This template is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the template attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization articles
I would like to start a discussion on the appropriateness of this template. As it stands now it makes no distinction between regional and international organisations, the concept of global governance, and conspiracy theories. It lumps together institutions such as the UN and the EU, fringe proposals such as the
North American Union and the
World Passport and articles of questionable relevance such as
Proposals for new Australian states and
Globalization (is an economic process really related to global and regional governance?) and all under the misleading title of "world government". Can we please find a more concise scope for this template and restrict it to that? It's a bit of a mess at the moment. --
Onen hag oll (
talk) 21:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)reply
World Passport - nothing more than a joke and not of the same order as other topics
I think it could be a good template but at the moment it's like someone's just lumped together everything with the word "World" in the title.
ninety:
one 21:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)reply
This doesn't seem like such a great idea - I've used the template to get around between organizations, and since any instance of the original template has been replaced with this one, that's suddenly gotten much harder. I think it would have been best to have left the international (and probably regional) organizations on the template. I almost reverted it … but that would've been a bad idea, because some of the breakup was constructive, but I just think that it went a bit too far.
Elium2 (
talk) 13:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Actually … we could just replace the template where need be … but I would say that the United Nations and the European Union, for example, are bodies that are related enough to be grouped together in the same template … Or: we could have a "related templates" section at the bottom.
Elium2 (
talk) 13:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC) (again)reply