Cooperatives NA‑class (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CooperativesWikipedia:WikiProject CooperativesTemplate:WikiProject CooperativesCooperatives articles NA This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I feel the rainbow flag, even if it does belong to the ICA is too confusing?? The rainbow flag is usually associated with LGBT groups, and issues. The flag should be removed from the template. (RM21 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Please restore it or propose another worldwide symbol. We don't delete other flags because they are too similar. I don't understand how it would be confusing—co-op articles are the only ones in economics associated with a rainbow emblem. In politics there is the Rainbow Alliance and in sociology there are LGBT groups. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But some flags are confusing; that means organisations, or issues can be confused too easily. In fact, the ICA's flag was changed a few years ago; perhaps some members aren't aware of this. The following page [1] on the ICA's website says:

• The ICA has been flying a flag carrying the ICA logo since April 2001, when the Board decided to replace the traditional rainbow flag. The flag was changed to clearly promote and strengthen the co-operative image. The rainbow flag, used by a number of non-cooperative groups, led to confusion in several countries around the world.

I don't have any means to draw a separate version of the new ICA flag - on the website it comes with a grey background, and a download version isn't available. Would someone be able to copy it?? Looking at it, I feel the ring of multi-coloured doves is the key part of the new design, rather than the actual rainbow symbol, so I would support that being used instead. (RM21 19:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC))Reply[reply]

It seems likely the new flag would be protected by copyright. I think the new flag would only be interesting on articles about the ICA. I wonder what would be a suitable common illustration for series of articles about cooperation. Ideas? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call my crazy, but I don't see anything but rainbow flags on that page. OptimistBen 18:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are colours more conected with cooperative movement as yellow and green. There is a symbol with this colours. --83.97.228.42 04:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try to find a twin pines logo to go along with this. Gobonobo ^{T C} 04:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've switched the template colors to light and dark green, as I feel that the yellow and green clashed with each other. I made a twin pines logo - . I don't know if there are rules against using images in templates though. Gobonobo ^{T C} 00:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMHO this infobox is too long. o_O Pixeltoo 02:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• example: Mondragón Cooperative Corporation
  • Hi, I hope I fixed some of that now. (RM21 01:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Still too long, in my opinion. By the way this is the talk page for the Series Navigation Box (see WP:SERIES. The Mondragón article has the infobox ((Infobox_Co-operative)), which I agree is also too long. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a suggestion to reformat the template so that it can go along the bottom of a page (as with this template used on the bottom of the Doctor Who entry and others): this would make the box less obstrusive without having to take out any of the entries, most of which are relevant.

If no-one has any major objections, I'll make the change and then re-edit all the documents that use the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrypin (talk • contribs) 12:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That looks OK? How do you put these up? Oh, and can you separate junks of it off to put next to certain sections? For example, you can have it on the side like this nanotechnology one? If that was how it was originally, then I'm not sure I'm in favor of the change. The potential of these boxes is maximized at the side, where more people see it. OptimistBen 18:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can use the template in an article by putting ((Co-operatives)) where you want it to appear: with a box of this size, I think it's best at the bottom of the page. The alteration I made was to change it from a side box to a bottom box because there was so much in it it was dominating the articles it was used in: I think unless the box can be cut down (and it all looks fairly relevant) it should stay at the bottom as per the Doctor Who example I gave earlier. Terrypin 08:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like this template a lot more than the old one. Many of the cooperatives articles have biography or company infoboxes, so it makes sense to have a box like this at the bottom, as opposed to a box along the side. It is a bit large, but it's at the bottom of the page, so it doesn't matter so much. Gobonobo ^{T C} 19:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should use it according to WP:SERIES - that is consistent with most of the encyclopedia. That is, only include it at the bottom of articles in the series. It doesn't need to be at the bottom of every article about a co-op or a cooperator. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cooperative federations don't always consist of consumer co-operatives. Maybe it should be list under 'other', rather than 'consumer'? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]