From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject icon Israel Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject icon International relations Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Standard format

In a effort to standardize foreign relations templates, this template got a "collapse" function as it has got very big and many specific topics not necessarily belong in this template. -- Randam ( talk) 09:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I think it looked a lot better before. Separating it out makes it feel lopsided, and doesn't make it any easier to navigate. I would recommend reverting it to the previous organization. TimeEngineer ( talk) 01:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Flushing Girl and Randam: Can we please discuss this? The new format just looks terrible and is less useful imo TimeEngineer ( talk) 17:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree Mr. TimeEngineer, we should revert it back to the original format or just get rid of the collapsible groups. That's what I think should happen. Just probably get rid of the collapsible groups. Flushing Girl ( talk) 22:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

@Both. Humans can never reach an unanimous decision on what's the 'most comfortable' way to navigate, as it is a 'matter of taste'. However, humans can discuss what grouping is logical and consistent. Having groups likes "Africa", "Asia", "Europe" next to "Peace Agreements" and "multilateral" is not logical, but a "taste".
Secondly, when templates get bigger, they get a collapse function. Similar to templates of Brazil, India, France, Philippines, Russia, United Kingdom and many others. I disagree that the current format is more lopsided than the previous format. Because the other non-bileteral groups were snowed under the bileteral group. Flushing Girl ( talk) 00:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

TimeEngineer is correct. We should have gotten rid of the collapsible groups from this article. I mean nothing is wrong here. If the format is restored then good. I mean those countries you cited are very powerful ones and are even members of BRICS and the G7. Flushing Girl ( talk) 22:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Flushing Girl: I think we are in full agreement. Please feel free to revert the template to the previous version. TimeEngineer ( talk) 01:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject icon Israel Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject icon International relations Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Standard format

In a effort to standardize foreign relations templates, this template got a "collapse" function as it has got very big and many specific topics not necessarily belong in this template. -- Randam ( talk) 09:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I think it looked a lot better before. Separating it out makes it feel lopsided, and doesn't make it any easier to navigate. I would recommend reverting it to the previous organization. TimeEngineer ( talk) 01:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Flushing Girl and Randam: Can we please discuss this? The new format just looks terrible and is less useful imo TimeEngineer ( talk) 17:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree Mr. TimeEngineer, we should revert it back to the original format or just get rid of the collapsible groups. That's what I think should happen. Just probably get rid of the collapsible groups. Flushing Girl ( talk) 22:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

@Both. Humans can never reach an unanimous decision on what's the 'most comfortable' way to navigate, as it is a 'matter of taste'. However, humans can discuss what grouping is logical and consistent. Having groups likes "Africa", "Asia", "Europe" next to "Peace Agreements" and "multilateral" is not logical, but a "taste".
Secondly, when templates get bigger, they get a collapse function. Similar to templates of Brazil, India, France, Philippines, Russia, United Kingdom and many others. I disagree that the current format is more lopsided than the previous format. Because the other non-bileteral groups were snowed under the bileteral group. Flushing Girl ( talk) 00:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

TimeEngineer is correct. We should have gotten rid of the collapsible groups from this article. I mean nothing is wrong here. If the format is restored then good. I mean those countries you cited are very powerful ones and are even members of BRICS and the G7. Flushing Girl ( talk) 22:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Flushing Girl: I think we are in full agreement. Please feel free to revert the template to the previous version. TimeEngineer ( talk) 01:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook