Template talk:IFAC Members

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business: Accounting This template is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles This template is supported by the Accounting task force. Biography This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Currently, IFAC is comprised of 164 members and associates. Someone please take up the assignment to update the Nave Box with all member bodies which have a wiki article. The list of members is available at http://web.ifac.org/about/member-bodies R.Sivanesh ✆ 18:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template has now started looking cluttered because of the flag icons. Why cant we remove them? please post your comments here.-- R.Sivanesh ^{✆ ©} 03:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it is getting cluttered, and it still holds only 1/3 of the organizations. I do not recognize many of the flags, and guess that is true of most readers. But a straight list of acronyms with many duplicates (BICA, ICAB, ICAN etc.) would be meaningless. One solution would be to start the template collapsed, with the option to uncollapse (show) each continent separately, giving the names of the countries followed by the organizations. A second would be to have a separate template for each continent, again naming the countries. I am inclined to think the second approach would work best. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]