Wikipedia

Talk:List of diplomatic missions of Mexico

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Kwamikagami in topic arrangement of US missions

It is my understanding that Mexico and Norway have diplomatic relations. Does anyone know why the article here does not reflect this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielgarcia (talk • contribs) 17:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

They do have diplomatic relations, but in 2003, Mexico closed its embassy in Oslo for financial reasons. Since then, all consular matters and accreditations are under the Mexican embassy in Denmark. Aquintero (Talk) 11:27, 3 May, 2008 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 00:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

arrangement of US missions edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

The number of Mexican missions in the US is unique. Placing them in alphabetical order is useless. If someone wants to know where the missions are, ordering by state would be of some use. As far as putting "all" countries is alphabetical order, there is no "all". Arrangement by state wouldn't be relevant to any other country but Canada. I did that, too, as it's marginally helpful, but China wouldn't be (we'd have Shanghai and Hongkong listed under themselves, and Guangzhou listed under its eponymous state), and no other country has more than a consulate or two. — kwami (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

As for other lists, it wouldn't be that big a job to arrange them likewise. Few countries have more than a couple consuls in any other country. Of those that do, many are like Algeria > France (with 17), where the host country does not have a federal structure for a state-by-state arrangement to be of any use (indeed, in the case of France it's easier to search by city than by province). Much different for a host country like the US, where the states are more familiar than many of the cities. So, it would make sense to arrange by state only when (a) there are states to arrange by and (b) there are more than maybe 3-4 consuls to worry about. — kwami (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, the issue is that the articles should remain neutral and we should not change them to please our United States audience. Furthermore, if someone was looking for a Mexican consulate in the United States, our articles are a great reference, but viewers should seek contact information from the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs website.[1] Perhaps you can edit the information in the Mexico–United States relations article as that is more specific to the relations of both nations, but not the List of diplomatic missions of Mexico article. Information in List of diplomatic missions in the United States is also broken down by cities and some states. Cheers. Aquintero82, (talk), 14:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC).Reply

This has nothing to do with neutrality and isn't about pleasing our US audience. Just the opposite. This list isn't unmanageable because it's Usonian, but because it's 50 missions long. And it's not Usonians who are going to have the most trouble recognizing some of the obscure cities in the list -- though I don't know a fair number of them and I grew up there.

As for other lists, it wouldn't be that big a job to arrange them likewise. Few countries have more than a couple consuls in any other country. Of those that do, many are like Algeria > France (with 17, or Morocco > France @ 15), where the host country does not have a federal structure for a state-by-state arrangement to be of any use (indeed, in the case of France it's easier to recognize city than province). Much different for a host country where the states are more familiar than many of the cities. So, it would make sense to arrange by state only when (a) there are states to arrange by and (b) there are more than half a dozen consuls to worry about.

Potentially affected (>6 consuls in a federation): List of diplomatic missions of Argentina (10), Bolivia (9), Brazil (9), List of diplomatic missions of Canada (15), List of diplomatic missions of Chile (12), List of diplomatic missions of Colombia (11 [14 but n in a fed[), Costa Rica (7), Dominican Rep. (8), Ecuador (11), List of diplomatic missions of El Salvador (19), France (9), Germany (8), Greece (8), List of diplomatic missions of Guatemala (19), List of diplomatic missions of Honduras (10), Israel (8), Italy (9), List_of_diplomatic_missions_of_Japan (17), List of diplomatic missions of South Korea (12), Panama (7), List of diplomatic missions of Paraguay (10), List of diplomatic missions of Peru (12), Philippines (7), Portugal (9), Spain (8), List of diplomatic missions of Taiwan (11), List of diplomatic missions of Turkey (13), Venezuela (7), List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom (10), List of diplomatic missions of the United States (18).

Ten or twelve might be a better limit. It's easy to find your way around a list of half a dozen.

Really, "the articles should remain neutral"? Arranging a list to be easily searchable is not an NPOV issue, it's a utility issue. But that conception of "neutrality", we shouldn't privilege certain countries over others. All missions should be listed alphabetically by name of the city, not broken down by country.

And why should a reader have to go elsewhere to get the information that we have here? How are they even going to know where to go? Someone wants to know the Mexican consulate most accessible from some location. They come here expecting to be able to find the answer. Purposefully making the article inaccessible to them is simply unprofessional. Or perhaps we could put a hat note at the top: 'for accessible information on this topic, see article X'.

— kwami (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

What do you think of this format instad:

Aquintero82, (talk), 20:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC).Reply

Perfect. This list is the most critical, IMO, because it's 250% the length of the second longest, but I'd be happy to do the same for other countries' missions. Though, below a certain number there'd be no point (or it could be counterproductive). Do you have any preference? — kwami (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ah, that interferes with the layout of the photos. I'll look for a work-around. — kwami (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

tl:Flex columns may be the answer. But by removing the forced 700px width, I get three columns without a break for the images. — kwami (talk)

Thanks. I don't it will be necessary to update the other articles. This alone should be fine. Aquintero82, (talk), 21:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC).Reply

I agree, with the proviso that I think it would be clearer to add the states for the longer lists or more obscure cities. (Not organize by state, just list them as "X, Y", where Y is the state.) I mean, if the missions of a country are in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, there's no point, but how many readers know where Eagle Pass is?

Edit conflict, but since I went to the effort of sorting it out, I'm copying most of it here. For the other 15+-mission lists, most are either in the US or France, and there'd be no benefit I can see to sorting the latter by province (in fact, I suspect it would make it more difficult to find something). The one other country hosting that many missions is Mexico, with 18 missions from the US. Although several Mexican states have more than one US mission, none have more than two, I don't think there'd be much benefit to sorting them by state. I think it might be easier to navigate just by adding the state to each city. Compare:

Mexican missions to the US, sorted by city/state
  • Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua (Consulate General)
  • Guadalajara, Jalisco (Consulate General)
  • Hermosillo, Sonora (Consulate General)
  • Matamoros, Tamaulipas (Consulate General)
  • Mérida, Yucatán (Consulate General)
  • Monterrey, Nuevo León (Consulate General)
  • Nogales, Sonora (Consulate General)
  • Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas (Consulate General)
  • Tijuana, Baja California (Consulate General)
  • Acapulco, Guerrero (Consular Agency)
  • Cabo San Lucas, Baja Sur (Consular Agency)
  • Cancún, Quintana Roo (Consular Agency)
  • Mazatlán, Sinaloa (Consular Agency)
  • Oaxaca City, Oaxaca (Consular Agency)
  • Piedras Negras, Coahuila (Consular Agency)
  • Playa del Carmen, Quintana Roo (Consular Agency)
  • Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco (Consular Agency)
  • San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato (Consular Agency)
Mexican missions to the US, sorted by state/city
  • Baja California
    • Tijuana (Consulate General)
  • Baja California Sur
    • Cabo San Lucas (Consular Agency)
  • Chihuahua
    • Ciudad Juárez (Consulate General)
  • Coahuila
    • Piedras Negras (Consular Agency)
  • Guanajuato
    • San Miguel de Allende (Consular Agency)
  • Guerrero
    • Acapulco (Consular Agency)
  • Jalisco
    • Guadalajara (Consulate General)
    • Puerto Vallarta (Consular Agency)
  • Nuevo León
    • Monterrey (Consulate General)
  • Oaxaca
    • Oaxaca City (Consular Agency)
  • Quintana Roo
    • Cancún (Consular Agency)
    • Playa del Carmen (Consular Agency)
  • Sinaloa
    • Mazatlán (Consular Agency)
  • Sonora
    • Hermosillo (Consulate General)
    • Nogales (Consulate General)
  • Tamaulipas
    • Matamoros (Consulate General)
    • Nuevo Laredo (Consulate General)
  • Yucatán
    • Mérida (Consulate General)

The latter shows at a glance that Jalisco, Quintana, Sonora and Tamaulipas each have a pair of missions, but at the cost of increasing the length of the list from 18 lines to 32. Personally, I don't see that as an improvement, unlike the Mexican missions to the US, where Arizona has 5 and Texas and California each have 10 or 11. I mean, there aren't more than a dozen or so countries in the world that have as many missions in any other country as Mexico has just in Texas.

There are 17 Japanese, 19 Salvadorean and 19 Guatemalan missions to the US, so I anticipate that the relative (dis)advantages of organizing those lists geographically would be comparable to the US missions in Mexico. IMO, probably not worth it.

All the other lists are even shorter. However, there are occasional cases where I think a geographic organization might make a list easier to parse. E.g. of the Mongolian missions to China, 3 are in city states (Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai) and so have no containing state to be listed by, but the other three are all in the autonomous region of Inner Mongolia. Listing them together makes the list cleaner. In that same article, 3 of the Mongolian missions to Russia are in autonomous national republics, and I think adding the republic name after them (e.g. 'Kyzyl, Tuva') makes things easier. At least, I can never keep track of which capital city goes with which Russian republic. — kwami (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ SRE
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_diplomatic_missions_of_Mexico&oldid=1216648807"