wants to do the job? --Pete (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australia–Canada 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001160429/http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/korea/kapyong.html to http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/korea/kapyong.html

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australia–Canada 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) 05:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]