Talk:Denmark–New Zealand relations

News

I think this edit [1] should be reverted; news can be in an article. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I feel that information about sports rivalry and scientific cooperation in Denmark–New Zealand relations is useful. I think this removed information that might help show notability. While most nations have some rivalry in sports, scientific cooperation, etc., these particular items have garnerned coverage in reliable news outlets. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

the sporting rivalry can be covered in relevant articles of national sporting teams like Peru_national_football_team#Rivalries + you didn't state women's world cup soccer which is much less notable. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

hardly notable statement

A 1914 United States government study analyzed the differences and comity between widow's pension laws of Denmark and New Zealand. isn't this scraping the barrel? using a google search and throwing into the article this information. this should also appear in the Canada, US relations articles as well. the statement demonstrates nothing about actual relations between NZ and Denmark. LibStar (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Stigley's appointment

I deleted the new sentence about Stigley's recent appointment as Ambassador partly because it was incorrect, and also because Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory or a news site. It has been reinstated, despite being incorrect (diff). I still don't see the routine replacement of one of Denmark's two Consul Generals in NZ as being important enough to detail here. I will remove it again in a day or so unless discussion here reaches a consensus that it should be included. -- Avenue (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

agree, it's all part of a desperate attempt to insert factoids into these bilateral articles. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Silly, that Wikipedia rules bans an article on that topic, it does not ban adding that that information to an existing article. The marriage of any notable person doesn't get its own article, yet oddly the spouse of everyone is mentioned in the biographies. Get it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point; I just don't agree with it. This is a question of editorial judgement, which on Wikipedia comes down to consensus. I still feel that the recent reappointment is too insignificant to be covered here. Do we really want to cover the appointment of all Denmark's Consuls, past and present (assuming sources can be found for them)? That seems to be where this would lead us. But I don't care enough about it to argue the point further, or to delete the sentence if there is no consensus for keeping it, especially now that you have corrected your initial error. -- Avenue (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You said: "Do we really want to cover the appointment of all Denmark's Consuls". I don't fear people rushing to the article to add in all the past and present diplomatic staff, that never happens in Wikipedia for foreign affairs, maybe for a TV show or a movie cast. If it does occur, and the article becomes turgid with information, we can sort it out then. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Denmark–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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/1/9/00000417.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100307085951/http://kongehuset.dk:80/publish.php?dogtag=k_dk_aktuelt_visit to http://www.kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_dk_aktuelt_visit

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) 02:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)