Template talk:Non-Aligned Movement

Comments

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)

I think it may be too big an organization for a box. You'll note that the United Nations also does not have a series box. I think that, when the box gets this big, it is better to have a sentence or two in the article linking to List of NAM nations than this. Series boxes already get a lot of criticism for being too big - this really just goes over the line. Snowspinner 16:25, 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. -- VV 23:25, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I've blanked the box for the time being, so as not to continue having this hulking thing on all of the pages. I'm not going to go change the articles, so that the "What links here" list can easily be used if someone wants to mention membership in NAM on the actual article list. I would do it, but my knowledge of NAM is limited enough that I'd rather leave it for someone who knows more about it. Snowspinner 18:30, 16 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)

Note that these boxes are already looking like their days are number due to the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Snowspinner 21:20, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

• KEEP. it is not that large. it gets loaded in a second. And it is good table showing how bog is some organization. UN table would not make any sense because almost every country is UN member. Avala 19:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
  • It's not just about loading, but about scrolling. Furthermore, the box is useless. The size of the organization is not relevant at individual country articles - only at the main organization article.--Jiang 04:16, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP, This is a useful text box, and Wiki is not paper. Space is irrelevant. If the reader of the article wishes to ignore it, a box around it makes it very easy. Burgundavia 19:36, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • The size of this box seems to clearly go against the policies that people have been discussing on Wikipedia talk:Article series boxes policy (proposed). The issue is not one of space - it's one of visual appearance, and of the problems that occur when articles have a multitude of boxes - they start to drown each other out, destroying the purpose of having a box at all. Snowspinner 20:02, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
  • space is relevant. pages need time to load. If a page contains too much content, people will have difficulting scrolling with precision. Care to explain how this box is useful? It's just pretty, but irrelevant and useless. All we need to do is to state that the country is part of NAM and link to NAM where a list of members will reside. There's no need to be posting the same list on the articles of the member countries.
• This is just too large to be useful. Delete, and pray that MediaWiki 1.3 arrives with its category support soon. -- Cyrius|&#9998 21:14, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ridiculously large, and really adds nothing useful to a nation's article beyond that the nation is a member of NAM. It seems unlikely that a visitor to e.g. Cyprus is interested in what the other members of the Non-Aligned Movement are. - MykReeve 23:55, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful content, a ton of sites link it, and it's not that big anyway. --Starx 03:44, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I do not think the fact that the advocates for this box have put it on a bunch of boxes is in any way an endorsement of its quality. NAM may be significant, but its importance is not proportional to the size of its box (And I think you would be hard pressed to find a bigger box on Wikipedia). Also, most of the links to Non-Aligned Movement are from "Foreign relation of" articles - not from the country articles this box is designed to link. In fact, virtually no country articles actually link to the NAM page. Snowspinner 03:53, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Again, the content is irrelevant. I don't buy how it's useful. Having "a ton of sites link it" link to it is also not a legitimate reason to remove it in the long run. --Jiang 04:17, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain. [edit:Delete this once the list at Non-Aligned Movement is replaced w/ html code] This deletion debate is irrelevant. Whether to keep the box lies in community consensus at wikiproject countries and current opinion is to remove most non-geographical footers.--Jiang 04:16, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
  • first thing you will read on [[1]] is that there are no No size limits Avala 09:55, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
    • That applies to content, not technical size. There are size limits. But it's not just about size, but usefulness. There's no convincing argument that this box is of any relevance to the articles it is posted on. --Jiang 10:20, 18 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

• if it's only going to be at one page, then there's no point in making a mediawiki msg. Just insert the html in the article itself. See MediaWiki talk:NAMm for discussion on that particular footer. --Jiang 11:48, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
• The new box helps nothing. It contains a single link. There is no reason to produce a box for a single link. (It puts disproportionate emphasis on the link, and thus encourages every link to be put into a separate box, which would just be a disaster.) Snowspinner 14:08, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless.--Eloquence* 05:03, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I find it completely useless. Ivan 16:06, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

• And this table of Texas is not too big????????

Template:Texas

• • I have removed the {{msg:Texas}} that was posted by Avala (and was left unsigned). This page gets included on the main VfD, and posting large boxes on it is inconsiderate of the effects on that page. See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -- Cyrius|&#9998 16:35, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

This was not an answer. Avala 18:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be. It was meant to clean up your (minor) disruption of Votes for Deletion and convince you to not do it again. -- Cyrius|&#9998 18:14, May 22, 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)

The Texas box is not at issue here. -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:34, May 22, 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)

"Members" section

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)

You are right, and in fact even out of the eight mentioned one is a former state (Yugoslavia) and two are not members anymore (Cyprus and Malta). I would say it's a negative side effect of my personal interest in certain aspects of the topic (Cold War period primarily) as well as the fact that for now there are no other editors working as much in the same area of bilateral NAM topics. Adding the list at the end of the line is therefore certainly a good idea.--MirkoS18 (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I made a change to the navbox that hopefully improves clarity. –Vipz (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)