Talk:Embassy

Untitled comments from 2003-2004

Shouldn't embassy and consulate have separate entries? They are different (if closely related) things - stewacide

...went ahead and did it :)

Is the American Embassy Welsh Affairs Office, Cardiff a Consulate, an Embassy or a "remote branch" of the Embassy? -- Chris Q 09:17 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

Consulate general I would think, since an embassy is the sovereign territory not of the host but of the visiting country (I doubt that applies in the case of the Cardiff office) and is (almost) always located in the country's capital (i.e. London).

Some of these rules are bent in the case of Commonwealth countries however (since many of them have the same head of state they can't have 'ambassadors' for example, and instead have 'high commissioners' or something like that) - stewacide 09:47 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

I donno--131.216.58.86 00:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is not correct to say, that an embassy is not part of the territory of the host country anymore. It is just exempt from local law, that's it! Gugganij 16:03, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Diplomatic mission

This article should be merged into Diplomatic mission, the more general term covering both embassies and high commissions (which as noted here are functionally completely identical). Jpatokal 05:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I oppose the merge. Embassy is an important article. It's like merging the article eagle with bird. Embassy exists in over 20 other Wikipedia languagues. It is unthinkable it doesn't exist in english.--31.202.25.100 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing a dictionary with an encyclopedia. Someone looking for information on an embassy will find what they need in the other article and not this one. Hence the redirect. Domdeparis (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]