Talk:List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Egypt

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move to List of diplomats from the United Kingdom to Egypt Parsecboy (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I propose renaming this list to List of British colonial administrators and diplomatic envoys in Egypt. The reason is that the current title is misleading since it doesn't encompass the whole topic covered by the list: the article currently includes Consuls-General as well as High Commissioners. A list solely about ambassadors should start in 1936, which is obivously not the case here. Dividing the list into two separate articles (pre-1936 and post-1936) wouldn't be very helpful, so a new, more clearly worded title would be just fine and help solve the problem. --BomBom (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree in principle with the rename, but I think we should look for a better name, probably one that still contains the word Ambassador rather than speaking of diplomatic envoys, which is too broad a term. We've gone from one extreme to the other.

What the list describes is the heads of the delegations. So ideally we need a term X to go in List of Ambassadors and Xs from the United Kingdom to Egypt. Andrewa (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Crop the list to post-1936 Ambassadors and link to List of colonial heads of Egypt for the preceding era. This would be in line with India, for which List of High Commissioners from the United Kingdom to India and Governor-General of India are two separate articles. Also avoids the need to explain "British Representative" in this article. Also leaves this list with a similar name to all the other "List of UK ambassadors to ..." articles. Bazj (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would work too. The parallel isn't quite as good as it might be, as List of colonial heads of Egypt includes French officials.

So we really have two related issues... What's the best structure for this list or set of lists, and what should each be called. Andrewa (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a new title Based on all the above comments, I propose renaming the article List of British heads of mission in Egypt (or something along that line, such as List of heads of the British mission in Egypt). The title head of mission is the most neutral, factually accurate and all-encompassing one I can think of. Moreover, it conforms to the standard naming used in List of heads of missions from the United Kingdom. --BomBom (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment about proposal to split the article As for the suggestion that was made above to split the article, I strongly oppose it. The Indian parallelism is misleading: the office of British High Commissioner in India is not the successor office to that of Governor-General of India. The Indian Governor-General served as India's de facto head of state, and was replaced by the office of President of India. It is thus logical to have two different lists since the two topics covered are very different. In Egypt's case, there were simply mere title changes (notice that the same individual who served as High Commissioner in the late 1930s continued to serve for an additional decade after he became ambassador, meaning that the title change did not carry any practical significance or consequences). The list as it currently stands is thematically coherent, and it would be wrong to split it at an artificial date just because a title change occurred. --BomBom (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose move. If you look at other the articles linked in the navbox, all of them are titled with Ambassador, yet almost none of them had solely officials of that title. Since the current title for these people is ambassador, it should stay that way. Consistency, people!

In line with a few other similar pages, perhaps List of diplomats from the United Kingdom to Egypt might be suitable? Craigy (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good compromise. A sufficiently broad title that does not depart from the way other similar lists are named. --BomBom (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.