Talk:Diplomatic missions of the European Union

Discussion at WP:FOR on formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" article

There is now a discussion at WP:FOR on the formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" articles. As this discussion ostensibly could affect this article, editors are encouraged to provide their opinions on the WP:FOR at this link - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations#Formatting_of_diplomatic_missions_lists - please do not discuss on this article talk page as valid points for consideration may very well not be seen by editors at large. Thank you, --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Council of Ministers diplomatic missions

The Council has separate diplomatic missions [1] - maybe we should list them in a new section here? Alinor (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

new map - microstates

Monaco, San Marino, Andorra, Liechtenstein and of course the island microstates in the Pacific are not clearly distinguished on the new map. Alinor (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

JLogan - welcome!

Hi JLogan, I notice you are new to the lists of diplomatic mission articles. Welcome!

You may notice that the other 100+ articles follow a generic format, which this article generally follows. I do note that amongst the useful contribution you have provided you have made some minor formatting changes which differ from what we normally use, but I am not going to engage you on this.

The lead para I believe could be improved. "Represent foreign policy" is inaccurate - embassies represent governments, who follow a foreign policy more or less aligned to their interests. They represent and report. As for the EU its foreign policy is largely new and undeveloped; rather their work now is more concerned with trade and investment, and to a lesser extent, development. You would call a mission a "delegation of the EU" (not for). I would not write anything that would make a reader think an office (eg in a non-capital) is simply a consulate in all but name - these offices are generally not subject to the VCCR. And there are offices within the legal jurisdiction of EU countries (such as Noumea in New Caledonia). My draft text is intended to be sufficiently non-specific.

On stylistic matters, there is no obligation in Wikipedia to define what something is in the first sentence. To quote the MOS If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. However, if the article title is merely descriptive— such as" Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers" — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text. Similarly, where an article title is of the type "List of ...", a clearer and more informative introduction to the list is better than verbatim repetition of the title. (WP:MOSBEGIN)

Now I have no idea what the last para you have is seeking to serve. This article is about diplomatic missions of the EU. And what you have are details of foreign countries with missions to the EU. This shouldn't belong here, and appears to content fork what is in List of diplomatic missions of the European Union.

Standards and consistency play a strong role here, moreso than in other articles. Like some kind of rationale behind protocol, if we treat all articles (and therefore all countries) equally then there is less likelihood for conflict when somebody reckons a country is treated differently. In the nearly four years of these articles we have had the most tedious edit wars caused by editors with single minded agendas (such as Taiwan, Macedonia and Kosovo)

You may wish to familiarise yourself with the other articles. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. And given your commitment to this article, may I invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations where these articles are discussed.

All the best ! Kransky (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reason I was going for a different style with this is because there is a lot more data hanging around this article than the others. I fyou want ot make sure it matches the others though, I'll ship off the detail to other relevant articles.- _J.Logan`^t: 14:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason not to include the introductory paragraphs on how the missions came about, in fact most DMBC articles have some commentry (if details exist). Kransky (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Regional delegation

Regional delegations are such that are accredited to (also maybe - and/or responsible for??) other countries besides that where they are located. As we now have the full list of accreditations in a separate section I removed the last "regional" description in the main sections (for Senegal). If we have to add this "regional" description it should be in all such cases, not only Senegal. But I think that this is redundant. Maybe just some note in the heading or accreditation section will be sufficient (like the first sentence of this post?) Alinor (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As a general practice we don't list accreditations. They keep changing, and I would question its noteworthiness. Do we need to know if Samoa is covered by the EU mission in Suva or Wellington? If the EU calls its mission a "regional delegation" then it should be accorded this title. Kransky (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In this case we have a good, exhaustive source - the link for the official list of EU accreditations, representations, delegations - so updating is not a problem and it doesn't change that offten (and as the number of EU delegations grows - the accreditations list will shrink, so it would be even easier). In other such lists there is no "regional" adjective, because AFAIK the embassies can not be "regional". Anyway, the EU calls some of its delegations "regional" and we could list them here. My point is that it is not only Senegal, so if get to add "regional" it should be to all such delegations, not only to the Senegal one. Alinor (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just use whatever appears on the most relevant official source. Don't make your own assumptions. If the mission in Senegal is a Regional Delegation and the one in Freetown is just "Delegation", then say so. It is not our place to make such judgements.

And they are never known as embassies or consulates. Kransky (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not making any assumptions - just stating that if we add "regional" to Senegal we should add it to all other regional cases OR that we should skip the "regional" adjective. Eighter way works for me - just not the middle way where SOME regional delegations are marked as such and SOME are not.

I don't see where I have said that these missions are officialy called embassies or consulates? I just said (in other posts, not here) that they are equivalent to these. Alinor (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Heading, embassy-delegation, consulate-office

The current version of the heading states that everything that is not delegation is an office, but this "excludes" Europa Houses for example. I think a more detailed description is needed (eighter in the heading or somewhere below) - delegations are the EU equivalent of embassy. OK. But then I think it gets more complicated. The offices in Hong Kong, Almaty and accredited countries(* marked) are "diplomatic missions" in the same sense as "consulates" in the other lists of diplomatic missions. The Kosovo/Palestine/Taiwan are not regualr "office", but some "trade" "liasion" etc. office - special cases because of political situation (and as I understand - de facto delegations, but with another name) - I don't know if these are "diplomatic" (as per Vienna convention, etc.) or not per se. Then, the Europe Houses are clearly non-diplomatic offices. Alinor (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Standard practice would be to include de facto offices ("quasi missions"), as per what we have for missions to or of Taiwan, Palestine etc where certain countries cannot receive or send an official mission, but has leave to carry out activities normally accorded to any other diplomatic mission. The EU recognises China, but not Abhazia, for example. In many countries the terminology and relationship to the sending/receiving parties is kept deliberately ambiguous, and this has to be kept in mind when determining what should be included or not.

A useful method to determine if an office is a "quasi mission" is determine if its functions include liaison with the host government and the handling of bilateral affairs, and if the staff are public servants of the sending state. Kransky (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Embassies of EU states

I recently put back part of the article that was removed (plus the corresponding map):

No EU member state has embassy in the countries of Bahamas, Bhutan, Dominica, Grenada, Kiribati, Liechtenstein, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Somalia, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu, the sovereign entity Sovereign Military Order of Malta and the partially recognised countries Sahrawi Republic and Taiwan. The European Commission also has no delegations there.

The following countries host only a single Embassy of EU member state: Antigua and Barbuda (UK), Barbados (UK), Belize (UK), Central African Republic (France), Comoros (France), Djibouti (France), Gambia (UK), Guyana (UK), Lesotho (Ireland), Liberia (Germany), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (UK), San Marino (Italy), São Tomé and Príncipe (Portugal), Solomon Islands (UK), Timor-Leste (Portugal), Vanuatu (France).

And added the following note:

The EU member states have their own diplomatic missions, in addition to the common EU delegations. On the other hand, additionaly to the third-state delegations and offices the European Commission maintains representation in each of the member states.

The other removed material was moved to Foreign relations of the European Union, but this was just deleted - that's why I put it back (if it is deemed totaly non appropriate for this page - then let's move it somewhere else, not just delete).

As I understand the reason for removal is that it does not fit in the framework of the other articles of the "list of diplomatic missions"-type. But the EU is a special case, because both the EU itself and its "parts" (member states) have diplomatic missions. Also, the embassies of the member state holding the rotating presidency have some role in EU foreign affairs, etc. So, I think that it does not hurt to add those two very short lists of states with single or no EU embassy at all. Alinor (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alinor,

I think I follow your argument. Not being a regular at Foreign relations of the European Union I am not sure why your material was removed, however I suspect there were two principal reasons.

• firstly the EU article covers the themes underpinning foreign relationships (trade, security etc) both in a bilateral and a multilateral sense. Diplomatic networks are not outside the intended scope of the article (and their editors may have considered it belonged in the "list of diplomatic missions of/in X" categories)
• secondly, and this goes to the heart of one of my objection, is that it discusses EU member states, and not the EU as an entity in its own right. Adding details undermines this principle, and at any rate duplicates information found in the respective articles concerning each EU member.

My other main objection was that this article is about missions OF the EU, not missions TO the EU. Now while we have Diplomatic missions of Tunisia and List of diplomatic missions in Tunisia, the most logical equivalent to this article would be List of diplomatic missions in Belgium. My reckoning would be for you to go to that article (linked also as List of diplomatic missions to the European Union and make any changes you think fit. How does this sound? Kransky (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't realy understand why you rise your main objection - I have not added any content about missions TO the EU. There is another article for this: List of diplomatic missions to the European Union (a sub-section in the Missions in Belgium article) - and look at the wording - it is "TO" and not "IN" (as the later would imply double-listing of all missions in all member states). So, I agree with about the TO/OF issue, but the only TO-thing that I have added (or anyway present in the page) is a 'see also'-link to the TO-article.

about the first/second points - the reasons for adding these lists of countries with no/single EU member state embassy are in order to put into perspective the missions of the EU itself (such perspective is needed because of the fact that both the EU and its member states maintain foreign relations). With the establishment of the EEAS and other integration initiavies in the foreign affairs (Schengen visa lists, common consular activities, etc.) one of the "advantages" stated is that the current network of 27x192 (EU members x UN members - see the map for number of member state missions per UN member) missions is too costly, there are empty spots (eg. no Malta embassy in Nauru), etc. So, I don't think that this content is not related to the article - quite the opposite - but that's why I am asking - if it is not appropriate here, where should we put it (and then add a 'see also' link at least)? Alinor (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Alinor, this article is only intended to be about diplomatic missions of the EU. As you can see in other articles we do not discuss foreign policy or implementation issues. I am struggling to see any justification for us to reinvent the wheel and duplicate content about the networks of EU members in this article.

One way to incorporate your suggestions could be to edit those individual articles and make changes. For example, you could state that the United Kingdom is the only EU presence in Papua New Guinea.

I stand corrected on the TO/OR issue - I didn't read your contribution close enough. Kransky (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this should stay as close as possible to the template "List of diplomatic missions" (eg. I agree with the already done move of history/organization/etc. sections to the Foreign relations of the EU). That is why I have not put the description/reasoning of the comment above to the article - I have just added the map and the no/single mission lists (plust the remark about EU offices in member states - they are something like "internal embassies", so this note belongs here for sure - but maybe it should be moved to the head). The other reason for not adding this comments are that they may be classified as Original Research - that's why I stick to the facts - pure lists of no/single missions.

The individual articles "List of missions in XXX THIRD COUNTRY" are not the appropriate place for these things - If I add such comments (List of missions in Papua: "UK is the only EU mission"), then the question will arise "why not put also note like "US is the only NAFTA mission", etc. for all other regional blocs like African Union, ASEAN, EurAsEC, etc." - and anyway it would not be benefitial neighter to the articles (they are for third countries - not related to the EU and such EU-focused notes have no place there), nor to the readers (they would have to cross-check each of the 192-27 lists).

That is why I think that the most appropriate place for the no/single mission lists is here - this article is the EU-focused list of diplomatic missions, so I think that this small section (yes, a deviation from the general diplomatic list template, but small deviation) would be beneficial and appropriate - having in mind that the EU is not a "generic" sovereign state - so such little deviations are expected and maybe even requiered? Alinor (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your point about the Papua New Guinea mission seems weak and contradictory. The most obvious retort to "why not note the US is the only NAFTA mission?" would be "well, the EU has its own diplomatic network (to which you tell me they have shared consular arrangements) while NAFTA is just a free trade agreement". You have been telling me all along the EU is a special case. I am not happy with my compromise solution either, but it is better than going into detail concerning the networks of member countries in an article that focusses on the EU.

I would also question the notability of this information. How does listing the countries hosting only only one European mission help us understand the EU diplomatic network?

If you wish to take this further I suggest we discuss this with other editors of DMBC articles

Could you also reinsert the details about the history of the EC/EU diplomatic network. It belongs here. Kransky (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Papua point is somewhat week - yes, only the EU of all other regional blocs (trade or political) has its own "missions" (at least as far as I know). As a side note - the common consular arrangements currently are at something like "beta"-stage, eg. I know that there are such in Moldova, but for sure this project is not yed implemented everywhere.

About the notability - I tried to explain it above, but in any case I don't see more appropriate place for this than here (the closest I think is Foreign relations of the EU)

I have not moved the history/organization content - someone else did it, but I think it is OK both ways - here or there. Alinor (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have not presented a compelling case why we should alter the structure of this article just so that we can add details about the networks of EU member states, which has nothing to do with the EU itself. So it is inappropriate for this article (but maybe not for the individual EU member state DMBC articles).

But what is notable and relevant is this proposed shared consular arrangement - would you care to elaborate? Kransky (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

About the consular arrangement - I have no links at hand currently (I remember that some pilot project is implemented in Moldova), but I expect that with the launch/expanding of EEAS this year and later there will be enough new announcements about it.

I don't agree with the conclusion that I have not presented a compelling case - I explained it here. 1 Adding two short sentences for the no/single mission list is not "altering the structure" - just adding content related to the subject (the other diplomatic-mission-list articles don't have such content, because the EU is not a regular sovereign country), and 2 in the case of the EU the member states' missions are partialy EU missions - during the time of EU presidency hold by the particular member state (currently Spanish embassies are "missions of the EU rotating presidency"). Also, as a easy-to-verify practical issue: all embassies of EU member states "wave" both their national flag AND the EU flag...;

The focus of the two sentences I added is not to provide details for the "networks of EU member states", but to provide context for the topic at hand - missions of the EU.

Again, the no/single mission lists and the number-of-EU-missions-per-third-country map is not suitable addition for any single third country list-of-missions-IN article, and neighter for EU-member-state-list-of-missions-OF article (such notes would get scattered along many articles and the context will be lost).

I will add the lists/map to the Foreign relations of the EU or EEAS article, but I still think that they belong here, as this is the place for the "list of EU missions". Alinor (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a new section, and therefore a new design to an established template.

This is a list about EU missions, not its member states. As discussed EU member embassies do not represent or serve the interests of other EU members, or the EU itself.

Above all, the information is not notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - what importance is it really to know that the Portuguese mission is the only mission of an EU member state in Timor Leste? Maybe it could go in the Portugese LODMBC article and the equivalent article on receiving states for Timor Leste, but the fact that Portugal has a mission in East Timor is irrelevant to the EU.

I don't think the people editting the Foreign relations of the EU or EEAS articles will consider a "list of countries that have [no|one] EU missions" central to discussions on foreign policy. Give it a try.

On accreditations, again, it is a departure from what this article is about. It is concerned with diplomaitc missions, not accreditations. If you think including this information is notable, I recommend create a new article and move your hard work there. Kransky (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept that the inclusion of the no/single mission lists is debatable - but where is the rule that each and every LODMBC article should have exactly the same sections and nothing more? and then again - the EU is not your regular sovereign state

Also, it is not correct that "EU member embassies do not represent ... the EU itself." - again: During the time of EU presidency hold by the particular member state (currently Spanish embassies that are the "missions of the EU rotating presidency") its embassies are representing the EU (for certain matters - subject to the Presidency responsibilities).

According to the treaties of the EU if some member state is not represented in a third country its citizens should receive "protection" by the embassies of other member states (the extent/nature of this protection is subject to furthur elaborations, but anyway this arrangement is part of the treaties). So, it is relevant to the EU (and the concept of EU citizenship) that the only EU member state mission in East Timor is the Portugal mission - as this will be the place of application of these EU treaty articles. Also, as I explained above - one of the driving reasons for cooperation in the CFSP field is the possibility to share the resources of individual member states (the map with number-of-missions-per-country) in order to increase efficiency and "common" presence abroad.

And, I totaly disagree that the accreditations are somehow unrelated to this topic. Many of the accredited-to-states host a EU office (consulate equivalent) - marked with * - so this corresponds even to the strictest definition of "diplomatic mission". Also, accreditation is closely related to diplomatic missions (as in the "regional" dimension discussed above). For the most of the other lists articles accreditations are missing, because more often than not there are no proper sources for them, but in this case there are. Alinor (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Alinor, you seem to have a very keen interest in the EU.

But I am afraid your facts are wrong.

The fact that Spain holds the rotating Presidency does not mean that Spanish embassies worldwide suddenly become an extension of the EU. There is no basis in international law for such an arrangement. The Spanish Ambassador to Egypt is not an envoy of the EU President, and can never be, while another person (The Head of Delegation of the EU Delegation in Cairo) serves in this role. Spain also can have a foreign policy independent of the EU, so when our Spanish friend in Cairo opens his mouth, is he speaking on behalf of Madrid or Brussels?

So what if some treaty says an EU citizen can access consular assistance from any number of EU missions? In fact you just told us above that such arrangements are just in "Beta" stage in Moldovia. Well guess, what - Canadians are already assisted by Australian embassies in the Pacific, and Americans are assisted by the Swiss embassy in Tehran. But I see no need to clutter the diplomatic missions of Canada article with details of anything other than diplomatic missions of Canada.

The title is "diplomatic missions of X", not "accreditations of X". A diplomatic mission is a building and its staff accorded a particular purpose. An accreditation is an established relationship between a delegated position and a government. Chalk and cheese.

You seem to be tying yourself in knots trying to explain your position. This article doesn't need to be unduly complicated. Kransky (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The facts I describe are not wrong - the EU is represented externaly by: the High Representative Ashton (merger of former External Relations Directorate-Generale Commissioner and the High Representative for CFSP), the EU Council President Rompoy, the EU Presidency Head of State/Government or Foreign Minister or other-topic-minister (Spain's), multiple Commissioners for the "External Directorate-Generales" (Enlargement, Neighboorhood, Aid, Trade, Development). The division of topics between all these posts is not every time clear and in some cases it is adjusted according to the situation, but anyway - there are some topics that are of the exclusive competence of one or another post. The so-called "delegations of the EU" are the extensive network of former European Commission delegations just recently combined with the few Council-of-the-EU delegations - they deal with most of the topics, but the EU Presidency also is empowered to act for some policies. So, the embassies of Spain when speaking as the EU Presidency representatives (January-June 2010) are speaking on behalf of the EU (or more precisely on behalf of the Presidency of the Council of the European Union (Council of the European Union) - that is different from the President of the European Council (European Council) ).

In short - EU Presidency missions (Spain) are EU missions for policies in EU Presidency competency

Anyway, this is complex issue (see [2]), that is officialy acknowledged to be "evolving" and not yet resolved, so that is why I try to explain that the EU is a special case, and a template applied to regular sovereign states should be expected to be adopted a little.

The "beta" in Moldova is for third-country-nationals seeking visa/other consular procedures regarding Schengen. The Art.20 of TFEU is for EU citizens seeking concular protection in third countries (can be described as the opposite thing). Yes, this process is similar to Swiss service for Canadians in Iran, etc. But this is not the main point - just an example of EU treaty application to EU member state embassy. (also I don't see how it hurts if just as we list country with city for the embassies we can add country with thrid-country-embassy for "consular interests section/protection" cases - but this is a general topic for "list of diplomatic missions", not for this particular article)

About the accreditations - as I said, in most of the cases (marked with *) there is a EU office there, eg. building with staff, etc. And again - the totaly disagree explanation holds - accreditation is very closely linked with diplomatic missions and its place is right here.

I don't see any knots tying, but what I don't understand of your position is why you see the two little sentences (even if put in their own section) as "unduly complication" - as I said even greater modifications should be expected, because of the differences between a sovereign state (that the template is targeted at) and the European Union. Alinor (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It is as you say a complicated and evolving situation. However I remain not convinced that a EU member state's embassy has legal competence to represent the EU, or represents the EU in an unofficial capacity, and therefore to discuss the networks of member states mission is outside the scope of this article. Accreditations are also outside the scope of this article, and in my view would be not-notable (and painfully difficult to keep updated across 200 articles)Kransky (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Of the EU member state embassies I mean only the EU Presidency-holding-embassies, not all of them.

About Accreditations: it is also difficult to maintain the current 200 missions lists - they also change (add/remove missions). Actualy each add/remove of a mission is complemented by add/remove of accreditation in most cases. Anyway, in the few cases where we have a proper source (as here) it would be benefitial to include the accreditations too. Alinor (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, even the missions of the country that holds the EU Presidency are not directly adjunct missions of the EU. I remain opposed to discussing details of EU member countries in an article concerned with the EU's network itself.

Kransky (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kransky. The EU does not represent the individual countries in a foreign country. The EU mission cannot represent for example Spain, and give consular assistance to citiziens of Spain. Therefore, Spain has its own embassies and consulates in the repective countries assiting their own citizens and implementing the needs of their country, be it bilateral relations, trade, etc... The sole purpose of the EU mission is to represent the Union as a whole, however individual countries implement their own foreign policy. The Arab League and African Union also has its own missions abroad, however, they too are powerless to impose foreign policy on behalf of a member nation. I do not believe we should edit each article by removing all European countries and state that there are offices pertaining to an EU member states in said country. First of all, that just doesn't make sence and second of all the EU doesn't have missions in every nation of the world. France has an embassy in the Comoros for example, but the EU does not have a mission there. Aquintero (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting to remove embassies of member states from the lists. Nobody is stating that EU missions represent the member states. Quite the opposite - I was trying to explain that the Spain missions represent the EU only during the Spanish EU Presidency and only for matters related to the EU Presidency. And my suggestion to include the map for number-of-missions-per-state would adress the France-Comoros-EU issue. But anyway - it was moved to Foreign relations of the EU. Alinor (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

References

EU representation offices in the member states

The following note was deleted along other content, but I think that regardless of the other-content fate this particular note's place is in this article - as these representations are a form of "EU missions", albeit "internal" ones:

additionaly to the third-state delegations and offices the European Commission maintains representation in each of the member states. Alinor (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Found it added in the head. Alinor (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

References

EU diplomatic missions

I am not sure why you added a link from the List of EU diplomatic missions article to the EU Foreign Policy Article, saying the Foreign Policy article had information about EU diplomatic missions(!). Alinor had previously sought additional information about the diplomatic networks of EU member states to the EU diplomatic missions article, which I thought was irrelevant and not notable. He then decided to move his material to the foreign policy article. I will leave it up to other editors if his material should stay in an article that should be focussed on foreign policy, not diplomatic missions, but at any rate we should avoid content forking. Kransky (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Its about relations, not policy, so it has the capacity for it - and it is relevant, also giving background to the development of int. relations of the EU - and the missions article is a list of so limited mainly to just listing the missions. 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to summarise:

List of diplomatic missions of the European Union, like other similarly named articles, gives details of the diplomatic networks of the EU. It does not concern its constitutent members. And like similar articles it is not concerned with foreign policy.

Foreign relations of the European Union is about how the EU interacts with other countries and international actors. Again, it does not concern its constitutent members. And like other similar articles it does not cover the EU's diplomatic network

Just because a topic "has the capacity" to have relevance does not justify its inclusion, especially if it would lead to a content fork.

We do not list accreditations in these articles. If you were to think this over you may question its notability, as well as general maintenance issues.

Finally, I have no intention of removing the links between the two articles. However it is not appropriate to use a Hatlink.

I will revert the articles back. If you still wish to propose a wholesale change to any of these policies, first please do so at a venue that would involve the rest of the community, as there are many longstanding contributors who would want to add their views. Kransky (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

On accreditation, that is relevant information that does not fit anywhere else. It is relevant because it details the situation of diplomatic representation for said countries, a question mark would remain over their status. As this information is absent elsewhere, because there is nowhere else that it fits, it ought to remain here. There is no reason to be deletionist on this.

On having diplomatic info on the FR page, the FR page does have a scope broad enough to include that data. That information was run off this page earlier so it is either the FP page or a new page, which I don't think it warrants yet. That information does contribute to a discussion on the EU's FR and the situation on other articles has no bearing here. Just because something is or is not somewhere else, does not decide the form of a third page. That is also WP policy I remind you.

As for the hatlink, it does constitution a clarification to avoid confusion, but not between two issues but two pages covering similar topics. I'll put it in the prose however to move this forward.- _J.Logan`^t: 14:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

New map

Please assist With the change to File:EU diplomatic missions.svg, the legend is broken. Please help me and fix it. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

We had that before, it was changed in order to show the difference in types of delegations.- _J.Logan`^t: 08:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

We will probably replace the map to be consistent with other articles (including the new style in which cities are indicated). In this map can only see countries coloured grey, green and blue (and it seems to be mixed up), but the legend has seven different categories. Kransky (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only the map was changed, but the information about EU offices in countries without delegations was entierly removed. Also, accreditations were removed, but I already know that you are opposed to their inclusion. IMHO such content should not be blindly removed - if someone is opposed accreditations inclusion - he should remove only them, without the EU offices information. And in any case I don't agree with both removals as described in previous comments here. Alinor (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If the opposition to accreditations (and the "other" map format) is so big I propose to split this info in another article Accreditations and Responsibilities of EU delegations. This content is sourced and the new article will not have to stick to the LODM templates. Alinor (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of diplomatic missions of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/delegations/docs/50_years_brochure_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100329131703/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=03&dd=26&nav_id=66055 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=03&dd=26&nav_id=66055
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091227153508/http://ec.europa.eu/delegations/delita/about_us/delegation_mandate.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/delegations/delita/about_us/delegation_mandate.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Outdated info

The map and the list are outdated and should be updated. For example, delegations in Somalia, Mongolia and Cuba are missing. The official map is here. T8612 (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The File

the file, File:EU diplomatic missions.svg is having an error. A close look up, and you'll find that French Guiana is, too, high lighted in the European Union file. Being in a South American territory, it is quite oppositely striking that two nations which are over [quite] quarter an earth apart, are in EU group. I request you to rectify this mistake. Utkarsh555 07:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)