Template talk:Politics of Armenia

International organizations

@Archives908 Information about international organizations of which state is member of is unnecessary and redundant. That template is the only sidebar template that contains such info. Also that's unclear what the criteria are for entering organization in it - why that contain CIS, but doesn't for EAEU for example, and if you enter every organization the country belongs to, the template will be too long, there is that information in preamble of article about the country and there is no need to put it to the sidebar template which should only contain links related to politics of the country by categories. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion is not policy. Please link the precise wiki policy which categorically forbids such organization(s) from being listed, and I'll certainly have a read! Also- I do not support an endless list of organizations to be included either. However, I can't seem to find any violations of policy that including one or two of the most WP:N organizations would break. Thanks! Archives908 (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

First please explain why we need international organization(s) being listed at all and by what criteria we need choose organizations to do so at. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Also please don't repeat reverts until consensus is found. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD- you made a Bold edit, it was Reverted and now we Discuss. Archives908 (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for that policy... Archives908 (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:BURO. I'm waiting for explaining of reasons and criteria. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I know you've only been editing less than a month, but again, that's not how things work here. You conducted an unexplained removal of content and that content has been restored. I restored the content because there is no wiki policy which forbids the listing of membership organizations on "politics infoboxes". Let me reiterate- if listing such organization(s) does violate any existing policy, then they should indeed be removed. So, I will ask a third time, please link the policy which forbids such inclusion. I browsed through the template history and it seems that user User:Yugoslovakia added the CIS originally, so I have pinged them. Perhaps they can explain their rationale here. It appears that an IP had also tried to add other organizations (CSTO/EAEU) on 20 February 2022, but I reverted them because a complete list is truly unnecessary. I am not opposed to removing them, or maintaining one or two of the most notable organizations. But, personal opinions are not policy and we must go off of policy. Archives908 (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I repeat: WP:NOTBURO. The way of editing Wikipedia is not determined by specific policies, but by searching consensus between users. And I just don't see a sense of listing international organizations here when the reader can just look for them in the article about the country and by which criteria you decided that CSTO or/and EAEU is not necessary and CIS and CE is. And now please explain that to me, don't ask for specific policy, It doesn't exist because there's no need for that, there's need for establishing a consensus about that based on our discussion here. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

First of all, policy does indeed matter. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be completely ungoverned, disorganized, and chaotic. Second, that's why I pinged the user who added the CIS, in order to seek understanding and reach WP:CON. Archives908 (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I think that the memberships are worth including, but should be under "Foreign relations" in the sidebar. 206.204.236.102 (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

---

@Archives908 Article about Armenian membership in the CoE exists and is already in Foreign relations section, so having Council of Europe also in the upper section anyway makes no sense . Regarding the CIS article about its relations with Armenia doesn't exist and unlikely to be created in near future. On my opinion, my version is optimal, because Armenia is the state-founder of the CIS (as well as others its members), but if you don't like this I may propose the variant realized in the Template:Politics of Ukraine - put the CIS after "International membership" title. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your vehement objection to including the two icons. Like I said back in October, there are no policies that exist which prohibit it. I don't think that having two icons is such a colossal issue. Having an "International membership" section isn't a bad suggestion, however, Armenia is a member of hundreds of organizations/treaties/etc. I don't think its necessary to include all that information in the infobox when there are article's which already cover that information adequately. The Ukrainian infobox only lists two organizations under that section (CIS & GUAM), which can give the false impression to readers that the country is only a member of two organizations. The it has a section of "International organizations", which is messy and can be very confusing to readers. Lack of completion and deciphering which organizations should be included and which should be omitted are whole other areas of potential issues and concern. Not to mention, including a list of organizations on the Armenian template would also duplicate the bilateral relations section, where Armenia's relations with some organizations are already linked. Surely, it makes no logical sense to link the same information twice within the same infobox. Therefore, I propose to maintain the status quo. Archives908 (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've already described my point: CoE should be removed from this section in any case because a separate article about Armenian membership in it is already in the Foreign relations section. Having just the CIS in it makes little sense, and it, along with CSTO is better to put in the Foreign relations section, like CIS and GUAM are in a similar section in the Ukrainian template.

I want to make the template better and more quality; you are making WP:BURO.

--UA0Volodymyr (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not being bureaucratic; rather, pointing out legitimate questions and concerns. I do not appreciate you labelling me as such. Per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, the point of a talk page, is to talk. You have just been unblocked and are already calling other editors "bureaucratic" simply for engaging in a conversation which you tagged me in. What was the point of tagging me if you then proceed to belittle my participation? In regards to the content, your proposal is redundant because the template already has a section on multilateral relations. There is no need to add another subsection with duplicated information. Archives908 (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither there is a reason of existence of the upper one, which duplicates the info about CoE and just useless while we can write about organizations in the Foreign relations section. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Clarify your sentence above- it is not coherent and I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. I see you have again removed the icons- please be mindful of not breaking your WP:1RR. Archives908 (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)