Template talk:International power

message: Your interventions out of reason modifying this template have been reported and your status as active member has one calling of atention, please don't reject this notice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kardrak (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joao Felipe

message: BRIMC is a valid term used by Goldman Sachs and, far before that, it was used by financial experts to denote the five leading emerging markets of Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico and China. Since I included the term here, nobody opposed its inclusion but a brazilian user named "Joao Felipe". The term has been here for months and nobody has deleted it since then. However, "Joao Felipe" returned to Wikipedia and he decided that the term "was not important" in the template (as you can read in one of his edit summaries).
It is so obvious BRIC is not the same that BRIMC, nor "Next Eleven". More importantly, if we are going to "delete" something, we should seriously think about removing all the economical terms, since the article is about international power, focused in politics. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias  ( Talk? ) 01:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is not used by Goldman Sachs. The bank created the term "Next Eleven", of which Mexico is member. BRIMC can be cited in the template, since that BRICS, BRICET, BRICA, and others also are cited. Since the mexican user named "Alex Covarrubias" included the article, it was unknown, as much the other terms. We go to be right, or we remove BRIMC or we add all. João Felipe C.S 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRIMC 

message: Someone created the article Power politics, which is not the right name, and thus on this template it should be Machtpolitik. 172.191.100.66 20:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong title

message: BRIMC, BRIC, and Next Eleven are not international organizations or even groups in the political sense. They should not be in this category. There should be a seperate category that shows a difference. One category for these three (maybe call it "Growing economic powers" instead), and one for "International Organizations". That makes way more sense! ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Power in international relations template 

message: In view of current developments, it would seem sensible to add the article G20 major economies to this template. 217.41.240.15 (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add [[G20 major economies]]? 

message: Is it just me or does the section "Types of power status" look a bit twee? Do academics in international security really try to classify powers into such extraordinary categories, or has pokeman started influencing our articles? --BozMo talk 11:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm 

message: Could some admin please wrap  tags around the  protection template. We have 85 articles with a protection level error because of this sloppiness. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Debresser (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection template 

message: The term quasi- great power is not widely used to describe Italy's position in international relations and is not relevant to the article to which it redirects. Therefore, the term should be replaced with Least of Great Powers/Least Great. Deditus Particulo  Write to me 21:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Italy]] as the ''Quasi-great Power''