Talk:World Future Council

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Leading paragraph

The current introductory paragraph is copied verbatim from WFC page 1589 as it existed today, except for adding the (WFC) abbreviation. This made the article deserving of the Peacock and Cherrypicked tags added today. Samuel Erau (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are the wrong tags. Perhaps {{advert|section}} and {{copypaste}} (or perhaps {{copyvio}}). Still, some tags are needed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. That's a better tag. Yet I really don't care about copyright issues, especially since WFC probably doesn't mind spamming that text. Samuel Erau (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sources

I have restored some content and provided some pretty mediocre sources. The organization certainly hasn't made much of an impression on the world so far, but I think what is now in the article is reasonable. Feel free to keep trimming, however. (Or sourcing - good luck, however.) hgilbert (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this Councillors list removed?

99.181.133.11 (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you insist on delinking some of the names of people who don't have articles, and there is no real reason to list all the Councilors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not link just the wp article Councillors and some of the ...

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DIRECTORY suggests that we shouldn't list even a moderate number; I think I would accept 4-6, although the question of why any list of "Councillors" is relevant is still open. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to read in column form. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going list a large number of councillors (and I still don't think it's a good idea), the proper way to list all of them in alphabetical order, and link all of them, whether or not there's a present Wikipedia article. Columns would be good, although I don't know why you have 1-of-4, 2-of-4, 3-of-4, but not 4-of-4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]