This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country category. |
|
![]() | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The following are regular editors of the Diplomatic Missions by Country articles. Honorary contributors are excluded.
Hi, I noticed you have added details of the suburbs where certain American embassies are. As mentioned earlier, I do not consider this level of detail to be encyclopedic. The intention of the articles is to describe diplomatic networks in a global context, not to list more exactly their locations. Kransky ( talk) 15:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
A contributor has suggested that diplomatic missions in Taipei belonging to sending states that do not recognise the Republic of China should not be listed with a flag of the Republic of China, should be referred to as "Taiwan" and should contain a caveat specifying sending state does not recognise the Republic of China. While he has made this change to Diplomatic missions of Ireland, it would be appropriate that whatever decision to made to this article also is made in all the other DMBC articles (both the receiving and sending articles).
In short it is not worth the extra work, and I am not certain that this new contributor is prepared for all the extra work (and edit wars) his change entails. Please provide your views in Talk:Diplomatic missions of Ireland
(a) If a country does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan, should their quasi-government office in Taipei be listed in these articles? user:Redking7 says it shouldn't - he says that for Diplomatic missions in Ireland it is wrong to list the "Republic of China" or "Taiwan" as a "country" that Ireland has a diplomatic mission to when this is clearly not accurate. Current practice is that we include such missions, as we aim to illustrate how a country seeks to project its foreign influence overseas.
(b) Should we call receiving states according to know they identify themselves (eg: Republic of China, Macedonia), or according to how the sending state identifies it (eg: Taiwan, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). user:Redking7 says it should be according to whatever name the sending state uses. Current practice is that we use the self-identification principle (ie how the receiving state calls itself). See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity, which dictates that the name most commonly used for a person (or in this case, a country) by themselves should be the name used in Wikipedia. It is a rule that is not uniformly maintained.
I will let the proposer state his case rather than to speak further for him. You can see our debate on the matter in Talk:Diplomatic missions of Ireland. I would emphasise that whatever rules are decided, that the same rule is kept consistent for all articles, and that RedKing is expected to make the changes to all articles that are affected by his change, if it is agreed upon.
Kransky ( talk) 08:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1. User:RedKing7 has for sometime been removing entries relating to quasi-diplomatic missions in Taiwan (ie the representative offices of states that do not recognise the Republic of China).
2. For the last three years we have been including such quasi diplomatic missions, not just for missions to (and of) Taiwan, but also those concerning Palestine, Northern Cyprus, Israel, the US, Kosovo, Sahawi, Iran, Cuba etc, in which there are reasons that their presence cannot be considered diplomatic missions in their strictest sense.
3. I have been concerned that RedKing7 has made piecemeal changes, rather than proposing a wholesale policy change. He believes that listing representative offices in Taiwan is "original research", and thus should be corrected.
4. I do not believe it is original research. It is my view that if a country lists on its Ministry of Foreign Affairs website its representative office in Taipei (or Pristina or Ramallah or wherever), adjacent to other de jure diplomatic missions, then it should be listed in these articles. These articles clearly indicate whatever nomencalture a given representative office in Taipei has, and we do not misrepresent offices from non-recognising states by designating them as embassies.
5. However that is just my view. Only until now has that precedent been followed. It does not possess a mandate from contributors. You may agree that my approach balances integrity, consistency and usefulness.
6. Alternatively, you may find RedKing7's approach leaves less room for confusion, and support the idea of removing all quasi diplomatic missions from these articles (including, say, the US interests office in Havana, the Japanese representative office in Ramallah, to the Taiwan Liaison Office in Pretoria). And of course, you may have your own views.
7. There are perfectly valid arguments for either approach. However I would stress that consistency is maintained. We are respecting all nationalities here, and I cannot see why non de jure missions in Taipei are removed but those of Palestine/Kosovo/Sahawi aren't.
8. Please indicate below if you support or oppose the proposed removal of all quasi-diplomatic missions in all Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country and Lists of diplomatic missions by receiving country articles. If you support the change, please indicate how willing you will be to make all the necessary changes to what would be a laborious (and in my view, profitless) task. Notification of this vote is being sent to all recent and ongoing major contributors to either of these categories.
Redking7 ( talk) 21:13, 6 September 2009 (UTCINVALID POLL Every state's diplomatic relations are unique and a matter for that state. Discussions of this type must be raised on the appropriate discussion page. This is an attempt to paint every article page with the same brush and does not work. Redking7 ( talk) 06:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be a cmoplete farce to include "RoC/Taiwan" on the List of diplomatic missions of France as it currently is given the French position:
I propose that the "RoC/Taiwan" entry be deleted. It is inaccurate and misleading. France has no diplomatic relations or dimplomatic mission to "RoC/Taiwan"....There is much material, easily accessible, verifying this, including the following:
"As far as France is concerned there is only one China and Taiwan is an integral part of Chinese territory. France does not support the independence of Taiwan," Sarkozy said, describing Taiwan's status as part of "the turn of historical events" - President Sarkozy.
Organization of a referendum on accession to the UN under the name Taiwan (March 20, 2008)
As the President has already had the opportunity to indicate, France’s position on this issue is very clear and remains unchanged. France is firmly opposed to the organization of a referendum on accession to the UN under the name Taiwan. It is a useless, regrettable exercise.
We are opposed to any unilateral initiative liable to challenge the status quo. We must promote dialogue, cooperation and the stability of the region.
For France, there is only one China. Taiwan is an integral part of China. - [1]
STATE VISIT TO CHINA
STATEMENTS MADE BY M. JACQUES CHIRAC, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC, IN HIS JOINT PRESS DECLARATION WITH MR HU JINTAO,
PRESIDENT OF CHINA - (Beijing, 26 October 2006)"On Taiwan, I [President Chirac] repeated to President Hu Jintao that France still has the same consistent unambiguous policy. France is keeping to the one-China principle."
Clearly - there may be other articles where the positision is less clear cut. Thats why the "one size fits all poll suggested is not apt.". Each page neeeds to be considered in turn. Finally, there is no such thing as a "de facto diplomatic mission". Such a mission would not require diplomatic relations which is the paramount consideration. If you want changes, you need to produce sources and then get consensus. Regards.
Redking7 (
talk)
09:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Has any one bothered to provide reasons why France's office, for example, should be included as a "diplomatic mission"? If this poll is going to go anywhere, Kransky's biased intro should be loooked at too....Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 06:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It appears user:Kransky is up to his old tricks - There are so many entries on this list that I have not read them all but I know some or all of them are pure canvassing, where User Kransky solicits the views of those who he knows will agree with him. More of his old tricks...I've had this experience before....:
08:35, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:William M. Connolley (→Proposed Removal of all non de jure diplomatic Missions in List Articles) 07:22, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Readin (→Your input requested) (top) 07:19, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Pyl (→WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum) (top) 07:19, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jiang (→File source problem with File:James lick.jpg) (top) 07:15, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Daniel Case (→coordinates problem?) 06:52, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Krokodyl (top) 06:50, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Avala (→Russia, ICJ and Mitrovica) (top) 06:49, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Bevinbell (top) 06:48, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Nafio (top) SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009) (top) 06:42, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Oxana879 (top) 06:41, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:WikiLaurent (→RoC/Taiwan) (top)
Kransky can clarify which of the entries concern the "poll". Regards.
Redking7 (
talk)
21:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to seek your view as to whether we should eliminate from the lists of diplomatic missions by sending/receiving countries all references to representative offices of sending states that do not have formal diplomatic missions with the host states. This would affect a large number of articles which relate to Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo and other states. Please provide your views here. Thank you. Kransky ( talk) 06:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think need to respond, as it appears the Wikipedia community does not consider my communication is canvassing. Indeed I have contacted those who I have previously had disagreements (and if he is still on Wikipedia after this week, I can assure RedKing7 that I would be seeking his views whenever other debates emerge). Kransky ( talk) 11:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Please add your views here about adopting a new map style that indicates host cities, not host countries (as per the example here). Thanks !
The idea is good but the execution is poor because I can't see those dots at all. I think we should use both, paint a country and add a dot for a city where the mission is located. Though I don't see this hard work is extremely necessary considering the fact, embassies are usally in the capital city, not much surprises there. Here is a map I've made for honorary consuls of Serbia.-- Avala ( talk) 15:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I have remade the base map, making cities larger (16x16 pixels). More cities have been included.
I wondered which green Avala used to highlight countries as it is not on my MS Paint palette (I quite like it). Kransky ( talk) 22:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of adding the cities very much! I would like to make the following notes:
I think we are getting somewhere, but let's ensure we are (a) managing scope and (b) creating maps that are readable at 450px. These maps are supposed to provide a snapshot, not replicate the information in detail. Nor should it contain information that goes beyond what we have already in the articles, such as adding honorary consulates or accreditations. I would like us to use a style that can be consistent for all articles, and as such something that just restricted the terminology to "embassies", "consulates/consulates-general" and "other representations". Any views? Kransky ( talk) 23:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I will try to make a structured summary, where we can have all details at a glance. If we decide not to use some category - just don't specify different color for it. Also, my proposal is still that we choose colors even for things that are in related articles, not in the main "List of diplomatic missions" - so that they can have a consistent look with the main series (eg. honorary consulates) - such will remain mostly unused, but it is better that we have here good color palette, taking in account them, so that the same look can be applied to these articles too. Anyway, if you oppose this proposal - don't specify different color and in this way the category you oppose will merge with another one.
Some of these may not be shown at all - see above.
Added numbers to the list, so that we can discuss them using Heading-name-number. Alinor ( talk) 10:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Alinor, I think you are getting way ahead of us (hence we seem to have lost everybody!). Please be sympathetic to the fact that people live busy lives and have limited time to contribute to discussions. Can we stick to the original proposals, and take a more strategic approach? Do we really need to debate how the map is set up? Whether Niue or Crete are included? Can't we just rely on (a) what is already out there and (b) the judgment of whoever is actually doing the work? I am a little bit concerned that your desire of absolute comprehensiveness would come at the cost of a legible map. I thought I made it quite clear that the List of Diplomatic Missions by Sending Country articles do not list accreditations or honorary consulates. What happens in the List of Diplomatic Missions by Receiving Country is outside this discussion. The dots you ask about on the lower-left corner aren't intended to mean anything - they were used as a palette so that whoever is editing the map can use a consistent colour. They are too small to be seen otherwise. Above all - KEEP IT SIMPLE. Kransky ( talk) 06:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Country colors
1. Background for sending country: yellow 2. Background for "ambassador hosted" country: Avala green 3. Background for "hosts consulate/general, but no embassy" country: Avala green 4. Background for "non-resident ambassador accredited and no consulate/general" country (only if applicable to particular article): Avala green 5. Background for "non-diplomatic relations/special cases" country: Avala green 6. Background for "recognition explicitely denied" country (eg. Israel by some Arab states, Kosovo, etc.): Avala green if there is a diplomatic mission, otherwise grey 7. Background for "no relations" country: grey 8. Background for other cases /see map with legend/ country: if there is a diplomatic mission listed in the article, Avala green; otherwise grey
City colors
1. City - sending capital: black 2. City - sending country non-capital: light blue? blue+X (slight offset to merge with background)? black? there is no reason to show non-capitals 3. City - embassy: red 4. City - consulate/general: orange 5. City - honorary consulate (only if applicable to particular article): As stated, we are not including these 6. City - other mission/office: pink 7. City - none: no reason to show
Non-state entities
1. Sovereign Military Order of Malta (in Rome): aways (not colored when not needed)? This is getting ridiculous (!). The map is not the place to present such detailed information. If think if a country has a mission to the SMOM it most probably has an embassy to Italy in Rome 2. European Union (in Brussels): aways? only if hosts mission? Some countries co-locate, Some countries share the same staff, some have separate missions. It would be a struggle to accomodate all possibilities (and I am aware of the limited space available). If an EU mission exists with or without an embassy to Belgium, just include a pink ("other mission") 3. United Nations (in New York): aways? if-host? pink 4. United Nations System organizations (in multiple cities): for UN and other multilateral organisations - only pink if the mission is predominantly serving a multilateral function (Geneva, Strasbourg), otherwise red/orange 5. .... /add new here/: ?? 6. Other organizations (see hidden note for exhaustive list of all organizations mentioned in all LODM articles - if someone thinks that some of these should be treated differently - please put the required organizations above): if-host? aways? as 4. above
Blank map
1. 100% georgaphicaly correct: of course the map will not be 100% correct; we just use good judgement 2. Very Small states represented with circles: yes - this is a Wiki standard 3. Capitals of small states: "regular city square streaking the border"? smaller-than-country circle? smaller-than-country square? none, use only city color? none, use only country background color? I think we can leave the small countries as they are and colour them if they have a mission - I think putting dots within dots is unnecessary 4. Vatican: yes-as-circle? in-the-table? No table - if a table is necessary the map is useless 5. Rome: next-to-Vatican? no-Vatican (if it is in the table)? Rome next to the Vatican, even if a bit smaller 6. Hong Kong, Macau: yes-as-country? yes-as-city? The current base map does not indicate these territories. Of course if consulates are in either place they would be indicated 7. States with limited recognition: I don't think this is an issue - Taiwan is separate, Kosovo/Palestine/Abhazia/TRNC etc are too small to show up as separate territories 8. Cook Islands, Niue (UN non-member states): Why should UN non-member states be excluded? - there are no missions on these countries anyway, so why are you asking Wikipedia community to waste their time to consider this issue 9. Non-Self-Governing Territories: As per our existing policy, it should be coloured as per the case of the parent state (Greenland=Denmark, New Caledonia=France, Falkland Islands=UK etc)
Blank map: States to be shown as circle
1. Brunei: whatever is on the base map 2. Singapore: whatever is on the base map 3. Timor-Leste: whatever is on the base map 4. Solomon islands: whatever is on the base map 5. Fiji: whatever is on the base map 6. Vanuatu: whatever is on the base map 7. Trinidad and Tobago: whatever is on the base map 8. Bahamas: whatever is on the base map 9. Cape Verde: whatever is on the base map 10. Jamaica: whatever is on the base map 11. Sao Tome and Principe: whatever is on the base map 12. Gambia: whatever is on the base map 13. Equatorial Guinea: whatever is on the base map 14. Qatar: whatever is on the base map 15. Bahrain: whatever is on the base map 16. Lebanon: whatever is on the base map 17. Malta: whatever is on the base map 18. Djibouti: whatever is on the base map 19. Kuwait: whatever is on the base map 20. Liechtenstein: whatever is on the base map 21. Luxembourg: whatever is on the base map 22. Montenegro: whatever is on the base map 23. Kosovo whatever is on the base map 24. Abkhazia whatever is on the base map 25. South Ossetia whatever is on the base map 26. Nagorno Karabakh whatever is on the base map 27. Traninistria whatever is on the base map 28. TRNC whatever is on the base map 29. Cyprus: whatever is on the base map 30. West Bank: whatever is on the base map 31. Gaza strip whatever is on the base map 32. .... /add new here/: ??
Ok....I have spent over an hour dealing with your post.
I think I have made my views clear enough to you, again and again.
Your difficulty to engage this issue from a high-level scope, your repeated insistence to debate issues extraneous to this proposal, and your unreasonable request that editors debate this issue through responding to nearly 100 questions are grounds for me to suspect your behaviour constitutes Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Your tendentious editing at Talk:List of diplomatic missions of the European Union might further demonstrate a problem you have.
Previously I invited you - somebody new to the DMBC articles but seemingly keen - to contribute to these articles, but it appears you have been petulently keen to push your agenda.
However I will assume good faith for the time being, and ask you to reflect on your approach, which to me appears tendentious and discretely aggressive. Kransky ( talk) 08:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I think that if we put the flags of the receiving countries, there we should put the flags of the multilateral organisations also, without prejudice of naming the international organisation. Regards.-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 15:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country category. |
|
![]() | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The following are regular editors of the Diplomatic Missions by Country articles. Honorary contributors are excluded.
Hi, I noticed you have added details of the suburbs where certain American embassies are. As mentioned earlier, I do not consider this level of detail to be encyclopedic. The intention of the articles is to describe diplomatic networks in a global context, not to list more exactly their locations. Kransky ( talk) 15:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
A contributor has suggested that diplomatic missions in Taipei belonging to sending states that do not recognise the Republic of China should not be listed with a flag of the Republic of China, should be referred to as "Taiwan" and should contain a caveat specifying sending state does not recognise the Republic of China. While he has made this change to Diplomatic missions of Ireland, it would be appropriate that whatever decision to made to this article also is made in all the other DMBC articles (both the receiving and sending articles).
In short it is not worth the extra work, and I am not certain that this new contributor is prepared for all the extra work (and edit wars) his change entails. Please provide your views in Talk:Diplomatic missions of Ireland
(a) If a country does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan, should their quasi-government office in Taipei be listed in these articles? user:Redking7 says it shouldn't - he says that for Diplomatic missions in Ireland it is wrong to list the "Republic of China" or "Taiwan" as a "country" that Ireland has a diplomatic mission to when this is clearly not accurate. Current practice is that we include such missions, as we aim to illustrate how a country seeks to project its foreign influence overseas.
(b) Should we call receiving states according to know they identify themselves (eg: Republic of China, Macedonia), or according to how the sending state identifies it (eg: Taiwan, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). user:Redking7 says it should be according to whatever name the sending state uses. Current practice is that we use the self-identification principle (ie how the receiving state calls itself). See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity, which dictates that the name most commonly used for a person (or in this case, a country) by themselves should be the name used in Wikipedia. It is a rule that is not uniformly maintained.
I will let the proposer state his case rather than to speak further for him. You can see our debate on the matter in Talk:Diplomatic missions of Ireland. I would emphasise that whatever rules are decided, that the same rule is kept consistent for all articles, and that RedKing is expected to make the changes to all articles that are affected by his change, if it is agreed upon.
Kransky ( talk) 08:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1. User:RedKing7 has for sometime been removing entries relating to quasi-diplomatic missions in Taiwan (ie the representative offices of states that do not recognise the Republic of China).
2. For the last three years we have been including such quasi diplomatic missions, not just for missions to (and of) Taiwan, but also those concerning Palestine, Northern Cyprus, Israel, the US, Kosovo, Sahawi, Iran, Cuba etc, in which there are reasons that their presence cannot be considered diplomatic missions in their strictest sense.
3. I have been concerned that RedKing7 has made piecemeal changes, rather than proposing a wholesale policy change. He believes that listing representative offices in Taiwan is "original research", and thus should be corrected.
4. I do not believe it is original research. It is my view that if a country lists on its Ministry of Foreign Affairs website its representative office in Taipei (or Pristina or Ramallah or wherever), adjacent to other de jure diplomatic missions, then it should be listed in these articles. These articles clearly indicate whatever nomencalture a given representative office in Taipei has, and we do not misrepresent offices from non-recognising states by designating them as embassies.
5. However that is just my view. Only until now has that precedent been followed. It does not possess a mandate from contributors. You may agree that my approach balances integrity, consistency and usefulness.
6. Alternatively, you may find RedKing7's approach leaves less room for confusion, and support the idea of removing all quasi diplomatic missions from these articles (including, say, the US interests office in Havana, the Japanese representative office in Ramallah, to the Taiwan Liaison Office in Pretoria). And of course, you may have your own views.
7. There are perfectly valid arguments for either approach. However I would stress that consistency is maintained. We are respecting all nationalities here, and I cannot see why non de jure missions in Taipei are removed but those of Palestine/Kosovo/Sahawi aren't.
8. Please indicate below if you support or oppose the proposed removal of all quasi-diplomatic missions in all Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country and Lists of diplomatic missions by receiving country articles. If you support the change, please indicate how willing you will be to make all the necessary changes to what would be a laborious (and in my view, profitless) task. Notification of this vote is being sent to all recent and ongoing major contributors to either of these categories.
Redking7 ( talk) 21:13, 6 September 2009 (UTCINVALID POLL Every state's diplomatic relations are unique and a matter for that state. Discussions of this type must be raised on the appropriate discussion page. This is an attempt to paint every article page with the same brush and does not work. Redking7 ( talk) 06:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be a cmoplete farce to include "RoC/Taiwan" on the List of diplomatic missions of France as it currently is given the French position:
I propose that the "RoC/Taiwan" entry be deleted. It is inaccurate and misleading. France has no diplomatic relations or dimplomatic mission to "RoC/Taiwan"....There is much material, easily accessible, verifying this, including the following:
"As far as France is concerned there is only one China and Taiwan is an integral part of Chinese territory. France does not support the independence of Taiwan," Sarkozy said, describing Taiwan's status as part of "the turn of historical events" - President Sarkozy.
Organization of a referendum on accession to the UN under the name Taiwan (March 20, 2008)
As the President has already had the opportunity to indicate, France’s position on this issue is very clear and remains unchanged. France is firmly opposed to the organization of a referendum on accession to the UN under the name Taiwan. It is a useless, regrettable exercise.
We are opposed to any unilateral initiative liable to challenge the status quo. We must promote dialogue, cooperation and the stability of the region.
For France, there is only one China. Taiwan is an integral part of China. - [1]
STATE VISIT TO CHINA
STATEMENTS MADE BY M. JACQUES CHIRAC, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC, IN HIS JOINT PRESS DECLARATION WITH MR HU JINTAO,
PRESIDENT OF CHINA - (Beijing, 26 October 2006)"On Taiwan, I [President Chirac] repeated to President Hu Jintao that France still has the same consistent unambiguous policy. France is keeping to the one-China principle."
Clearly - there may be other articles where the positision is less clear cut. Thats why the "one size fits all poll suggested is not apt.". Each page neeeds to be considered in turn. Finally, there is no such thing as a "de facto diplomatic mission". Such a mission would not require diplomatic relations which is the paramount consideration. If you want changes, you need to produce sources and then get consensus. Regards.
Redking7 (
talk)
09:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Has any one bothered to provide reasons why France's office, for example, should be included as a "diplomatic mission"? If this poll is going to go anywhere, Kransky's biased intro should be loooked at too....Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 06:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It appears user:Kransky is up to his old tricks - There are so many entries on this list that I have not read them all but I know some or all of them are pure canvassing, where User Kransky solicits the views of those who he knows will agree with him. More of his old tricks...I've had this experience before....:
08:35, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:William M. Connolley (→Proposed Removal of all non de jure diplomatic Missions in List Articles) 07:22, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Readin (→Your input requested) (top) 07:19, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Pyl (→WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum) (top) 07:19, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jiang (→File source problem with File:James lick.jpg) (top) 07:15, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Daniel Case (→coordinates problem?) 06:52, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Krokodyl (top) 06:50, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Avala (→Russia, ICJ and Mitrovica) (top) 06:49, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Bevinbell (top) 06:48, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Nafio (top) SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009) (top) 06:42, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Oxana879 (top) 06:41, 6 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:WikiLaurent (→RoC/Taiwan) (top)
Kransky can clarify which of the entries concern the "poll". Regards.
Redking7 (
talk)
21:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to seek your view as to whether we should eliminate from the lists of diplomatic missions by sending/receiving countries all references to representative offices of sending states that do not have formal diplomatic missions with the host states. This would affect a large number of articles which relate to Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo and other states. Please provide your views here. Thank you. Kransky ( talk) 06:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think need to respond, as it appears the Wikipedia community does not consider my communication is canvassing. Indeed I have contacted those who I have previously had disagreements (and if he is still on Wikipedia after this week, I can assure RedKing7 that I would be seeking his views whenever other debates emerge). Kransky ( talk) 11:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Please add your views here about adopting a new map style that indicates host cities, not host countries (as per the example here). Thanks !
The idea is good but the execution is poor because I can't see those dots at all. I think we should use both, paint a country and add a dot for a city where the mission is located. Though I don't see this hard work is extremely necessary considering the fact, embassies are usally in the capital city, not much surprises there. Here is a map I've made for honorary consuls of Serbia.-- Avala ( talk) 15:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I have remade the base map, making cities larger (16x16 pixels). More cities have been included.
I wondered which green Avala used to highlight countries as it is not on my MS Paint palette (I quite like it). Kransky ( talk) 22:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of adding the cities very much! I would like to make the following notes:
I think we are getting somewhere, but let's ensure we are (a) managing scope and (b) creating maps that are readable at 450px. These maps are supposed to provide a snapshot, not replicate the information in detail. Nor should it contain information that goes beyond what we have already in the articles, such as adding honorary consulates or accreditations. I would like us to use a style that can be consistent for all articles, and as such something that just restricted the terminology to "embassies", "consulates/consulates-general" and "other representations". Any views? Kransky ( talk) 23:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I will try to make a structured summary, where we can have all details at a glance. If we decide not to use some category - just don't specify different color for it. Also, my proposal is still that we choose colors even for things that are in related articles, not in the main "List of diplomatic missions" - so that they can have a consistent look with the main series (eg. honorary consulates) - such will remain mostly unused, but it is better that we have here good color palette, taking in account them, so that the same look can be applied to these articles too. Anyway, if you oppose this proposal - don't specify different color and in this way the category you oppose will merge with another one.
Some of these may not be shown at all - see above.
Added numbers to the list, so that we can discuss them using Heading-name-number. Alinor ( talk) 10:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Alinor, I think you are getting way ahead of us (hence we seem to have lost everybody!). Please be sympathetic to the fact that people live busy lives and have limited time to contribute to discussions. Can we stick to the original proposals, and take a more strategic approach? Do we really need to debate how the map is set up? Whether Niue or Crete are included? Can't we just rely on (a) what is already out there and (b) the judgment of whoever is actually doing the work? I am a little bit concerned that your desire of absolute comprehensiveness would come at the cost of a legible map. I thought I made it quite clear that the List of Diplomatic Missions by Sending Country articles do not list accreditations or honorary consulates. What happens in the List of Diplomatic Missions by Receiving Country is outside this discussion. The dots you ask about on the lower-left corner aren't intended to mean anything - they were used as a palette so that whoever is editing the map can use a consistent colour. They are too small to be seen otherwise. Above all - KEEP IT SIMPLE. Kransky ( talk) 06:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Country colors
1. Background for sending country: yellow 2. Background for "ambassador hosted" country: Avala green 3. Background for "hosts consulate/general, but no embassy" country: Avala green 4. Background for "non-resident ambassador accredited and no consulate/general" country (only if applicable to particular article): Avala green 5. Background for "non-diplomatic relations/special cases" country: Avala green 6. Background for "recognition explicitely denied" country (eg. Israel by some Arab states, Kosovo, etc.): Avala green if there is a diplomatic mission, otherwise grey 7. Background for "no relations" country: grey 8. Background for other cases /see map with legend/ country: if there is a diplomatic mission listed in the article, Avala green; otherwise grey
City colors
1. City - sending capital: black 2. City - sending country non-capital: light blue? blue+X (slight offset to merge with background)? black? there is no reason to show non-capitals 3. City - embassy: red 4. City - consulate/general: orange 5. City - honorary consulate (only if applicable to particular article): As stated, we are not including these 6. City - other mission/office: pink 7. City - none: no reason to show
Non-state entities
1. Sovereign Military Order of Malta (in Rome): aways (not colored when not needed)? This is getting ridiculous (!). The map is not the place to present such detailed information. If think if a country has a mission to the SMOM it most probably has an embassy to Italy in Rome 2. European Union (in Brussels): aways? only if hosts mission? Some countries co-locate, Some countries share the same staff, some have separate missions. It would be a struggle to accomodate all possibilities (and I am aware of the limited space available). If an EU mission exists with or without an embassy to Belgium, just include a pink ("other mission") 3. United Nations (in New York): aways? if-host? pink 4. United Nations System organizations (in multiple cities): for UN and other multilateral organisations - only pink if the mission is predominantly serving a multilateral function (Geneva, Strasbourg), otherwise red/orange 5. .... /add new here/: ?? 6. Other organizations (see hidden note for exhaustive list of all organizations mentioned in all LODM articles - if someone thinks that some of these should be treated differently - please put the required organizations above): if-host? aways? as 4. above
Blank map
1. 100% georgaphicaly correct: of course the map will not be 100% correct; we just use good judgement 2. Very Small states represented with circles: yes - this is a Wiki standard 3. Capitals of small states: "regular city square streaking the border"? smaller-than-country circle? smaller-than-country square? none, use only city color? none, use only country background color? I think we can leave the small countries as they are and colour them if they have a mission - I think putting dots within dots is unnecessary 4. Vatican: yes-as-circle? in-the-table? No table - if a table is necessary the map is useless 5. Rome: next-to-Vatican? no-Vatican (if it is in the table)? Rome next to the Vatican, even if a bit smaller 6. Hong Kong, Macau: yes-as-country? yes-as-city? The current base map does not indicate these territories. Of course if consulates are in either place they would be indicated 7. States with limited recognition: I don't think this is an issue - Taiwan is separate, Kosovo/Palestine/Abhazia/TRNC etc are too small to show up as separate territories 8. Cook Islands, Niue (UN non-member states): Why should UN non-member states be excluded? - there are no missions on these countries anyway, so why are you asking Wikipedia community to waste their time to consider this issue 9. Non-Self-Governing Territories: As per our existing policy, it should be coloured as per the case of the parent state (Greenland=Denmark, New Caledonia=France, Falkland Islands=UK etc)
Blank map: States to be shown as circle
1. Brunei: whatever is on the base map 2. Singapore: whatever is on the base map 3. Timor-Leste: whatever is on the base map 4. Solomon islands: whatever is on the base map 5. Fiji: whatever is on the base map 6. Vanuatu: whatever is on the base map 7. Trinidad and Tobago: whatever is on the base map 8. Bahamas: whatever is on the base map 9. Cape Verde: whatever is on the base map 10. Jamaica: whatever is on the base map 11. Sao Tome and Principe: whatever is on the base map 12. Gambia: whatever is on the base map 13. Equatorial Guinea: whatever is on the base map 14. Qatar: whatever is on the base map 15. Bahrain: whatever is on the base map 16. Lebanon: whatever is on the base map 17. Malta: whatever is on the base map 18. Djibouti: whatever is on the base map 19. Kuwait: whatever is on the base map 20. Liechtenstein: whatever is on the base map 21. Luxembourg: whatever is on the base map 22. Montenegro: whatever is on the base map 23. Kosovo whatever is on the base map 24. Abkhazia whatever is on the base map 25. South Ossetia whatever is on the base map 26. Nagorno Karabakh whatever is on the base map 27. Traninistria whatever is on the base map 28. TRNC whatever is on the base map 29. Cyprus: whatever is on the base map 30. West Bank: whatever is on the base map 31. Gaza strip whatever is on the base map 32. .... /add new here/: ??
Ok....I have spent over an hour dealing with your post.
I think I have made my views clear enough to you, again and again.
Your difficulty to engage this issue from a high-level scope, your repeated insistence to debate issues extraneous to this proposal, and your unreasonable request that editors debate this issue through responding to nearly 100 questions are grounds for me to suspect your behaviour constitutes Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Your tendentious editing at Talk:List of diplomatic missions of the European Union might further demonstrate a problem you have.
Previously I invited you - somebody new to the DMBC articles but seemingly keen - to contribute to these articles, but it appears you have been petulently keen to push your agenda.
However I will assume good faith for the time being, and ask you to reflect on your approach, which to me appears tendentious and discretely aggressive. Kransky ( talk) 08:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I think that if we put the flags of the receiving countries, there we should put the flags of the multilateral organisations also, without prejudice of naming the international organisation. Regards.-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 15:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)