Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Treaties

International relations are codified through treaties, bilateral and multilateral. At the moment, this project does not consider treaties at all as part of its scope. The Wikiproject International Law includes treaties, but without proper argumentation on the position of treaties within the scope of that project, let alone the relationship between judicial and political aspects commonly found in international treaties.

I suggest this Wikiproject includes treaties in its scope, with a brief description about the way in which articles on treaties should / could be formatted. What are the feelings of other members about this suggestion? Michel Doortmont (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree, and if I had realized this myself, I would have brought it up. Good work. Grsz11 23:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Category:Treaties is a sub-category of Category:International relations, so isn't it implied. Or do you mean that it should be added to the Project's official description? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, implied, but not defined. The Category:Treaties seems more a kind of afterthought than a policy decision. I think a short paragraph on the nature and importance of treaties in IR and IL should be part of the Project's official description, including a guideline for the format of articles on treaties (i.e. title, content of introduction, signing and ratification process, possible sections, reference to literature and official text, etc.). Currently hardly any of the articles titled "Treaty of ..." (or "Convention of ..." etc.) deals with the treaty as such. Most comprise historical texts dealing with the context and circumstances in which the treaty came about, without much attention for the content of the treaty in its own right. Take for example the article on the Treaty of Versailles, which is extremely muddled and confusing in this respect. Besides, most articles on treaties are not more than one paragraph descriptions, deserving rigorous editorial intervention. And last but not least, hardly any article on a treaty affiliates to either Project:International Relations or Project:International Law. Michel Doortmont (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just browsing a little bit and finding that there was a Wikipedia:WikiProject Treaties which is now inactive. Would it be an idea to make it a subproject of this very lively Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations and try to revamp it? The project page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Treaties provides a promising start in some respects at least. Michel Doortmont (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bilateral relations maps

Since I've been asked before I figured I should drop a line here about how to make the Bilateral relations maps

All you need is a texteditor which can handle large textfiles (without adding junk code) e.g. Word Pad and the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2-code of the countries. If you then save Image:Germany Japan Locator.svg to your computer (need to save the actual file not the png thumbnail) and open it in your text editor you should see a two lines (84 lines down) which say 

  .jp { fill: #e3801c; }      /* Japan */
  .de { fill: #3c9d3c; }      /* Germany */

you then replace then replace "jp" by the isocode of the country you want in orange, and "de" by the iso of the country you want in green. Save the file under the new name and upload using a similar information layout to that on the Image:Germany Japan Locator.svg image page.

Some countries such as the UK and France are slightly tricker since they involve dependent territories (such as Reunion and Isle of Man) with their own ISO codes. For most countries it should be quite straight forward though. If you have any questions just drop a line on my talk page her or on Commons. /Lokal_Profil 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cunning :-) - it's probably better if you leave a note on the template page rather than here. Just as a comment, having just created a map for Italy - Holy See, is orange and green the best colour combination? I imagine that it would be a really horrible combination for someone who was red-green colourblind. And for the smaller/island countries, having at least one "harder" colour might improve visibility on the map. FlagSteward (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Copied the above to the template page. Colour selection might not be the best, also the way that maps are entered into the template is broken, would be best to have a bot replace any "{{{2}}} {{{3}}} Locator.{{{filetype|png}}}" with the "map=" parameter. As it is now if any image gets replaced on Commons it will break the template here. /Lokal_Profil 15:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What templates should be used on the biography articles for ambassadors?

The options are:

  1. {{Infobox Ambassador}}, an Infobox that goes at the top of the article with basic biographical information, the same as the one that is used for elected politicians. Can be used with all the build-in sucession boxes that that template contains filled out or left blank.
  2. {{s-dip}}, the bottom of the page Sucession Boxes, often used wtih inherited or appointed titles.
  3. Create custom Navboxes, such as {{CA-Ambassadors to the United States}} for each office. This is also often used for elected politicians.

For an example using a diplomat that held as least 5 ambassadorial post (plus was a UN Special Envoy), see Talk:Raymond Chrétien. We can't use all three, can we? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Category and / or article for "traveling" missions or embassies

Where do we classify traveling or temporary missions or embassies such as:

Any thoughts? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest possibly Category:Diplomatic missions by country using whichever country is appropriate. Thus Grand Embassy of Peter I could go in Category:Diplomatic missions of Russia. Otherwise they should probably be linked and categorized along with the relevant history articles. They are primarily a historical phenomenon, as you don't really have traveling missions in modern international relations. At least that would be my thought... --JayHenry (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly travelling missions, but maybe travelling ambassadors(or rowing?), if that is the term in English? I know for sure the former PM of Hungary Péter Medgyessy was employed as such (though now he has been sacked).--Dami (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
These days most diplomatic missions are fixed although you can have one ambassador accredited to more than one country (usually a nearby country - the first US ambassadors to India were also accredited to Nepal but did not live there for example). The US also has ambassadors at large but they are not accredited to any specific country. As for the historical items I leave that to you, the thoughts of JayHenry are fine as far as cats. Mikebar (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This is true but there are many "special envoys" and the like who do shuttle diplomacy (e.g. visiting Israel, Egypt, and Palestine). --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

United Nations geoscheme for embassy listings

We should categorize lists of embassies by the United Nations geoscheme - that way we can have an accepted practice of categorizing embassies. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Embassy stubs I created and tagged with your project...more to come

Embassy of the Republic of Macedonia in Washington, D.C., Embassy of Albania in Washington, D.C., Embassy of Senegal in Washington, D.C., Embassy of Colombia in Washington, D.C., Embassy of Portugal in Washington, D.C., Embassy of Mali in Washington, D.C.


African Diplomatic Corps is a group of 53 African ambassadors to the U.S. APK yada yada 05:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China - sent for deletion

Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China has been nominated for deletion at WP:AFD. 70.51.9.166 (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Divorcing diplomatic missions from their buildings.

It has become increasingly clear to me that WP has done a poor job covering the history of diplomatic missions. Partly, I belive, this is due to poor standards and naming converntions, which allow for a confusion between the history of one country's missions to another and the history of a particular building.

Recently I separated Canada House and Macdonald House from the High Commission of Canada in London. I did this for the very good reason that Canada's mission occupies two different buildings in London and each has its own history. Canada House was once home the the Royal College of Surgeons, and Macdonald House is the former American Embassy. Cleary America's mission's history includes Macdonlad House as well.

If you take a look at Category:Embassies and High Commissions in Ottawa, you will see how those articles are heavily weighted in favour of the architecture and histories of the buildings in question and not the missions. These articles should be renamed and re-purposed to make it clear they are about the buildings only. By contrast if you think about Category:Embassies in Berlin most of those embassies in very new. For most of the last 50 years all most of the embassies in Germany were in Bonn. A history of the US or UK mission to Germany should take that into account and not focus on the current building in Berlin. An article about a building, like Nordic Embassies Berlin, serves a differnet purpose.

My proposal is to change our naming converntion to Mission of Country X to County Y'. (e.g. Embassy of the United States to France, High Commision of Australia to South Africa. etc.), and focus them more narrowly on diplomatic history. If a building is notable enough it can have a seperate article for architectural history under a different title (e.g. Australia House, Stadacona Hall, etc.) --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The articles should cover the buildings themselves, their architecture, history, notable events etc. Anything related to diplomatic history should in the appropriate diplomatic relations article. For example, details of Britain's relations with Germany would go in Anglo-German relations , not Embassy of Germany in London. It is simpler to find articles using a consistent naming format, but I would support linking pages from the names of famous buildings (like Stadacona Hall).
Your proposal Mission of Country X to County Y' (I assume you mean country, not county) would preclude consulates. Kransky (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well currently if you go to Embassy of the United States in Berlin, it gives you a history of all American missions to German states from 1797, and not just the current building. If we don't change the naming convertions thise type of thing seems reasonable to editors and they will continue to work in that same way. Consulates are not notable (without the proper sources). --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I just went to Embassy of the United States in Berlin. The bulk of the article covers all the American embassy sites it has ever occuped in Berlin (before being closed down/bombed etc). It doesn't cover anything substantive about missions outside Berlin. Kransky (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's do some contrasting pairs, shall we? Embassy of Mexico in Washington DC is mission history but Embassy of Australia in Paris is architectural, Apostolic Nunciature in Ottawa is mostly architectural, whereas Apostolic Nuncio to Mexico is diplomatic. Embassy of Germany in Washington is diplomatic history, but Embassy of the United Kingdom in Washington, D.C. is architectural. Does that kind of inconsistancy make any sense? No. I'm not saying there is an easy answer, I'm just saying it's a problem that needs to be looked into. 68.148.123.166 (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to sign in, but the above comment is mine. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually Apostolic Nuncio to Mexico and Embassy of Germany in Washington are not really about diplomatic history - they just list the names of people who headed the missions and have precious little else. I would rather consider these articles are incomplete. Kransky (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Diplomatic missions by country

I have nominated Category:Diplomatic missions by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. --Россавиа Диалог 14:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Diplomatic missions by host country

I have nominated Category:Diplomatic missions by host country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by host country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. --Россавиа Диалог 14:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Bilateral relations

I have nominated Category:Bilateral relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:??? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. --Россавиа Диалог 16:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetizing the continents

The continents list on almost all pages in the Category:Diplomatic missions by host country follows this order

Europe
North America
South America
Middle East
Africa
Asia
Oceania

I don't know the rationale behind this, but it seems like it alphabetizing the list would be the right way to deal with it. Country names under the continents are already alphabetized, and I did change one page, Diplomatic missions of Kenya, but once I realised all the pages were like that, I thought it better to build consensus. 72.211.139.189 (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi can you link to an example? I can't seem to find what you mean. Thanks! --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You can refer to Diplomatic missions in Russia as an example of an alphabetised list I guess. --Россавиа Диалог 02:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but isn't this in correct order by the alphabet? --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, that was the wrong category, its Category:Diplomatic missions by country, and two example pages are Diplomatic missions of the United States and Diplomatic missions of Saudi Arabia. 72.211.139.189 (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah! Now it makes sense. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Support There is no reason to keep it in any order other then alphabetical. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I could actually see the argument for placing the continent in which the country is located first. The most significant diplomatic relations are generally those of neighbors. Thus European missions would be listed first in European countries, Oceania missions in Oceania countries, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, but could support if this issue is presented more broadly and there is evidence that implementation would be organised.
  • The order is Europe, North America, South America, Africa, Middle East, Asia and Oceania. It just evolved that way with no reason or intent in mind.
  • To make the change to 180 articles would be time consuming (and boring). If we are going to make such profound changes, is there anything else we can do? One suggestion that was raised earlier was organising countries into continents according to the United Nations Geoscheme.
  • It is easy to make suggestions; putting them into practice is another matter. I would not want a half-hearted job that leaves only a portion of the articles changed. I would wonder if a user who still edits from an IP address and hasn't bothered to become a regular User would put in such a commitment. Kransky (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I timed cutting and pasting one of the pages into alphabetical order, it took less than 3 minutes. Assuming 3 minutes per page, a figure that will probably go down after the first few edits, that would mean a total time commitment of 9 hours. That is something I can live with. Editing 20 per day would get it done in 9 days if I am the only one implementing the change. The fact that I edit from an IP address does not make my edits slower or the time I spend here less productive.72.211.139.189 (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to go along with JayHenry's suggestion as well, and put the region the country belongs to first, it makes sense that relations with neighbors are more important and it not change the amount of work involved. Implementing the United Nations Geoscheme at the same time and eliminating the Middle East section is the most efficient way to get both changes in. In that case my time estimate above would be way too low, and I am not ready to change all 180 pages alone if both chages are to be made. 72.211.139.189 (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind helping out on some on this. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Category talk:Diplomatic missions by country

The order is actually Europe, North America, South America, Africa, Middle East, Asia and Oceania. This allows the Americas to be as one. We have also debated removing the Middle East category to make it consistent with the UN Geoscheme, but barely a few articles have been changed. If you can get consensus on this, great, but people should be committed to making the change to all articles. Kransky (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I am willing to put in the time to change all articles, though I warn that I don't plan on putting very much time every day into it, so the whole update might take a while.72.211.139.189 (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I started this discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations as well and there is some discussion of it there. I've seen fragmented discussions like this moved to one location before, but I don't know how to do it. Could a more experienced user help moving this end over to that page, assuming that is the correct place for it.72.211.139.189 (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The definition of continental regions and sub-regions in use by the United Nations for statistical purposes.
For those considering adopting the United Nations geoscheme, please note that these are the continents:
  • Africa
  • The Americas
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Oceania

We could, if there is enough interest, split The Americas into Northern America and Latin America and the Caribbean. Kransky (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea of the modified list with North America and Latin America and the Caribbean WhisperToMe (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Truces and ceasefires

Are they one and the same? Comments appreciated at Talk:Ceasefire#Truce.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bilateral relations articles where there are no bilateral relations

Now there is a Iraqi-Israeli relations, whilst there are no diplomatic links between the two states, and there never were. Wouldn't the existence of such an article (at least in categorized, names, included in templates, etc. in the same schemes as articles on actual bilateral state-to-state relations), be a case of crystalballing? --Soman (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The non-existence of diplomatic relations between two countries does not mean there can not be bilateral relations between the two; even if they are relations of outright hostility. Refer to bilateral relations articles on Taiwan with most countries for example. --Россавиа Диалог 20:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
'Bilateral' indicates that there is a mutual relation. The Taiwan (ROC) case is somewhat different. Many countries which today don't recognize ROC did so in the past. Moreover, there are various examples were the ROC maintains pseudo-embassies abroad, which are some sort of bilateral relation. We cannot talk about bilateral relations which don't actually exist. --Soman (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Office building consulates and photographs

Many consulates are in office buildings, and so there are two ways of photographing them:

  • Photograph the office building itself
  • Photograph the seal, logo, flag, and/or sign of the consulate within the office building

I prefer the latter as it precisely shows the consulate itself, as opposed to the less precise building (which has many tenants)

I was told that the average user could see it as nothing more than a waiting room or something not special; but there is no better way to depict the office building consulate, as it is one of many tenants and the way the consulate entrance appears is how it is. I believe that this is the best manner to depict the office suite consulates.

The issue was raised because I photographed various consulates in Houston, and all except for three (Mexico, P. R. China, Pakistan) are office building consulates. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi WhisperToMe,
There is no reason for us to include a photograph for every mission we come in contact with. We should be striving for quality, not quantity. Wikipedia encourage us to be judicious in selecting images (WP:IMAGE, Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic). Yes it is relevant, but in the view of a casual observer it looks like (and is) a waiting room. A coat of arms by itself does not illustrate a diplomatic mission; it illustrates a coat of arms. Kransky (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The casual observer would be wrong. Why should we cater to his preconceptions? These images illustrate the diplomatic mission as that is the best way it can be portrayed. We should illustrate how things actually look, and that is how the consulate looks. Am I supposed to tear the consulate unit out of the office building and then photograph it? That is not possible, so showing the "waiting room look" is totally correct and appropriate. There is nothing in this phrase that states that images that meet certain conditions, such as portraying thing A which may appear to be thing B, and cannot portrayed in any better way, of what are not allowed. By the way, the line is already drawn for listing consulates, and that is that honorary consulates are not to be depicted, so therefore that point has already been considered. A consulate general is a consulate general, and unless there is a better way of doing things, by Wikipedia's image standards the image is acceptable. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I too believe that we need to be professional about what we post on these articles. I don't feel the need to post a picture of a particular countries seal or waiting room and say that it is the consulate. I feel that it is very unprofessional and shouldn't be posted. Aquintero (talk) 16:42, 7 July, 2008 (UTC)
What about it is not professional? If it is the consulate, and there is no better way of illustrating the office consulate, then what is professional? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Things like Image:SpanishConsulateHouston.JPG are good buyt plaques on the wall less so.Geni 23:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that we don't--nor should we--nor would we be able to maintain--articles on every consulate in the world. Thus there is nowhere to even place a photograph of many consulates, except for a page like Diplomatic missions of Spain. These pages, however, are lists. Thus it's fine for there to be some pictures, but not every consulate should be photographed. Thus, I agree with Kransky--especially when there's little space for images we should include photographs of embassies and consulates that are themselves interesting and identifiable buildings. --JayHenry (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be posible to turn the list into table format and include photos.Geni 23:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
And also, in many of these cases there are no other photos of any other consulate generals located in the particular sections. And list form/gallery is possible, so long as the size of the gallery is controlled. Also, regarding interesting and identifiable, what about city halls which may look nondescript? A "Consulate of South Korea" sign or seal should be enough to identify the facility as a consulate, and the facility itself is the subject to be portrayed. Also, JayHenry, pages like Diplomatic missions of Spain are exactly where these images are intended to go. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I personally would prefer that Diplomatic missions of Spain be reserved for images of interesting and identifiable buildings. I'm just not convinced that photographs of the entranceway to a consulate that's inside of an office building are useful or valuable information. I'm not sure that the images are of something that's actually interesting or identifiable. Some of these pictures are literally a seal against a wall. They are pictures taken at a consulate, but you could not say that they are pictures of a consulate that impart information. --JayHenry (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
So far, though, many sections do not have images that fill the gaps. If there is a point that there are too many images, then the images of the office consulates may be omitted or relegated to galleries, while individual consulate buildings are preferred. The reason why these seal on wall images are used is because, in my view, they are the best ways to identify the consulates. The image shows what visitors of the consulate would see at the entrance. If there are too many images, then perhaps the consulate images could be relegated to galleries and/or excluded. Also, in Spain's case, I think the Houston consulate image for Spain (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SpanishConsulateHouston.JPG ) looks interesting. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
If you want to take these images and post them to articles I'm not going to edit war with you to remove them. I would ask you to consider in what sense the images have value. For example, the image of the Netherlands consulate is so blurry that I cannot read any of the words. It is literally just a picture, of a dark thing, with some stuff on it, in a hallway. This image has no value to me. Even if I were going to the consulate I would have to already know the precise address to identify what's in this image. Actually, in my opinion it can definitely be worse to include an image that has very little informational value or is of extremely low quality. There are lots of organizations that are notable, but only have generic offices, and I think it would make Wikipedia lower quality to include tens of thousands of pictures of generic office lobbies. Many of these just look like pictures of hallways and doorways to me, they are generally not centered, or symmetrical, and sometimes have glares or blurriness that make the text difficult or impossible to read. --JayHenry (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I plan to go back to the Netherlands consulate and re-take that one. AFAIK it is the only one that may be too blurry. Glares could be photoshopped out; I do not know exactly how do to it, but other users know how. Regarding centering, which images do you feel are not centered properly? Anyhow, I understand that Wikipedia needs to have fairly good pictures that are identifiable: Do you have any additional tips regarding centering and symmetry? AFAIK professional photos are not a requirement, but I would like to improve so that what I can get will have more value. Also, generally I believe that in most circumstances a "bland" image is preferable to having no image at all. If a town hall is bland, it should still receive a photograph. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Whisper... none of them are centered. I'm sorry, but I strongly agree with Kransky and Aquintero, that we need to focus on quality and not quantity. There is just no reason to add tens of thousands of images of hallways and office waiting rooms and elevator lobbies and doors with logos. This information can only be used to identify these places if you already know exactly where they are located and are already physically standing there. If there is no better way to illustrate it, then we simply needn't illustrate it. It is not useful to illustrate every possible thing. To me this is like including photographs of famous people's elbows. We are talking about offices that do not even have their own articles. --JayHenry (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The text above will not help me take a better picture, JayHenry. I would like to know how one should "center" photos to satisfy your criteria. As long as the subject has a proper sense of space (I.E. not tilted) and the signs are readable and reasonably visible, then ANY angle is okay. I would like to make my photos better, but garnish picture quality should not be a vital criterion for accepting pictures. I must add that I am not a professional photographer, and Wikipedia should not expect perfect, immaculate photos. It is perfectly reasonable to use an imperfect image on Wikipedia. For Wikipedia an imperfect image is professional; we do not need to pay people thousands of dollars to take the most immaculate, perfect photos. It is useful to illustrate many things, and photographing a consulate sign is like photographing the head of the celebrity (the face has the identifying characteristics) - the restroom is akin to the elbow. "If there is no better way to illustrate it, then we simply needn't illustrate it." - That is not always true. There is a need to have something fill in the space, and the seal makes it acceptable enough to include. And some things are so vital that they must be photographed. The seal with the wall is the head. If there is no better diplomatic facility photo that can replace the photo, these office photos should stay until someone goes out and photographs a better consulate. With the exception of the Netherlands, I feel that all of the photos I have taken are of reasonable and Wikipedia professional quality. If you believe these are not good enough, please find better photographs with your time and money. I have spent my time and money taking these photographs. They should stay unless one can take something better and these is a lack of space. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, after this comment I'll leave this to others for input, as I've said my part. Whisper, I might agree with you if you were talking about buildings that had their own articles. But these consulates are only included as part of long lists, generally several hundred items. I would prefer that long lists only include interesting photographs, and not every possible thing on the list that could be photographed. In my metaphor, photographing interesting items in a list is like photographing a face or a head. Photographing hallways with things on the wall is like photographing an elbow. Simply because it's possible to photograph, it does not make it useful. These are not the subjects of articles, these are pictures of a tiny item on a long list. --JayHenry (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
But we should not try too hard to define "interesting" and use it as a major criterion - Wikipedia's picture criteria stresses relevance and inherent readability, not being "interesting."
Wikipedia:Image use policy says "Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central). For more information on images please check out WP:Images which talks about uploading, using, choice & placement."
Wikipedia:Images says "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." and "Images should be large enough to reveal relevant detail without overwhelming the surrounding article text. Similar types of images within an article often look appealing if they appear at the same pixel size. Poor quality images (too dark, blurry etc.) or where the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious, should not be used." - the subject is obvious, and once I retake the Netherlands one all of them should be reasonably sharp.
Since not every possible thing on the list can be photographed, I get what I can and accept what I have. Since the page collectively covers every embassy and consulate general, any image of any embassy or any consulate general is fair game. If one feels that a prettier picture is needed, he or she needs to find that prettier picture. The page is not about any specific consulate or embassy, but it does not need to be. I cannot feasibly hop on a plane and fly to some city with the prettiest consulate ever; I do not have the time and money to do that, and if there is nothing else what I *can* get should be more than enough for the page. Also the main point of contention was not so much picture quality, but the inherent features portrayed by the photographs. When you think about it, such photos can be useful as examples of office consulates of certain countries. The example factor can help too. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it will help if specific images are evaluated as well:

What is the criteria for whether an office building image should be included? What if the image is the best possible depiction, especially when considering the nature of consulates in offices and security concerns? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Photograph of Michael Cullen
Photograph of Michael Cullen
WhisperToMe, I commend your tenacity to debate your point, and I only wish you could expend your efforts and talents in more productive ways. To put it simply, the photographs of waiting rooms degrade the quality of these articles. They almost beg ridicule - they seem to be the kind of photographs a great aunt would include in a tedious three hour slide-show presentation about her holidays. Imagine seeing a majestic chateau housing an embassy in Paris, then another a Georgian townhouse in Mayfair, then an antebellum mansion just of Dupont Circle...and then the foyer of some anonymous looking office complex in downtown Houston. Can you just see how inconsistent the articles would become? JayHenry hits the spot correctly describing the value of a photograph in terms of its distinctiveness. Which of the following photographs here is used to describe what Michael Cullen looks like?
I would also caution you, and others, that taking photographs of diplomatic missions is something one should do with discretion and caution, less you attract the attention of a security officer who be suspicious about your activities. For this reason I do not photograph American or Israeli missions, and when I take photographs, I try to appear as if I am photographing something else than the embassy. In this respect taking a photograph inside an embassy is much riskier than taking a photograph from the outside. Kransky (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I am well aware that photographing consulates can look strange, but I use a different approach. If there are people around, I announce my intentions and I ask for permission and/or ask them to move out of the way. I am well aware of the elbow analogy, but I do not agree with the way it is applied; elbows usually do not have tattoos saying "Michael Cullen" or "Michael Cullen, Elbow" or "Michael Cullen, Right Elbow." Well, the photo of the elbow does not even fit in this analogy; if you found an elbow tattooed "Michael Cullen, Right Elbow," then it would sort of fit. But photographing for a diplomatic mission article is like photographing Medusa; she has many heads. Countries do not operate mega-large consulates serving the rest of the world. Anyway, even if we generally do not include images of office consulates on Wikipedia, I will continue to photograph them and list them on Commons; I consider it to be worth my while and worth Wikimedia's while. They are on the same level as consulates in New York and LA, and they are representative of consulates as usually seen in the United States, so they should be on the Commons at the minimum. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In providing my input in this discussion, I will refer editors to Diplomatic missions in Russia, as this is something that is making me question what photos to include in what I will call 1st level-importance missions in relation to the article/list. The 1st-level missions are of course those in Moscow - most of the missions in Moscow are housed in their own chancery buildings - as is the norm in major diplomatic cities; Washington, Ottawa, London, Paris, Rome, Geneva, Vienna, Canberra, etc - with a few exceptions, such as Brunei which occupies 2 offices in the SAS Radisson Hotel in Moscow, and as such I won't be asking for my Moscow photographers to seek that one out for me, as in terms of 'chancery', it is simply just an office, much like an office of a corporation, etc. The majority of the rest of the missions are also accommodated in historic, notable buildings. The 2nd-level missions are the C-Gs located in Saint Petersburg - whilst not a major diplomatic city, it is of wider regional importance, and all of these C-Gs are being photographed and will be included in the article due them all occupying their own buildings in its entireity. The 3rd-level missions are those which are located in the rest of Russia - I won't be including, for example, the consulates in Novosibirsk, as they are all located in multi-purpose buildings (much like the Houston consulates), nor will I be including other consulates such as the Japanese consulate in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, as again, it is located in an office building. The same goes for Estonia and Latvia in Pskov, as they are both located in the same office building, even though they are quite important posts for those 2 countries. An exception, as can be seen already is the inclusion of the Mongolian consulate in Ulan-Ude, as it does occupy the entire building. In fact, the entire 'rest of Russia' table will in the near future be de-tabulised and text will be included explaining why these countries have consulates in these 3rd-level cities, and a photo or two will be provided for them, and a formatted, non-tabulated list will be included. Houston, in terms of the overall scheme of things, is on the same level as these 3rd-level Russian cities, and a photo of their offices in multi-purpose office buildings won't provide anything of use to the article, if you compare it to the rest of article/list. I'm not saying don't provide photos of Houston consulates, but simply to limit photos to those consulates which occupy the entire building. --Россавиа Диалог 15:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There are 3 Houston consulates that have the whole buildings: They are: Mexico, People's Republic of China, and Pakistan. Regarding regional "importance" of consulates, this depends on the particular country's consular system. Most of the Houston consulates that I photographed are of the same level as Los Angeles and New York consulates. In Qatar's case, Houston is the only consulate of that country in the United States (the embassy is in DC). Part of the other reason why I included the Houston ones is because I have a feeling that most of the consulates in New York, Los Angeles, etc. are also office building consulates; i.e. even in cities with major regional importance most of them are offices. There is no equivalent of "St. Petersburg" in the United States. I have a feeling that relatively few United States consulates have their own facilities. I had the feeling that nobody would go to the consulates in LA and New York and photograph them. They may have as much regional importance as St. Pete, but they do not have very many (if any in New York's case) consulates in individual buildings. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
We cannot argue this point indefinitely. I maintain that photographing the interior of a consulate does not illustrate a consulate. The presence of photos of waiting rooms or lobbies would be unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - if you cannot get a decent photograph of a building, then there is no reason to include a mediocre or unencyclopedic photo. If you still want to progress this argument, I recommend we raise this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Kransky (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
WhisperToMe, you have raised an interesting point in terms of Houston, in that for Qatar to have a consulate there yet nowhere else in the US is of interest; of course, we know it is because of Houston's importance as an oil city; there's little guessing why SonAir has the only flights between the US and Angola operating from Houston (the so-called Houston Express); it's all oil oil oil baby. When I noticed you were in Houston, I was going to ask you to get the Russian consulate photo, but then I noticed that it too is in an office building, not in it's own devoted building - most consulates around the world are like that, I know it holds true here in Perth, with only a few having their own buildings. If you are able to get a photo of this consulate, go ahead, what would be of most interest, instead of the office is the 'seal' (the sign) - a good, clear closeup. I may be able to incorporate that into User:Russavia/DipMis somehow in text which will be introduced on the consulates. --Россавиа Диалог 22:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have both the seal and the entrance, Russavia. If you want you may include either in your list; I have yet to upload the seal, but the office is already on the Commons. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
and ironically enough, why China only opened a small consulate in Perth in the early 1990s, and then built a large complex in East Perth. It's (liquid natural) gas gas baby. Kransky (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1366 articles are assigned to this project, of which 337, or 24.7%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Above message was for articles tagged with {{WikiProject International relations}}. It seems that you're using another template, {{WPIR}}, which is placed on 415 articles, of which 196 (47.2%) are flagged for cleanup. Maybe it would be better to turn {{WPIR}} into a redirect to {{WikiProject International relations}}? --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I see no reason why we have both. Anyone? --Patrick (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
These templates were created to serve the same purpose, so I've redirected {{WPIR}} to {{WikiProject International relations}}. They were also using two different categories to group articles, and I've rejiggered the cats so all article talk pages will (eventually) appear in category:WikiProject International relations articles. category:WikiProject International relations is now reserved for the project's meta pages. --JayHenry (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo request: British consulate in the Wrigley Building in Chicago

Hi! I understand that the British Consulate in Chicago resides in the Wrigley building.

For people in Chicago, does anyone wish to photograph the entrance to the consulate (as in the entrance on the 13th floor) ? - If required, see if you can seek permission to take the photograph. See: http://www.britainusa.com/chicago/ WhisperToMe (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to caution people to exercise judgement when choosing to take photographs of diplomatic premises. Many missions are highly security conscious for good reason. Kransky (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Street View

Today I walked past the Mongolian Embassy in Tokyo using Google Street View. I could have taken a "photograph" of the mission (screen shoot the view, dump into a jpg and uploaded), but the Wiki Copyright FAQ thinks this would be a no-no. Does anybody think it is worth challenging this view? Kransky (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I would check with Google's copyright policy. I would assume that anything in Street View would fall under this policy. Also, if there are doubts there are Wikipedians in Tokyo who could take the photo for you, so check Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan if you wish :)

Example for Consulate-General - what about Consulate-General of Russia in Houston

Since I feel Consulate-General of Russia in Houston is a more complete article than Consulate General of Canada in Buffalo, why not use the former for the naming convention example? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It would seem like a trivial matter, except that (unlike Google) Wikipedia is hyphen sensitive. I did a quick Google search and found that more websites on government websites refer to CGs without the hyphen.
  • The British FCO uses both forms on its websites.
  • The Chinese MFA uses both forms on its websites.
  • The State Department doesn't use hypens.
  • The French MFA don't use hypens.
  • The Japanese MOFA uses hypens.
  • Russia's MID doesn't use hypens
  • Canada's DFAIT doesn't use hypens
  • Australia's DFAT doesn't use hypens
I would favour not using hypens. Any comments? Kransky (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter which one is used, just set up a redirect with and without the hyphen when needed. As to Australia DFAT, Hong with hyphen, Geneva with hyphen, LAX with hyphen, Auckland with hyphen, HCMC with hyphen. Others, France with hyphen. Google recognises a search for consulate-general as a search for consulate general and vice versa. There's no difference. --Россавиа Диалог 09:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming of bilateral relations articles and categories

Please see here I have posted a CfD about these bilateral relations categories and you might want to take a look at it there. If a consensus is reached there based on my proposal, I will move articles accordingly and I suggest that members of this WikiProject amend their naming styles according; presently, these articles have wildly divergent names and almost all of them violate Wikipedia-wide style guidelines. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Some more consulate photo requests

As said earlier, take caution when photographing diplomatic missions

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Formatting of diplomatic missions lists

NOTE TO EDITORS -- This discussion was originally at Talk:Diplomatic_missions_of_Russia#Re-introduction_of_formatted.2C_sortable_list, however, in order to garner a wider range of opinions, the discussion is being moved here for input from all WP editors -- there is no need to agree or disagree with each numbered point which I initially raised, but looking for opinions on how to improve these articles for the benefit of the entire WP project.

This discussion is regarding list articles in two categories, those being:

As each type of article has different requirements, please discuss in relevant of/in Foo section below

Original messages on Diplomatic missions of Russia talk page

I have re-introduced the formatted, sortable list into this article for the reasons below:

  1. It is my intent to eventually bring this list to featured list status. It would not be possible to do that with the list as it was before. As per Featured list criteria, this list complies with manual of style guidelines, it is well structured with sortable tables as per #4, it visually looks good by making use of the entire page, photos are constantly being added due to efforts by myself in reaching out to photographers from far-flung corners of the globe.
    Oppose: The current format complies with manual of style guidelines. What you are saying about your format, and your efforts, just as much applies to other contributors. I am not convinced that we would ever complete updating the 180+ articles to comply with the format you are suggesting, leaving the style of the articles to be inconsistent.Kransky (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Support and comment. Just because current format complies with the MOS does not mean that some other, better, format (which also complies with the MOS) may not exist or be used. If this list is to become featured one day, the bullets will have to go. I myself am all for consistency of formatting, but when the original choice of formatting does not work all that well (the Russian list, in bulleted form, is almost unusable!) other alternatives have to be sought. As far as WP:FOR guidelines go, may I suggest that they be updated to include two separate sets of formatting guidelines: one for the lists in the initial state of development (bulleted form; the way other 180+ lists are now) and one that is more in line with WP:WIAFL (for those lists which are in their advanced stage of development)? This way only the lists which are actively being developed will have to be re-formatted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)]
    Comment Please note, that some months ago I also reformatted Diplomatic missions in Russia to its current format, and Kransky has not reverted nor commented on that list. In his oppose, he is in effect also suggesting that the Diplomatic missions in Russia should be reverted to its previous format which looks like this, and which other articles in that category currently follow. As one editor has opined, compare the in Russia list to List of diplomatic missions in India, the Indian list is hardly worth keeping. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    Question With your oppose Kransky, do you oppose the list reaching featured list status, because it will not reach that status in the bulletted list format that you seem intent on keeping. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    Response Where does it say that by being a bulleted list it cannot become a featured article? I am pretty much sure if we have multiple ways of formatting lists I can guarantee it won't reach this status. Kransky (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    Refer to Wikipedia:Featured list criteria which states that lists must be visually appealing, are well formatted, and make use of tables were appropriate with table sort features. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 11:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    Read the criteria closely, it says "It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities". I believe you do not need table sort facilities, and the style you are proposing does not look visually appealing. Let's try to find common ideas that we can agree upon which are workable. Kransky (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    Ironically, "table sort facilities" was the first thing I thought of and used when Russivia first directed me to his version of the list. It took me no more than five seconds to find out what consulates exist in my native Vladivostok. Without table sorting, I'd have to do an in-line search—hardly a user-friendly approach! So, the "where helpful" clause in this case most certainly applies.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    the intention is to be able to compare diplomatic networks across continents. You cannot do this in the proposed format, but you can still easily find Vladivostok in the current format by looking under the missions in Russia. Kransky (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. The inclusion of ambassadors is a good addition to the list as the ambassadors are part and parcel of a diplomatic mission. Consulate-Generals have been ommitted due to their traditionally holding lower diplomatic ranks and not being as notable as Ambassadors. Updating of ambassadors occurs perhaps three or four times a year and this information is accessible on the MFA website, and in the Russian and foreign press.
    Oppose: We have a whole separate category of articles already (List of Ambassadors and High Commissioners to Canada, List of Ambassadors from Serbia). Wikipedia does not duplicate information. Are you suggesting that we delete or merge those articles instead? Kransky (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral leaning to support. The separate lists of ambassadors can hold a lot more information about the ambassadors, that much is true. However, I fail to see how listing only the names of the ambassadors with the links to individual articles falls under "duplicate information". It's like saying that something like counties in Maryland should not contain a column listing the county seats because that information is available elsewhere. Having access to the name of the ambassador on the table's embassy line is helpful to readers and I just don't see the logic in withholding that piece.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose: This goes to a lot of my thoughts. What exactly should be contained in an article (or row) relating to a particular mission? I lean more towards things involved with the mission itself. The head of mission is quite transient. I believe that the row should actually link to the bilateral relations article .e.g. Afghanistan-Russia relations. Duplicating information in a non-dynamic matter is one of the 'I encourage my competitors' to do. It does not scale well. Aaronw (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    Comment There is no need to list it to the bilateral relations article as these articles are in the Template:Foreign relations of Russia which is placed at the bottom of all Russian foreign relations articles. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    Additional comment If you want things more involved with the mission itself, then the head of mission is a logical inclusion. Heads of mission are an essential part of a diplomatic mission. Two countries can have bilateral relations and be without a diplomatic mission, but a diplomatic mission will not function without a head of mission. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 11:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. As a major contributor to Russian foreign relation articles, the list not only acts as a stand-alone list, but also aids myself in development of red-links (this is an important as per WP:LISTS). In this sense, not only is it a stand-alone list, but it also acts an index page (a table of contents page if you will) for the entire "Diplomatc missions of Russia" topical subjects. From this list one can navigate to embassies and ambassadors. Also, by outing myself as a major contributor I am not asserting ownership over this article, but am being WP:BOLD in doing what I believe is best for the list/article, after perusing many featured lists to see how they are set out, etc.
    Oppose: The DMBC articles were written to show diplomatic networks. The were not written to become index pages. Kransky (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Comment. Could you please clarify why you consider these two goals mutually exclusive (not that I agree that the proposed format amounts to an "index page", mind you)?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Response It gets down to what we are seeking to achieve, and the features needed to make an article good may not make the article a good index, and vice versa. I want missions within countries to be grouped together, and not have one list for consulates and another for embassies. This way we can compare diplomatic networks - one of the major functions of the articles. In the proposed format I cannot easily tell how, for example, how Russia is represented in South America. Some data is not meant to be displayed in tables - look at the clumsy way how "international organizations" in Nairobi is presented. The photographs are too small to be useful. Under the existing style, you can add links to individual missions, or to collective articles where details of ambassadors, bilateral relationships are kept. Kransky (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. Reasoning that if this list is done this way then all lists have to be done the same way is not correctly true. Each article has to stand and fall on its own merits, and the fact that some countries do not publicise the types of information contained in this list should not be reason to hold back development of a list of a country that does provide such information. Also, don't rely on countries to provide you all the information, sometimes research is required, use google news, books, scholar, etc to find the info if the MFA doesn't provide it.
    Oppose: We are consistent for three reasons (a) debates are less likely to emerge if rules are consistently applied; (b) it is easier to compare diplomatic networks when they are presented using the same layout; and (c) it looks professional. Kransky (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Support and comment. Since when did we start to purposefully dumb down all of the articles in any particular series to the least common denominator for the purpose of, of all things, avoiding debates??! Such approach is contrary to everything Wikipedia stands for. Regarding item b, it is indeed easier to compare diplomatic networks when articles are formatted consistently, but it does not mean that we should never try raising our standards in order to preserve said consistency once it is achieved. On item c, I have to respectfully disagree, as in my opinion the bulleted lists look very amateurish, especially considering the amount of information they are presenting, and can be improved in many ways.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Response: Managing scope is not dumbing down. These are articles about diplomatic missions by sending country, not about ambassadors or bilateral relationships per se. Let them belong in separate articles, by all means. Do the bulleted lists look ameuterish? Well, tell me how they can be improved, but under the proposed style we have inappropriately sized photographs (which ruin the vertical alignment of rows), incorrect terminology (an embassy can be accredited to many countries, not just one) and multilateral organisations mixed with countries (looks odd). Some things are not meant to be as lists! Some of the debates we had, while intellectually interesting, became tendentious after a short while. Somebody wanted Turkey listed as a European country, another wanted honorary consulates in the Philippines included, another wanted suburbs instead of cities listed and another person wrote a tedious account of how New Zealand expanded its network. Taiwan and Republic of China have been repeatedly renamed. When we have standards, and apply them across the board, people are more confident that their interests will be respected. I will also add that consistency is an obligation. To quote from Wikipedia:Manual of Style One way of presenting information is often just as good as another, but consistency promotes professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion in Wikipedia articles. An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be applied consistently throughout an article, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise Kransky (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. By doing this list this way, I am under no obligation to ensure that all lists are done this way, nor am I required to update all of the other lists/articles. I am not even required to update all articles which may or may not come about as a result of having this list. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and you do what you can. We don't have a time limit by which we have to work to. An example, Mongolia–Russia relations and Russia–Ukraine relations were started by myself as stubs and other editors seeing they existed took it upon themselves to add content. This is what Wikipedia is all about.
    Oppose: "I am under no obligation to ensure that all lists are done this way" is breathtaking in its arrogance. You propose a dramatic change just for one article you are interested in, and then you expect others ("the collaborative effort") over an indefinite time period to make your changes in the 180 other articles! Are you going to be happy when next year somebody with a facination with Zambia starts making his changes to the Zambia article, and starts suggesting your article needs to be reformatted? Or would you just be happy if everybody modifies these articles anyway they want? Kransky (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Response Nice way to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I will again state, that I am under no obligation to make changes to all 400 articles (assuming each nation has two). As Ezhiki points out other editors can make changes if they recognise that better formats were available. This is evident by User:Avala formatting Diplomatic missions of Serbia immediately after I suggested to him that he could use the format which was pushed back into my userspace at User:Russavia/DipMis. If someone was to reformat the Diplomatic missions of Zambia article in a years time, and suggested that the Russia article needed to be changed (note: It is not MY article as there is no such thing as WP:OWN on WP), then I would most certainly take in any points that they make, and if all factors were for the better good of Wikipedia inline with existing policies and guidelines, then I would most certainly make them. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 11:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. Comment. One's willingness to thoroughly work in one particular area is not the same as someone else's suggestion to reformat an article in the series just for the heck of it. "Others" should also be able to recognize when the suggestions clearly improve the readers' experience and be ready and willing to upgrade the rest of the articles covered by the project accordingly. What good does a collaborative effort do when the collaboration amounts to clobbering editors who are trying to raise the bottom line? What are we, the Soviet apparatchiks or the Wikipedia editors?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Response It is like choosing to build a gazebo at home. At first you are attracted to the idea of drinking martinis on your front porch, but after a few frustrating weekends you discover how much work is really involved. You quit halfway through, making your backyard look worse than before. And don't think that you are going to find neighbours coming to lend a hand on something that they didn't start. Based on Russavia's comments I do not have confidence that the new style will be adopted by others. Kransky (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. An editor has expressed concern about WP:STUBS being created for non-notable embassies. An example was Embassy of Russia in Damascus. It is likely that information on this building is going to be in Arabic, so I have approached editors who are either Syrian and/or speak Arabic and asked them to look for information, etc. This comes back to a collaborative effort.
    Support, conditionally: I have no problems with stubs being created, as long as the author contributes to developing stubs as assidiously as he initiates them. Kransky (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Support; same reasons.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose I don't think that was me (but was it?) and I definitely think there should not be articles about non-notable missions. The Embassy of Canada in Washington for example, is notable in many ways (but could use some serious footnotes). However, articles like High Commission for Ghana in Ottawa I can *never* see containing any encylopedic information at all. The Ambassador to Canada from Ghana? Sure. A Ghana-Canada relations article once there are things of an encyclopedic nature to put in there? Sure. But what else High Commission for Ghana in Ottawa contain besides information about the building itself? I would posit that, for example, that the fact that the High Commission was established in 19xx belongs in the relations article, not on an article about the High Commissions itself. Aaronw (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. Concerns about having ambassadors, again, Ambassadors of Russia will be re-created in the future by myself (if someone doesn't beat me to it), except my vision is that it will include a list of current ambassadors, their diplomatic ranks, the date they were appointed, the date they presented credentials, and perhaps other information which ideas will come to the fore.
    Support: I will leave it to people who create articles on ambassadors to develop their own common styles between them. Kransky (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Support. A very reasonable approach.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. Other articles, such as Diplomatic missions of Serbia, have followed this lead in tabulating and value adding information, so there is a desire on other articles for their contributors to also advance the article.
    Oppose: As I have said, people are interested in making changes to articles that interest them, but not to all the other articles. Kransky (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Support. Once again, Wikipedia does not work on an "all or nothing" assumption. Only changes which introduce inconsistencies just for the sake of "being different" should be discouraged, but changes which are clearly improvements (as is the case here) should be embraced and adopted in the other areas of the project. Unwillingness (or lack of time) to improve the areas which at one point achieved consistency but can now be considerably improved (and not at the expense of sacrificing consistency!) is not a valid excuse to discourage any type of improvements suggested or introduced in future.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Comment I am not going to change 180 articles to fit Russavia's style. Neither I suspect are those people who have worked tirelessly on these articles. And based on his comments neither I suppose will Russavia. Under the status quo we would have Russia unto a rule of itself. Which isn't that much different from reality... Kransky (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Any concerns or otherwise can be addressed here please. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 08:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an opportunity to comment. Kransky (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem Kransky, we are all here to create content in a collaborative setting, and to overcome any hurdles which may be placed in our way. Do not think that my comments are an attack on any editor or their contributions, they are merely my own opinions on how to better develop these lists in a way that will allow them to reach featured list status (I think that is the goal for all articles, albeit, some articles just aren't going to reach WP:FL or WP:FA status - an example is Moshonki, eh Ezhiki). So that you know Kransky, being upfront here, the guy with the long name is posting here as I have asked him for his opinion on the impasse which yourself and I have seemed to reach; I have not asked him for comment in his role as an admin (his opinion counts no more than yours or mine...well maybe just less than mine lol), but as what I regard as a prolific person within the WP:RUSSIA wikiproject and his long experience; it is not a gang up job or anything else, to be honest, surprisingly this is really the first time that he and I have really crossed paths, except for his nasty, nasty (joking) revert of my move of Anadyr (town) to Anadyr, and additionally due to his own efforts to create lists in which there are very few editors (in some case the only editor), and how he went about it, particularly in regards to getting a list to WP:FL. So just know that we can discuss this and hear each other's point of views, and weigh them up for what is in the best interests of the project overall. I will be responding to the above comments shortly. Cheers. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
One thing, I will be copying all of the above comments to the talk page of WP:FOR and I will post a message on all of the diplomatic missions articles talk pages to alert editors as to this discussion so that we can achieve a consensus from a wide range of people; because this will affect all diplomatic mission articles. Any objections to that Kransky? I am assuming that there won't be so I will be WP:BOLD and do so, and let us all please continue the discussion at the link which I will be posting in the very near future (few hours). I will ensure it is all copied in its entireity but will add info where needed to point out that this is due to this article. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Russavia, I have reverted the changes you have made. It is not intended to prejudice the outcome of the debate, but to prevent subsequent additions being made that might need to be rolled back. You may wish to refer prospective opinion-makers to your version on your page.
I would like the debate to take place over an extended but definable period, and I think we should expand the scope. If we continue with the old style you may wish to raise suggestions how it should be formatted; likewise I will provide comments to your style. Kransky (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Kransky (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic missions of Foo

Diplomatic missions in Foo

Comment.

  1. The "old" brief list format is not set forever, it does not preclude more detailed presentation.
  2. Authors of such lists (Russavia) should carefully weigh their ability to maintain all the details. The addresses don't change too often, but I doubt that up-to-date ambassadors names can be maintained in future. One man out, it's frozen forever.
  3. Since a large share of embassies cannot be photographed (rooms inside guarded office blocks) or their photos are banned from Commons (anything built in Russia since 1930s), photo thumbnails in the list (and their absence) make a very sloppy presentation. Either make a flat blue link to photo (2008) or delete the column at all, make a gallery at Commons.
  4. Cool down! NVO (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of Indonesia in Houston AFD debate

User:Karanacs started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of Indonesia in Houston AFD debate. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Contentious article added

I have added Pakistan occupied Kashmir to this WikiProject. There is currently a heated discussion to delete the article. __meco (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sports diplomacy

The ever-present effects on sports and politics didn't have an article. I've just created Sports diplomacy which others may find a good read and to add more to. Lihaas (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign interventionism

I am fleshing out the article on foreign interventionism (redirects to interventionism (politics)). I am already more than half through getting a first complete run of the following with comprehensive linking to other articles on Wikipedia: 

   * 1 Overview
         o 1.1 Objectives
         o 1.2 Relations
         o 1.3 Methods
               + 1.3.1 Non-aggressive
               + 1.3.2 Aggressive
   * 2 Foreign interventionism
         o 2.1 Ideologies
         o 2.2 Policies in practice
               + 2.2.1 Diplomacy
               + 2.2.2 Multilateral and international intervention
               + 2.2.3 Unilateral intervention
         o 2.3 Controversies
               + 2.3.1 Human rights
               + 2.3.2 Occupation
               + 2.3.3 Peacekeeping
               + 2.3.4 Globalization
               + 2.3.5 Media
         o 2.4 History
               + 2.4.1 1990 - 2000
               + 2.4.2 2000 - present
   * 3 See also

I will have the article ready in a couple of hours from now. This is an effort to bring together significant and central articles on foreign intervention. It is an enormous undertaking to complete this effort in terms of historical foreign intervention, but a first attempt is under way now anyway. My emphasis is on the ideological foundations and openly expressed policies like various foreign policy doctrines. The articles themselves contain the verifiable sourcing, and this is more of an effort to "tie together" many of the topics floating around Wikipedia relating to foreign intervention. I am aware of the special controversial nature of foreign interventionism and international relations; so I am trying my best to be "skeletal" and strictly NPOV in this expansion of the article. Later additions and corrections can include references for additional information not already sourced in the respective articles I am linking. Please have a look through the article when it is finished and give some feedback. I will make a note here when I commit and publish the expanded article. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I committed the article and will be adding some of the references from the underlying articles so that the article on foreign interventionism can stand more it's own. Scierguy (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


Bush Doctrine background

I added some central timeline, ideological foundation and formation for the Bush Doctrine, all properly sourced with references. This subject has gotten some attention in the media lately - also see Talk:Bush Doctrine#Bush Doctrine background, and the article is currently semi-protected - with good reasons - following several edit wars. Please take a look from time to time, and be aware of negationism as well as Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:CENSOR. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if more input can be added to form a consensus on including central points of the ideological background of the Bush Doctrine, including neutral comments and criticism from renowned international relations experts, as well as other renowned scholars. The relevant comments on the Bush Doctrine belongs in the article, and not hidden away anywhere else - which would be fragmenting the information over many articles, and would do no justice to the NPOV nature of a Wikipedia article. Please include your opinion on Talk:Bush Doctrine#Bush Doctrine background. Scierguy (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for International relations

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

United Nations peer review

A peer review has been requested for the United Nations article here. You are welcome to add any suggestions/feedback on how to improve the page. Many thanks, --Joowwww (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Hyde House and Russian Consulate

http://www.netconsul.org/consularoffices/ says that the Russian Consulate is at the 2323 Westin Building at 2001 6th Avenue, not the Samuel Hyde House.

Anyway, what is at the Samuel Hyde House, then? Is it the residence of the consul general? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Straightforward and consistent article naming

Hi. I suspect this has already been long-debated, but, having passed by a number of "Foreign relations of" templates recently, I was struck by the varied and sometimes less-than-straightforward names for articles about relations between two countries -- for instance, sometimes "Pakistan-", sometimes "-Pakistani"; sometimes "Sino-", sometimes "-Chinese", sometimes "-China"; sometimes "U.S.-", sometimes "United States-", sometimes "-U.S.", sometimes; sometimes with hyphen, sometimes with ndash; sometimes... [fade out].
Is it too simplistic to suggest a "Relations between A and B" format, where A and B are the two countries' common names (not prefixes or suffixes) and in alphabetical order? e.g.

Relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan (not, for instance, "Afghan-Pakistan relations")
Relations between Bangladesh and Pakistan (not "Pakistan[i]-Bangladesh[i] relations)
Relations between Cuba and Pakistan (etc)
Relations between the People's Republic of China and Pakistan (avoiding less-than-straightforward "Sino-", taking the PRC to be "China, People's Republic of" alphabetically)
Relations between the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Pakistan (similarly, "China, Republic of (Taiwan)")
...
Relations between Pakistan and Russia (Pakistan now first alphabetically)
...
Relations between Pakistan and the United Kingdom (avoiding "Anglo-")
Relations between Pakistan and the United States (not "U.S.", "USA", etc; rather, Wikipedia's "United States" standard)

Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I prefer the old format being more succinct, I admit that there is consistency problems in all Relations articles. Your idea is interesting is that it offers a solution. Anyways, we need more community input to decide on anything. Eklipse (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your feedback. It's been a while since my original post and yours is the only response so far; do you know a page where I might post a link to here and generate some more input? Otherwise, how long do you reckon I should hold back before "being bold"..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Have just added a post to the talkpage there. Thanks for the suggestion. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Too longwinded. I prefer India–Pakistan relations with redirs from other variants, including versions with a hyphen instead of an en-dash (many readers won't notice the difference, and will type the hyphen). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Country names that use more than one word might look a little odd, though..? On the other hand, so long as the likely combinations aren't too puzzling at a glance, I guess it doesn't matter that much. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • MOSDASH doesn't cover it at all and doesn't substitute for a clear naming convention. The only reference to a guideline for article naming is the three examples: Canada–US border, New Zealand – South Africa and Sino-Japanese. Eklipse (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Kremlin photos now available for use

I have received official authorisation from the Kremlin to use their site materials on Wikimedia projects under CC Attribution Unported 3.0 licence. We are now able to use any materials from the Kremlin website. If used, please upload to Commons, and use Template:Kremlin.ru {{Kremlin.ru}}. This will provide the necessary authorisation on images, and will also place materials automatically in commons:Category:Kremlin.ru. Make use of this great resource. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 12:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

G20 major economies

I just added this projects header to Talk:G20 major economies, where there's a discussion going on about what the article's name should be. Thanks. 68.167.252.47 (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

Inclusion of missions in Taipei that do not recognise the Republic of China in the Diplomatic missions by sending country articles, and naming standards of receiving states

Please contribute your views here Category talk:Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country Kransky (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Map needed

the following article need a map for the lead Indo-Palestinian relations and Indo-Irish relations. WOuld be great to get those up. Lihaas (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave a request on the wiki maps for both of those maps. Hope that helps. Deavenger (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons - Help me build a table!

Hi guys, recently I've been constructing a table/list of signatories for the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons article. I've completed the table (I've made it sortable too!) and all that's needed now is to input the data. So far I've added about 34 countries out of 108, if anyone wants to help me I've created a simple tutorial at the top of the table's sandbox here. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll see if I can help. Deavenger (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much Deavenger, great job! How did you find my little tutorial? You're more than welcome to add to that as well. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You're tutorial is good, and I don't see anything I need to add to that. The only thing I'm wondering is for the totals, how about we put down the number of countries that signed, like 106 for Propsal 1 or whatever, instead of adding countries, then updating the totals, like from 33-34? Deavenger (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
That'd be a much a better idea, only problem is; I don't know where that information is! Fancy literally counting the "X"s and then comparing our results? Ryan4314 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
OMG how stupid am I!?! I didn't see those numbers right at the top of the table all this time! How could I not see them!? Why would I have worked this way!? LOL this is the problem with working on something by yourself. ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral Relations of Turkey

Hey, I recently created the Bahrain–Turkey relations and Turkey-Kuwait relations page. Hopefully, someone can help get those pages up to C-class. Before I start working on them some more, I figure me and other users should work and improve some of the templates. For example, I thinking how for countries, we should create ones much like we have for Turkey, and the ones like Bahrain, we should bring up to like Turkey. Anyone want to help. I'm currently working on the Bahrain template.

Deavenger (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators. All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations/Archive_2&oldid=1136414879"