Category talk:International organizations

This category 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 category 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

Organizations

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles

International relations

This category 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

Politics

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles

Untitled

Problem - this should read international organisations for pages not written in US English, such as the European Union page. Any ideas how to fix this? Zoney 09:09, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

According to American and British English differences#... -ise / -ize the Oxford English Dictionary uses the version with 'z'. Edward 09:35, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, bully for it.

The British in general don't, however.

James F. (talk) 09:51, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In general usage, 'z' and 's' are both used when writing informally (here in Ireland that is) - but when delibrately insisting on non-US spelling, using 's' achieves a much greater degree of consistency. Many dictionaries do indeed use the 'z' spelling - however, this is due to reflecting everyday usage and is simply an indication of US influence. Wikipedia has many articles written in US English, and others where people aren't too particular, but where the article concerns Britain, Ireland or Europe (amongst other non-American topics) the style should very definitely avoid any Americanisation whatsoever, using British/International English.

Zoney 12:51, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

IGOs v. NGOs

This category contains a mixture of some very different entities:

international organizations, in the legal sense of organization having international legal personality and having as its membership states and/or other organizations of the same nature
international organizations, in the political sense of bodies having some internal organization, e.g. permanent staff, a secretariat, etc., established by groups of states, but which lack legal personality
mere conglomerations, blocs, conferences of states or treaties between them, without any permanent staff/institutions nor any legal personality (I would argue that these are not international organizations by any reasonable definition of the term -- they are not organizations at all.)
NGOs, i.e. private organizations of an international nature (e.g. aid groups, political/human rights/labour/enivornmental lobbying groups, technical/professional groups, commerce/business groups, etc.)

I believe the categorisation should clearly distinguish all three, and especially (1)&(2)&(3) from (4). Not only are they very different things (unfortunately sometimes called by the same name), but many readers will be more interested in one than the other. (e.g. myself, I am primarily interested in (1)-(3), and am interested in distinguishing (1) from (2) from (3).) Other readers would be more interested in (4), and find (1)-(3) not interesting to them.

So, I propose to reorganize this category as follows:

Anything under (3) shall be moved to another category (Blocs of states???)
Anything under (4) shall be moved to an NGO/INGO category (???)
For now, (1)&(2) shall be kept together. From the perspective of international law, they must be kept apart; whereas from the perspective of international politics, the difference often doesn't count. (1)&(2) alone shall live in this category.

If no one objects, I might put this into effect, if I can be bothered.... --SJK 08:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Realignment

This category is very messy, it seems. Can we break this out into two or more subcategories for organizations which are transnational/treaty organizations (NATO, OAS, BIS, &c) and those that are just organizations with a large international presence (IEEE, ACM, &c)? Anyone willing to fire the first shot on new category names? -James Howard (talk/web) 22:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure started

I have began the above discussed restructure. As a start, I'm moving all the INGOs to Category:International nongovernmental organizations --SJK 12:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Categories listing orgs based or headquartered by region and type?

What about Categories of Orgs by region and by type?

e.g. Americas / Europe / Asia / Oceana / Africa

and type such as:

Business and Economic -- Organisations

Development -- Organisatons

Diplomatic -- Organisations

Financial -- Organisations

Judicial -- Organisations

Societal Cause -- Organisations

Development -- Organisations

Health -- Organisations

Human Rights

Poverty

etc.

CaribDigita 22:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'll get to work on it. --Hemlock Martinis 20:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]