This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Non-Aligned Movement template. |
|
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This template was considered for deletion on 30 August 2013. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
This box is way, way too large, especially since many of the countries on it already have many other boxes on them. Is there some way that we could possibly shrink the box down? Snowspinner 20:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, NO! NAM is huge organization. Maybe of you break it up but it is just .............. Avala 14:06, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Snowspinner's comments. This is not a terribly significant organization, and it's a giant box to stick on 100 or so pages (it almost certainly drives up download time, for one). I was going to note my fear of a "UN members" box, but I see I've been beaten to that, too. -- V V 23:25, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
I have already indicated that I am not knowledgeable enough about NAM to be the person to edit it into the articles. Furthermore, I'm not even convinced that NAM is important enough to be mentioned in every article - the UN is certainly more important, and it's no tmentioned in every artilcle for a country that's in the UN. I do not care whether NAM is mentioned in articles or not. I do care whether this massive box appears in articles or not. So I'm going to deal with the box, and if you're concerned about NAM being in the articles, you can deal with the articles. Snowspinner 19:00, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
While it is smaller, it is also now hard to read, and no more useful or relevent. I think the box is fundamentally flawed.
i can read it and it is not more useful but it is still a lot useful Avala 14:02, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
The final decision in the following VfD discussion was to keep the page.
We don't need a box for every treaty/loose organization/international body that a given country is a member of, and this box is simply too large. With no real way of shrinking it down (Short of petitioning NAM to kick some countries out, which I don't think would go well), box should be deleted - NAM can always be mentioned in the text of the articles, and it would probably take up less space too. Snowspinner 19:05, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
DON`T DELETE IT here is why: Let this box stay on Non-Aligned Movement page only. I made the new one for country articles: Template:NAMm -- Avala
This was not an answer. Avala 18:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
so you don`t have an answer? texas box can be big as mountain and to include biggest cities blah blah blah but NAM has to be deleted. nice very nice-- Avala 21:43, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
i am just making an comparison and you can not tell me where is the difference. there is no difference. i think we should post texas box too if we posted nam. Avala 13:52, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Hey @ MirkoS18, I feel like the Members section of the navbox as it is set up right now implies that NAM contains only these 8 member states. I've thought about renaming the section title to " Members and the NAM" (implying the topic of the eight entries currently present) or adding another entry at the end of the list such as "( other member states)". – Vipz ( talk) 05:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Non-Aligned Movement template. |
|
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This template was considered for deletion on 30 August 2013. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
This box is way, way too large, especially since many of the countries on it already have many other boxes on them. Is there some way that we could possibly shrink the box down? Snowspinner 20:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, NO! NAM is huge organization. Maybe of you break it up but it is just .............. Avala 14:06, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Snowspinner's comments. This is not a terribly significant organization, and it's a giant box to stick on 100 or so pages (it almost certainly drives up download time, for one). I was going to note my fear of a "UN members" box, but I see I've been beaten to that, too. -- V V 23:25, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
I have already indicated that I am not knowledgeable enough about NAM to be the person to edit it into the articles. Furthermore, I'm not even convinced that NAM is important enough to be mentioned in every article - the UN is certainly more important, and it's no tmentioned in every artilcle for a country that's in the UN. I do not care whether NAM is mentioned in articles or not. I do care whether this massive box appears in articles or not. So I'm going to deal with the box, and if you're concerned about NAM being in the articles, you can deal with the articles. Snowspinner 19:00, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
While it is smaller, it is also now hard to read, and no more useful or relevent. I think the box is fundamentally flawed.
i can read it and it is not more useful but it is still a lot useful Avala 14:02, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
The final decision in the following VfD discussion was to keep the page.
We don't need a box for every treaty/loose organization/international body that a given country is a member of, and this box is simply too large. With no real way of shrinking it down (Short of petitioning NAM to kick some countries out, which I don't think would go well), box should be deleted - NAM can always be mentioned in the text of the articles, and it would probably take up less space too. Snowspinner 19:05, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
DON`T DELETE IT here is why: Let this box stay on Non-Aligned Movement page only. I made the new one for country articles: Template:NAMm -- Avala
This was not an answer. Avala 18:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
so you don`t have an answer? texas box can be big as mountain and to include biggest cities blah blah blah but NAM has to be deleted. nice very nice-- Avala 21:43, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
i am just making an comparison and you can not tell me where is the difference. there is no difference. i think we should post texas box too if we posted nam. Avala 13:52, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Hey @ MirkoS18, I feel like the Members section of the navbox as it is set up right now implies that NAM contains only these 8 member states. I've thought about renaming the section title to " Members and the NAM" (implying the topic of the eight entries currently present) or adding another entry at the end of the list such as "( other member states)". – Vipz ( talk) 05:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)