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

Economics This template is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Trade Mid‑importance This template is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade 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.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade articles Mid This template has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Some of the definitions are topics in international finance and not international trade, i.e. Foreign exchange reserves; Sovereign wealth fund; Net Capital Outflow. Maybe they can be replaced with more trade related topics. Anyone any objections or thoughts? User:Dassiebtekreuz 02:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

This map needs some work to make it accurate. Here's what needs to be changed, I think, to make it work:

1. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation needs to be removed completely, as it is not a trade bloc. Even though the organization often talks about promoting trade, the organization itself has no trade agreements - instead, all regional trade agreements are bilateral, making it not a trade bloc. Again, note that China is not part of any trade bloc with the Central Asian republics or Russia.

2. For the former Soviet region, we should have the Eurasian Economic Community (Note: even though EurAsEC grew out of the CIS Customs Union, they are now distinct entities, and the CIS should not be anywhere on the map).

3. As Tomeasy said in the discussion on Talk:Trade bloc, the map needs to show the dual membership of the Arab states in northern Africa.

4. If we're going to include the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, then we need to be sure that the dual membership of the six countries is visible on the map.

5. As for Central America - what the heck is CAIS? Also, the CARICOM's CSME is not clearly defined at all.

6. I'm removing GUAM from the template, and it shouldn't be on the map, since it only talked about becoming a trade bloc, but nothing came of it.

7. Make sure around Europe is says EU/EFTA, and not just EU.

8. Like the AU/AL situation, countries that are in both SAARC and ASEAN need to be shown as belonging to both.

9. Finally, as Tomeasy mentioned, what is going on with Japan and South Korea? I believe they do not belong to any trade bloc.

Overall, it's a good template and the map is useful, but we need to be sure it's accurate and shows dual membership, when that's the case. Otebig ( talk) 07:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't think the map belongs in this template at all. The map belongs in a template on trade blocs and not on the general international trade template. Plus it's wrong and it's huge. -- Patrick ( talk) 08:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hirschy baby is coming for you with his free time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.188.68 ( talk) 02:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

The current line with customs unions contains a mixup of real, proposed and maybe potential customs unions. I removed the MSG as entirely inappropriate (it is not even a FTA), but I can't find any CU for ASEAN either. And why should we list customs unions, but not FTAs and common markets? I think the whole line should be removed. Alinor ( talk) 11:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply