Category talk:Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country category.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles

International relations

This category 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

Participants

The following are regular editors of the Diplomatic Missions by Country articles. Honorary contributors are excluded.

Europe

Czech Republic
- Prague (Krokodyl)
Poland
- Warsaw (Isee1)
Serbia
- Belgrade (Avala)
United Kingdom
- Bangor (Ijanderson977)

Buildings / Citing Suburbs

For previous discussion see Category_talk:Diplomatic_missions_by_country#Listing_of_precise_locations_of_consulates

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)[reply]

From what I recall, the other participants on the talk page were either in favor of including the suburbs too, or one guy advocated not mentioning the main city at all. If you want we can restart the debate. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise there was some consensus towards putting this information in as per the debate. My strong belief is that we should do it for all missions in all articles, or not at all - this is consistent with Wikipedia directives on consistency. Ok, Wikipedia is a work in progress, but I would have expected a subtantial number of missions on a page to be updated with suburb details before moving on to another article.

Your entries for missions in Tokyo, Sydney and London demonstrates a problem you are likely to encounter. The City of Sydney is an incorporated body that covers a number of suburbs in and around the centre. Nobody refers to the central business district as the "City of Sydney". People associate the US Embassy in London as being in the suburb of Mayfair, not its parent borough of Westminster, likewise the US Embassy in Tokyo is in Akasaka ward, rather than the much larger Minato district.

Cities vary in naming conventions and jurisdictions - it would be difficult to apply a consistent standard, and there will be many cities where none of us will know what is appropriate to insert. :) Kransky (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The CBD is a part of the City of Sydney; surely there are other areas within the entity, but the label does not matter as long as the facility is within the City of Sydney.

2. While the facility may be more associated with Mayfair than the overall city, the overall city is the municipality. Where I draw the line is that districts of cities are not named, but municipalities are.

3. I understand that municipality systems vary across countries, and that some stuff is sourceable and verifiable while other stuff is not. Since the criteria for inclusion is verifiability and not necessarily truth, and that Wikipedia is constantly a work in progress, it is acceptable to go into as much detail into the municipality status as possible.

BTW, regarding notable buildings, I think notable buildings (either prominent skyscrapers or U.S./UK/Other Historical sites) with consulates should be noted. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhisperToMe, why do you think Wikipedia will be improved by including such detail? How does it help us understand more about a country's diplomatic network?

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. I see nothing notable about mentioning suburb details - embassies are accredited to federal governments, not municipal governments. When I consider the metadata issues in collecting and collating this detail, I am even more adamantly against the change.

I think you are missing the point about Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. It means Wikipedia is always evolving, and is always open for qualitative improvement. My concern is that I doubt any of us will have the will to do anything but a half-hearted attempt, leaving the articles looking incomplete, inconsistent and unprofessional.

It is not a question of data being sourcable or verifiable. It is a question of having a consistent measure possible. Otherwise we confuse the reader by having two or more different ways of presenting information.

I am a bit confused as to why you say the criteria for inclusion is "not necessarily" truth. Truth is pretty much necessary, or am I missing something?

While the facility may be more associated with Mayfair than the overall city, the overall city is the municipality. Where I draw the line is that districts of cities are not named, but municipalities are Ok...so tell me, if you are writing about an embassy in Budapest or Cairo or Jakarta how would you know which is a municipality and which is a suburb, or a ward, or district or whatever nomenclature is used? What if there are two layers of sub-regional government, such as what is found in Paris? What if there is no local government, such as what is found in Canberra?

There is a lot more interesting work that can be done, and which I think you can make a significant contribution. Last night I wrote a bit about the early beginnings of Finland's network, and Quebec's pseudo-diplomatic network. When people come to the articles they will be far more interested in this information than knowing what suburb. Maybe you could work on this, or help Russavia in his quest to write articles on every embassy in existence (he has just started on Russian articles, and I presume he will continue with others). You could also carry out your idea of including details of what famous buildings house embassies.

Kransky (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. With the previous discussion in mind, it seems that Wikipedians (or at least PeterSymonds and Aquintero) are interested in the "actual" locations of the embassies and consulates. I understand that not everyone is, but it seems like a significant number are. It may help to get their input again, if you wish. :)

2. With the internet it should not be difficult to determine what is a municipality (a local government) or a neighborhood (designated district of a municipality, or a homeowner's association that does not affect the businesses anyway). For two layers, it depends on the role of the layers; saying "Paris" is enough in Paris's case, and we leave it at that. The "wards" of Tokyo are actually municipalities, and in fact many of the "wards" call themselves "cities" in English. That is why I mentioned the Tokyo wards, but not the Osaka or Kobe wards. Regarding Canberra, I would just say "Canberra."

3. There are other things do to here, and I do not feel that researching "real" locations would impede other wonderful tasks. I would be glad to simultaneously work on these other projects :) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your patience with me.

The articles are intended to be lists. They are not about individual missions, but about the networks of country. Information about specific missions should be sparing provided.

If people genuinely think that it is worthwhile to include details of the suburbs (or buildings) why don't you include this in an article specific to that mission (Japanese Consulate in Houston?) - along with more notable facts? Kransky (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the ones that can get their own articles, neighborhood and "non-notable building" info could go there. I started two as examples: Consulate-General of Russia in Houston and Consulate-General of Indonesia in Houston WhisperToMe (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, both articles look good. Kransky (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missions in Taipei

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).

I am against removing Taiwan's flag to the exclusion of others.
I am against including caveats about the status of diplomatic relations, as this is not central to articles about diplomatic missions
I am against a change to the self-identification principle, in which receiving states are listed according to their own name. I however acknowledge there is inconsistency in the application of this rule and would reconsider my position if there is strong support to apply the logical alternative (receiving states are named according to how sending states know them). This decision however is fiddlier and would put us in direct conflict with Taiwanese (and Macedonians) who would have other agendas.

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

Foreign representation in Taiwan, and names of receiving states

(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)[reply]

Oppose RedKing's change - The Republic of Ireland "does" have diplomatic relations with the Republic of China. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Removal of all non de jure Diplomatic Missions

Oppose

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.

Oppose - as per reason cited above. Kransky (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose also - Especially regarding the ROC - The TECROs and TECOs have been documented as de facto diplomatic missions, and so it is important to make sure they are listed. Anyway, I do feel that it would be a good idea to find a source regarding the others just so we can make sure that their scope is like those of the TECROs and TECOs of the ROC. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any valid reasons to remove this content. --Avala (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per reasons cited. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per reasons cited. Aquintero (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact that these “countries” don’t have regular diplomatic relations is a very relevant fact we must indicate. Pymouss Let's talk 22:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per reasons cited, especially reason No. 4 - i.e. when properly marked "status" of the mission (not embassy) I think it is perfectly ok to include it. --Krokodyl (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How on Earth are they properly marked - the "Republic of China" is included on the list in the same way as the name of every other state.....How would a reader know that the relevant country does not even recognise the Republic of China. This is farcical. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - reason 4. Wizzy…☎ 06:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why was I messaged about this debate and why was this message subsequently deleted from my talk page by another involved editor? I understand that WP:CANVAS is not an appropriate tactic but it likewise seems odd to try to hide evidence of a contact.Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - reason 4 and there is no valid reason to remove. Bevinbell (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support but believe this vote is flawed because the relevant pages are the appropriate forum and the vote has been compromised owing to canvassing by User: Kransky. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate discussion pages

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)[reply]

Read before voting: Sample case: French office in Taipei

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."

[2]

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)[reply]

Redking, people say one thing and do another thing all the time. Those countries above may say "We only recognize one China," but they also allow Republic of China diplomatic missions within their boundaries. The only difference is that the ROC facilities cannot be called embassies. That's all, really. That's the way it works with China, and none of any "One China statements" will tell you the reality. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: http://www.gmanews.tv/story/170944/taiwan-sc-puts-fate-of-ofw-alcaraz-on-hold mentions "MECO, Manila's de facto embassy in Taiwan," - and says "US helicopters join Taiwan typhoon rescue efforts" by Polly Hui of the Associated Press (August 17, 2009) says "said Christopher Kavanagh, spokesman for the American Institute in Taiwan, the de facto embassy." WhisperToMe (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia. Stick to the facts. A mission is not a diplomatic mission unless it is a diplomatic mission! Are you seriously suggesting that France, for example, has a diplomatic mission to the RoC/Taiwan. Would any other enclylopedia count France's office in Taipei as a "diplomatic mission". Of course not. There is a world of difference between "diplomatic relations" and "unofficial relations" - thats why the two sides have spent so much on "cheque book diplomacy" over the years. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redking, it is a fact that there are de facto diplomatic relationships; by law countries say they don't exist, but we all know they exist in reality. Because the reliable sources say that they are de facto, we accept them as de facto. These so called "unofficial relations" are very real, if you notice all of the TECROs in United States (they are more numerous than the PRC consulates). WhisperToMe (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Canvassing by User: Kransky

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)[reply]

Redking, please don't canvass yourself. I just came here because a number of pages I watch was just canvassed by you for editors to join in this unrelated discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must also add that it is acceptable to canvass; one has to do so properly. Wikipedia:Canvassing explains this. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whisper to Me - Could you help me understand how my notices on variou talk pages of country articles was not proper canvassing? User William Connolly (who is User: Kransky's "preferred Administrator") reverted my various posings on country user pages. How am I to counteract the canvassing of Kransky on user pages, perahps including yours? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I just checked, User: Kransky did canvass you too - Here is his message:

Proposed Removal of all non de jure diplomatic Missions in List Articles

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)[reply]

Response to RedKing7 regarding canvassing allegations

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)[reply]

New map proposals

Please add your views here about adopting a new map style that indicates host cities, not host countries (as per the example here). Thanks !

I was wondering if one could combine the old and new styles by giving city dots a darker shade and countries a lighter shade or a different color. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea as it shows which city the mission is in and because some countries have more than one mission in one country. However I think we could merge the two maps. Have a light blue colour to show which countries country X has a mission in. Then have a red dot to show where the mission(s) is based within the country. We would need to make sure that the colours are easy to see and stand out from each other. IJA (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your ideas. I am not sure how adding an extra colour scheme will add value to the map. Instead it would make the map harder to read. As far as this map goes the red dots are barely visible. If we made the dots larger however they will be hard to distinguish where cities cluster together. Kransky (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, Kransky! Indicating the cities on the main maps sounds like a great idea. I agree with IJA; having the entire countries shaded is still important for clarity. I don't think having blue countries and red dots would be too many colours to be readily readable. The contrast between the two colours should also make the cities stand out better, as they are somewhat difficult to see now, particularly on smaller resolutions. If the contrast doesn't make the city dots stand out sufficiently, enlarging them may be necessary. In any case, merging the cities into the maps currently in use would do much in improving the lists of diplomatic missions by sending country. Neelix (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I like your colour scheme Avala, and agree that it presents the cities more clearly than in my proposal. We could use different coloured dots to indicate embassies, consulates and "other missions" similar to what I have below.

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)[reply]

I have no idea what color was it, you can use Adobe Photoshop or similar to check by that drop tool. I guess that there are a few things to discuss apart from that like dot size, shape, their color etc. For an example contrast in the map "Diplomatic missions of Ghana" is poor, dots don't stand out.--Avala (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of adding the cities very much! I would like to make the following notes:

support to include both country-coloring and city-coloring (as the Avala and second Kransky maps)
support to have different coloring of embassy, consulate/general, sending-capital (as the second Kransky map)
propose to add to the "general coloring rule" of cities colors for honorary consulate and 'non-diplomatic other-office/mission/delegation' (like Taiwan/etc. special cases) - and use the additional colors only where applicable (eg. as for Serbia where we have list of honorary consulates) or have two maps - one with and one without honorary (so that the first remain clear and consistent across all articles)
unsure if should: a) add the additional colors for honorary/other to country backgrounds as well, b) leave honorary/other countries "gray" (like countries with no relations)? I am inclined to "b".
unsure if sending-country should be: a) special color (like capitals in second Kransky map), b) "green" (like the receiving countries), c) "gray" (like countries with no relations)? Option "c" seems not so good.
propose to add to the "general coloring rule" of countries color for "accreditation from elsewhere/non-resident" (eg. List of diplomatic missions in Nauru)
propose to add to the map a table of other entities, where/from delegations are send - section "Multilateral organizations" in most lists (like UN, EU, etc.) - the cities themselfs are not so many and the organizations too (if we merge all United Nations System organizations in a given city into a single entry). Also, this table will be appropriate place for the sovereign non-territorial entity SMOM.
unsure if the table should include: a) all such cities, regardless if the specific country has mission there (eg. some are "gray"), b) only cities where the country has some mission (regardless if diplomatic/other-office), c) all major cities (hosts of UN, UN System organiztions, EU and maybe some other "globaly notable") with gray for these without mission plus only these "minor" (regionaly notable) that have a mission present? Option "c" is looking as a target for global/regional notability disputes, so maybe we should avoid it. See hidden comment for full list.

Please look at the sketch-map I made. While I tried to color it it appeared that the blank map with cities has some discrepancies that we should correct to make it easier for furthure usage (eg. some countries are "linked", some capitals are missing/or I inadvertedly deleted them, etc.). The legend should be moved outside of the image, but I tried to cover all cases (including these) even if they don't appear on the map itself (I am not sure if all combinations are possible - eg. consulate in country with no accredited ambassador including non-resident). Also, the colors I used are just examples and could be changed for better visibility. The "all cases" legend looks too colorful, but in practice we will have a reduced set of "cases" on each map. Also, some of the cases can be combined in a single background and/or city color (for example the various "none" city cases can be combined with a single "none" background regardless of relations/recognition, leave "gray" even honorary consulate countries, etc.). Also, there are some errors in the coloring that I made, but this is just to be used as example. Alinor (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the one on the right too (much simpler).

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)[reply]

About the 450px - my proposals don't change the scale of the maps - I use the same empty map (the legend should be moved in the text outside of the map).

About scope - OK, but why not try to take into account the cases where there are already listed the accreditations/honorary consulates (mainly for the smaller states) - so that the view is consistend over all articles? I think that a two-backgrounds map is perfectly readable (Avala-green for embassy-hosts/sending country, Yellow/other for accreditations, Gray for the rest). The city-dots can take more colors (because they are much smaller) - maybe four: red for embassies, orange for consulates, brown/violet for honorary, pink for other and black/red for sending capital).

And what are your views on the numbered points "propose/unsure" in my post?

We should improve a bit the size/positioning/shape of the city "squares" of the empty map after deciding its final look.

By using separate colors for background and city the map gets more readable (eg. can include embassy/consulates/other/eventualy honorary mixed with ambassador-host/accreditations, eg. 6 cases, with only 2-3 background colors - as more would be bad for readability). But we should agree on "exception" rule for small countries, where their city "square" (or some other shape in this case) is as big as the whole country. I propose to put the city-square a little outside the country (see Trinidad and Tobago in my simlified view map). Alinor (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to some of the points raised in the last two posts by Alinor

I am against adding a legend for the map. There should be absolutely no need for one. We should be listing no more than three or four types of missions.
We do not list honorary consulates in these articles. If you want to propose a change to a long-standing policy, please do so outside this debate.
We do not list accreditations either.
I am open to suggestions about the size/shape of dots. I found it easier to create maps with squares rather than circles.
I am open to suggestions about the colour of dots. They should be distinctive against their background and each other, but ideally share a similar palette scheme.
It would be helpful to have the sending country to be of a different colour, preferably something distinctive. Ditto with the sending country's capital.
I have tried to place the capitals as accurately as possible, and believe I have done a good job. Naturally it will be difficult to get the capitals correct where countries and capitals cluster.
I am not overly fussed about city states (St Lucia, Singapore etc). Would it really be problematic if we were to colour an entire "island" red to indicate that it hosts an embassy of a particular country?
On this point, you may notice that Rome is slightly smaller, appearing as a half-cresent surrounding the circle that represents the Vatican City. This should allow us to illustrate cases where a country has missions to both Italy and the Holy See. I do not intend to follow this approach for Brussels, New York etc where separate accrediations exist - the Vatican is an exception because it is a sovereign state within a city. Kransky (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the legend - I also don't want a legend IN the map. I just put it there, because it was easier (than to write the wiki-code for legend) - but when we have a "final design" it clearly should be without legend. I put the legend only so that we can discuss colors/cases.

About honorary consulates/accreditations - I am not impling to add them to the articles - I propose only to take them in mind when designing the map, so that the articles that have them (such as Honorary consuls of Serbia, small states, etc.) can have a consistent look with then main "List of diplomatic missions" articles.

About shape/size - the problem I encountered was that in many cases a country was divided into many "parts" by its cities and this makes coloring harder than nessesary - if we "twist" the city marks a little this can be improved. I also find the job of placing cities well done.

About small countries - if we color their with the city-color we would lose the duality in meanings achieved by different background colors. I propose to place city-marks a little to the sides or to use a smaller marks (so that there is a 1-2 pixels background).

About Vatican - yes, I agree to put the Rome mark at a side - we don't need 100% geographical accuracy here. And yes, Vatican is different than New York, Brussels, etc. in that it has its own "territory", thus it is included on the map.

And here we come to my other proposal - to add a small table with SMOM, EU, UN, etc. - for entities sending/receiving diplomatic missions that don't have their own territory. I have elaborated this proposal in my first post. In any case I think we should have at minimum the SMOM as it is a fully sovereign entity with diplomatic missions, etc. My personal opinion is that EU and UN-New York should also be in the set with the other international organizations debatable. Alinor (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary so far

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.

Country colors

Background for sending country: blue? Avala green?
Background for "ambassador hosted" country: Avala green?(Alinor)
Background for "hosts consulate/general, but no embassy" country: yellow?(Alinor) gray?
Background for "non-resident ambassador accredited and no consulate/general" country (only if applicable to particular article): yellow?(Alinor) gray?
Background for "non-diplomatic relations/special cases" country: gray?(Alinor) rose?
Background for "recognition explicitely denied" country (eg. Israel by some Arab states, Kosovo, etc.) (only if applicable to particular article): gray? red?(Alinor)
Background for "no relations" country: gray? (Alinor)
Background for other cases /see map with legend/ country: gray?(Alinor)
Background .... /add new here/: ??

City colors

City - sending capital: black? red?
City - sending country non-capital: light blue? background X (slight offset to merge with background)?(Alinor) black? gray X? red?
City - embassy: red?(Alinor)
City - consulate/general: orange? (Alinor)
City - honorary consulate (only if applicable to particular article): violet?(Alinor)
City - other mission/office: pink?(Alinor)
City - none: gray X?(Alinor)
City - .... /add new here/: ??

Non-state entities

Include table: yes?(Alinor)

Sovereign Military Order of Malta (in Rome): aways (not colored when not needed)?(Alinor)
European Union (in Brussels): aways?(Alinor) only if hosts mission?
United Nations (in New York): aways?(Alinor) if-host?
United Nations System organizations (in multiple cities): if-host?(Alinor) aways?
.... /add new here/: ??
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?(Alinor) aways?

Blank map

100% georgaphicaly correct: no?(Alinor) yes?
Very Small states represented with circles: yes?(Alinor) no?
Capitals of small states: "regular city square streaking the border"?(Alinor) smaller-than-country circle?(Alinor) smaller-than-country square? none, use only city color? none, use only country background color?
Vatican: yes-as-circle?(Alinor) in-the-table?
Rome: next-to-Vatican?(Alinor) no-Vatican (if it is in the table)?
Hong Kong, Macau: yes-as-country?(Alinor) yes-as-city?
States with limited recognition: yes?(Alinor) only-if-recognised-by-article-country? only-for-some-categories-of-this-list: ...?
Cook Islands, Niue (UN non-member states): yes?(Alinor) no?
Non-Self-Governing Territories: no?(Alinor) yes?
Include full legend with color description in article maps: no?(Alinor) yes?
.... /add new here/: ??

Blank map: Simplification (eg. removal) of some islands, so that coloring is easier to do

Estonia islands: remove?(Alinor) show?
small Canada-north islands: remove?(Alinor) show?
small Indonesia islands: remove?(Alinor) show?
small Russia islands: remove?(Alinor) show?
small Japan islands: remove?(Alinor) show?
small Papua New Guinea islands: remove?(Alinor) show?
small Greece islands: remove?(Alinor) show?
Greece Crete: show?(Alinor) remove?
Vancouver: remove?(Alinor) show?
China Hanian: remove? show?(Alinor)
Brazil island: remove? show?(Alinor)
Gaza strip: remove? show?
Svalbard: remove? show?(Alinor)
.... /add new here/: ??

Blank map: States to be shown as circle

Brunei: yes?(Alinor) no?
Singapore: yes?(Alinor) no?
Timor-Leste: yes?(Alinor) no?
Solomon islands: yes? no?
Fiji: yes? no?
Vanuatu: yes? no?
Trinidad and Tobago: yes?(Alinor) no?
Bahamas: yes? no?
Cape Verde: yes? no?
Jamaica: yes? no?
Sao Tome and Principe: yes?(Alinor) no?
Gambia: no? yes?
Equatorial Guinea: no? yes?
Qatar: no? yes?(Alinor)
Bahrain: yes?(Alinor) no?
Lebanon: yes?(Alinor) no?
Malta: yes?(Alinor) no?
Djibouti: no?(Alinor) yes?
Kuwait: no?(Alinor) yes?
Liechtenstein: yes?(Alinor) no?
Luxembourg: yes? no?
Montenegro: no?(Alinor) yes?
Kosovo (if shown - see states with limited recognition above): no? yes?
Abkhazia (if shown - see states with limited recognition above): yes? no?
South Ossetia (if shown - see states with limited recognition above): yes? no?
Nagorno Karabakh (if shown - see states with limited recognition above): yes? no?
Traninistria (if shown - see states with limited recognition above): yes? no?
TRNC (if shown - see states with limited recognition above): no? yes?
Cyprus: no?(Alinor) yes?
West Bank: yes?(Alinor) no?
Gaza strip (if shown, see above): yes? no?
.... /add new here/: ??

Blank map: Cities to be shown

Rammalah: yes?(Alinor)
Tel Aviv: yes?(Alinor)
Jerusalem: yes?(Alinor) no?
Gaza city (if Gaza strip is shown - see above): yes?(Alinor) no?
.... /add new here/: ??

Special cases coloring

Some of these may not be shown at all - see above.

Greenland: same-as-Denmark?(Alinor) gray?
French Guiana: same-as-France?(Alinor) gray?
New Caledonia: same-as-France?(Alinor) gray?
Svalbard: same-as-Norway?(Alinor) gray?
Gaza strip: same-as-West-Bank? gray?(Alinor)
Non-Self-Governing Territories: same-as-UN-member-responsible?(Alinor) gray?
.... /add new here/: ??

Notes

"host" is meant for the "list of missions OF" articles. For "list of missions IN/TO" the same rule can be applied with "sending".: yes?(Alinor) no?
Some of the "not shown/remove" from above could be shown in specific cases (eg. Faroe islands shown for the Iceland consulate-general see here): yes?(Alinor) no?
Single special cases (like the European Union) will have slight deviations from the general rules, eg. "internal representation", "responsibility" in addition to "accreditation", "transformed/not-yet-transformed" delegations, etc.: yes?(Alinor) no?
Include palette colors in lower-left corner of the blank map: yes?(Alinor) no?
Include palette colors in lower-left corner of articles maps: no?(Alinor) yes?
.... /add new here/: ??

Discussion

Added numbers to the list, so that we can discuss them using Heading-name-number. Alinor (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, you have been busy. But I don't think you have taken on board the fact we do not include details of honorary consulates or accreditations. Kransky (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do, but only in some articles (like this and that). What is wrong with agreening on colors for these, even if we don't use them everywhere?

Anyway, as I have written above - if you don't want honorary consulates as separate category - choose they color so that they match the "none" color. For example like this:

City - embassy: red? (Kransky, Alinor)
City - consulate/general: orange? (Kransky, Alinor)
City - honorary consulate: violet? (Alinor) gray X? (Kransky)
City - other mission/office: pink? (Kransky, Alinor)
City - none: gray X? (Kransky, Alinor)

In this way we would have an overview of agreements and disagreements (and hopefuly resolve them faster). Alinor (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the country-color-3 (so called accreditations) - you can look at this the other way around:

Background for "hosts consulate/general, but no embassy" country; if the article (like this) has info about accreditations - country with assigned non-resident ambassador and no consulate/general is also colored (but its cities of course remain as "none"/city-color-7 - they don't have consulates/embassies/missions): yellow? gray?

Then, if you insist we can divide this topic to:

Background for "hosts consulate/general, but no embassy" country: yellow? gray?
if the article (like this) has info about accreditations - background for country with assigned non-resident ambassador and no consulate/general (its cities of course remain as "none"/city-color-7 - they don't have consulates/embassies/missions): same-as-above? gray? gold?

I don't see why this is bad, because on most articles it would not be applicable anyway. I only propose this so that we can have a consistent look across ALL articles. Alinor (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah!

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)[reply]

I agree that it took time to write the Summary above. But it would not take too much time for anyone to just enter his name after the prefered answer. If someone thinks that a particular question is unimportant (eg. eihter way works) - he may skip it of course.

Some of the questions are realy a non-issue, eg. I expect that we all answer the same. But maybe we will not - that's why I included as much debatable issues as I could - to have a comprehensive list so that we avoid having to re-open the issues later.

Wheter what we do here applies to both receiving and sending or only to sending country is in notes-1. Just put your name after "no" there. Anyway, that was one topic that I tought anyone would agree to apply to both lists. But you don't agree - you see why I made the whole list - so that we can discover such issues of disagreement.

It is simple. Just let's fill it and you will see that most issues would be "agreed" and then we would move on. I made the list partialy because I was lost in the comments above - every comment takes on various issues and it was not clear (at a glance, without re-reading the comments) what is agreed, what is still in debate, etc. Alinor (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just signed my name, and for better organisation have outdented this discussion.

With regards to those articles you cited which have honorary consulates and accreditations, those are for Lists of diplomatic missions IN a country. The scope of this debate concerns Lists of diplomatic missions OF a country.

I should thank you for the effort you have put in. I still wonder if at this stage we should go into such detail, and risk placing a rod to our backs if a map editor has good justification for choosing a slightly different style.

I will make an attempt to go through your (nearly 100) guidelines, but I don't think many other editors would be inclined to give comment.

Kransky's comments to Alinor's proposal

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)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts!

My idea was that we all answer OVER the original list, not to duplicate it. See how I did it (adding my name after the proposal I prefer). The way you did it will make it difficult to check where we agree and where we don't (but given the time, I will copy your answers next to mine - to make it easier).

About the sections "non-state entities" and the first for "blank map" - I ask not about colors (they are dealt in the first and second section), but if these should be included or not (eg. "yes or no", not "pink, red or gray"). It means I do not propose to have three small dots near Rome, New York or Brussels. I propose SMOM, EU and UN to be added in a table (see the maps) - thus the initial question in "non-state entities" about yes/no for table inclusion. Similar for "blank map" - I ask if we should display the non-self-governing territories on the map, no how to color them.

About your remarks for disruptive editing, etc. - I don't see what disruptive have I edited on any of the articles you cite. Yes, we have a disagreement with you if the EU is just like any other sovereign country and should not have any differences in its article - or not.

I think that you don't engage the issue from a high-level scope. You want to create a map template only for "missions OF" articles, when such a template is perfectly usable for both "OF" and "IN" articles. Why do you want these thightly related article groups to have different map templates?

And as I said before - I found strange your insistence for not agreeing on colors for accreditations/honorary consulates - even if only a small number of articles contain such info, they can use the same general template. And, having this common template will NOT AFFECT in any way those articles that don't have such info. I see this as a win-win solution - where is the problem?

In summary, my "agenda": Countries with embassy to have different background color than countries with consulate/general only. Countries with "other mission" to NOT have the same background as countries with embassy. Non-state entities to be included as a table - for details see questionary and maps. Common map for OF/IN/related articles. Alinor (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to articles are not disruptive. It is your approach to dispute resolution which I have difficulties. You raise too many bundled issues too quickly. I asked editors to comment about a possible map design, and you instead want to add extraneous information we have not considered in the last three years. Do you not see this is disruptive behaviour?

Back to the issues at hand. We are talking about maps. Maps are intended to be indicative, not comperhensive. I would favour maps that are clear and easy to read. They don't need to replicate what is in the article, and they certainly shouldn't have more information.

So here are some maps with Avala Green, as they would appear for countries with small (Suriname), medium (Vietnam) and large (Italy) diplomatic networks. You will notice how quality degrades where missions cluster (there are over ten Italian missions in Switzerland). I would not want to compromise readability to add more themes than necessary. Any comments anybody? Kransky (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must add that, in general, when making proposals, one should cover a few details at a time. Perhaps maybe bring up larger points first and then, after discussion of those points, then maybe worry about any specifics that may be left.

I prefer a simpler map - I would prefer listing of consulate generals and embassies with countries highlighted. For consulates to the EU, UN, etc. maybe have a separate map, with countries not being highlighted. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have played around with the Italian map. I have removed the space at the bottom of the map, and some areas of the Pacific (this involves the removal of islands east of Tonga and Samoa - they do not host diplomatic missions). Also for greater distinction the consulates are blue. Kransky (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe my approach was not good in this case - I wanted to start from the easy agreeable and then move to the "harder" points. Let's try the opposite. I will reduce the issues to three: countries with "other" missions to have different background or to be left gray (only with the appropriates cities colored); countries hosting consulate/general, but no embassy - to have different background (I propose yellow - and sending country could be blue - or Avala green with black capital); to add a table with the non-state entities - as they don't have a territory/cities to color (I propose to leave their headquaters without special marking - it is much more clear if we have a table with "UN, New York" than for the reader to guess that for example the pink-marked Addis Abbaba means a mission to the African Union. It gets even worse when a city hosts a regular embassy and separate missions). See some examples below. I tried to show all variants of the proposals, but the combinations are too much, so I made multiple changes in a single map - these can of course be mixed between Kransky-style and my drafts 1/2/3.

Sorry, but I made the maps with the "older" consulate color... Alinor (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kransky-style changed with my backgrounds proposals. Added entities table - same color for entity and its headquaters
The previous, another sending country background change, circle-state (Trinidad) with both background and city-mark (instead of city color only).
Like the first, but with different city-to-background arrangement for circle state, entities table with city-coloring, added "Taipei office" (Suriname doesn't have one, but just as example)

Thank you for stepping back. My position is as follows: The maps should not have charts/tables within them. Missions to New York and Geneva should be identified as "other" unless a country has no representation to the UN (I don't think this is the case). Missions in Brussels will always be blue. Missions to other cities accredited to a multilateral body (Strasburg, Vienna, Addis Ababa etc) will be red (or blue if a consulate). Forget tryign to denote the Sovereign Military Order of Malta! Kransky (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why missions to Brussels to be blue and missions to other organizations - red? Anyway, I still think that these non-state entities (UN, EU, etc.) should not be depicted by a city-mark - as it is not clear if this mark denotes mission to the state where the city is (wheter embassy, consulate or other) or to some organization. Why do you oppose the table? The table will be much more clear and will not burden the maps with hard to place/distiguish/understand city-marks. What about the backgrounds for "consulate without embassy" and "other"? Alinor (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me - I meant missions to Brussels would be red! (edit at 2am and you are certain to make mistakes). Missions that are chiefly multilateral in scope - New York, Geneva and Strasbourg come tom mind, would be pink (along with all other offices that are not embassies, high commissions or consulates). I think the chart, if large enough to be readable, would clutter the map. Countries have representatives to many institutions, both within and outside the UN system, and listing them exhaustively would be burdensome and not practical.

The size of the chart in the maps I already uploaded is readable (when you click on the map - and anyway, the dots are also not very readable without clicking. Only the backgrounds have good "readability" in thumbnail view). And the organizations are not so many (I have looked trough all 192 articles and put them here in a hidded comment above). My proposal is the chart to be divided into two parts - "permanent", to be shown on all maps, regardless if the country in question has missions there or not (for UN New York, EU, Order of Malta) and "dynamic", that will include only these other organizations, where the country in question has a mission. That way the chart would not get too big. The advantages of better indentification, etc. also stand for the chart and against "pink" cities.

What are you so opposed to including Order of Malta in the chart? It is the only sovereign entity without territory, so it clearly does not have place on the "land" and thus goes in the chart?

In my 3.5 years experience with these articles I have noted most rules have an exception. It can be hard to maintain consistency when we try to accomodate all the differences that could exist. That is why I favour a minimalist approach to standards. And ask yourself - is a particular theme really necessary to show? For example, Bulgaria only has a consulate in Dubai. Why should we colour the UAE different to other countries that host a Bulgarian mission, because anybody reading the map would see this is the case anyway because there will be no red dots in the UAE.

It is also in my experience that the more rules and themes added to a map, the harder it is to maintain, and the more likely that maps will end up with a mistake. So for those reasons, as well as for readability and scope management, I prefer a simple, straight forward approach.

Perfection is met not when there is nothing left to add, but nothing less to take away Kransky (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think different coloring for consulate-only countries will increase readability. Also, the difference between consulate and embassy is important enough IMHO, so that we have it marked on the maps. This will make the map a two-color ( gray) map - if that was the 6th different background color I agree that it would be too much, but 2 colors is not a rainbow in any case. Also, a rule with only 2 colors will not be so hard to follow.

About the exceptions - I agree that there are such, and I think that we should be flexible enough, eg. allow for the exceptional cases to have a little deviations from the main template.

What about the background for countries with "other/special/etc."-only missions? I suggest that we don't color the countries (leave them gray) and put only marks on the appropriate cities. Alinor (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multilateral Organisations

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)[reply]

Participants

Europe

North America

Middle East Europe Middle East Europe Middle East

Oceania

Buildings / Citing Suburbs

Missions in Taipei

Foreign representation in Taiwan, and names of receiving states

Proposed Removal of all non de jure Diplomatic Missions

Oppose

Support

Appropriate discussion pages

Read before voting: Sample case: French office in Taipei

Canvassing by User: Kransky

Proposed Removal of all non de jure diplomatic Missions in List Articles

Response to RedKing7 regarding canvassing allegations

New map proposals

Summary so far

Country colors

City colors

Non-state entities

Blank map

Blank map: Simplification (eg. removal) of some islands, so that coloring is easier to do

Blank map: States to be shown as circle

Blank map: Cities to be shown

Special cases coloring

Notes

Discussion

Whoah!

Kransky's comments to Alinor's proposal

Multilateral Organisations