Talk:Australia–Estonia relations

First embassy?

Australia had very few embassies prior to the Statute of Westminster circa 1930, and foreign relations were conducted via the United Kingdom.

Therefore an embassy to Estonia in 1921 is unlikely.

Tabletop (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

New embassy and related changes

Ok, so some changes seem to have a little contention so I'll attempt to explain them. I think its very interesting that for a country as small as Estonia (with a diplomatic corps to match) would have honorary consuls in every state capital in Australia. Having a small referenced mention of their existence is an appropriate inclusion to a page like this, which deals with relations (including diplomatic representation), just saying "we don't include them here" is not a very convincing argument.

Also the list of Ambassadors has been included since the establishment of the "pop-up" embassy, as the continuity has changed and its helpful and interesting to show the transition. The appointment references also include statements on the status of Australia's relations with estonia, so its useful to include them here. Maybe attempting to engage with changes here, instead of carte blanche reverting could be a useful instuctor for future.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I also understand the status of Honorary Consulates in Wiki, and the fact that they are not official enough to be included in lists of diplomatic missions, so don't even bother mentioning that. But there is no consensus that states that their mere mention, and they are mentioned and referenced several times in the article, is not allowed in an article specifically dealing with bilateral relations.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

the general practice in bilateral articles is not to include lists of non resident ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

honorary consuls is nothing special. it's not a full time job nor do they actually have consular status. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Subjective opinion is not evidence of consensus. Making a small referenced recognition that honorary consuls exist in any given country, helps create a better picture of relations provided they are referenced and not given undue weight. The post of honorary consul itself is, I agree, not important, which is why we don't list them or have articles themselves, but they are part of the picture and are a relevant inclusion to an article on bilateral relations, which can include all aspects on official/unofficial ties. Perhaps a compromise is removing the non-resident ambassadors but retaining the list box for the new ambassador.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The sentence in question about Estonian honorary consuls in Australia looks fine to me. There's no need to name these people or spend any more time on the topic, but it is worth noting in this context. Ditto if there are any honorary Australian consuls in Estonia. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Categories

@Siegfried Nugent: I forgot to add the reason for removing two categories. They already had a parent category, which was listed in the correct place.--Estonian1885 (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)