Talk:Ulethan Alliance for Culture

From OpenGeofiction Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


@Stjur - you're doing great with this. How about extending it to the rest of the 'old world'? Within a wider organisation, you could still have Ulethan C of C etc, but it could be less 'exclusive'. What do people think?--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2017 (CET)

When I started the Ulethan Alliance, people first told me, Uletha was too big to be covered by a single alliance. Now the whole world wants to be part of the organization. I know there's also culture outside Uletha, but, on my opinion, UAC should stay on continental level. But let's see what others think. --Stjur (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2017 (CET)
It defeats the entire purpose of the UAC to make it a global organization. It was inspired, founded, and will continue to be Uletha exclusive. --Aces California (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (CET)
Why worldwide? We can be creative and can set up such organisation for the other continents too - may be one for Archanta and one for Tarephia / Antarephia.--Histor (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2017 (CET)
The reason I think it would be nice to do this is to build cultural links between different mappers - and it would feel more inclusive to me that this should be around the world, rather than by the quirk of a country's location (in a fictional world). So, 2 points: 1 is there some sort of functioning world 'cultural alliance' or is UAC entirely independent of any other world organisation e.g. ANESCO? 2. Uletha has about the same number of countries as the rest of the world combined. I like histor's idea, but, since its about the same size, would a cultural alliance of the other 3 remaining continents Archanta / Tarephia / Antarephia make sense? Would that, on the other hand, create cultural division between Uletha/non-Uletha? --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2017 (CET)
Think of it this way Udilugbuldigu. a) ANESCO is already a thing, and as such there is a global entity for culture, it just happens to not be figure-headed. If you want to figure-head it, that would be awesome, go you! but b) Having something like the UAC is better for global cooperation if there are other Continental Cultural Organizations because then they can talk between each other in a way single members cannot. Think of it this way using an example that's just off my head. The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) presents cultural shows like Eurovision, Dance Competitions, Traditional Music Competitions etc. Now the EBU allows Observer Members outside of Europe (like Australia famously, as well as China, Brazil, US etc.) BUT not only that, there is the sister Asian Broadcasting Union (or along the same name) which follows the same exact concept as the EBU, but does it for Asia. The EBU and ABU are always in deep talks between each other, and shares Observer Members. So in summary, you can have a bunch of Continental Organizations, and still not divide the continents. So no, there will not be an issue about cultural divisions, in fact it will be diminished, cultural divisions that is. --Aces California (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2017 (CET)
To be fair, an organization that promotes different cultures requires vastly less proximity/unity/similarity than an EU-style economic/political union, so it can realistically function just fine over a much wider and more diverse area. As for worldwide coverage, it would be great to see the rebirth of ANESCO's World Monuments program (not only cultural but natural too), which can serve as the "top level" version of this (e.g. fewer protected sites, stricter requirements for listing, etc). --Isleño (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2017 (CET)

Eshein

I didn't understand how to join. Esheinflag.png Eshein can fit perfectlly to UAC (talk) 15:58, 26 march 2017 (EEST).

On the UAC page, there is a link in the banner leading to my user diary, where you can send a request in. --Stjur (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2017 (CEST)

Referendum

Hi! I've got an idea, that Shilesia may have had a referendum to join the UAfC but pepole overwhelmingly disagreed? Can I add this to the article? --Trabantemnaksiezyc (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2017 (CET)

You can write about it soon when we start writing about when every country entered UAC, but I don't get why the Shilesian population should have voted against UAC. UAC is not EU, not even close, it only promotes Ulethan cultures. UAC is more the Ulethan version of UNESCO, which all states in the world are part of (except of Greenland, Liechtenstein and South Sahara, see here)--Stjur (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2017 (CET)
Oh, okay! --Trabantemnaksiezyc (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2017 (CET)
I think it might be a smart idea to actually avoid the whole issue of who is/isn't a member, because even with all the members listed so far, they cover only a tiny fraction of Uletha, which makes the organization seem 'smaller' than it should. You can make it seem 'bigger' by simply leaving the membership unlisted (like the Wikipedia page for UNESCO). If it's described as "dozens of member states throughout Uletha" then readers will just assume that most Ulethan countries are members, and leave it at that. I think it seems more impressive that way, and no one has to sign up for anything, and anyone working in Uletha is then free to add to any of the pages. --Isleño (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2017 (CET)
If the members are not being put on a list, they are most likely to not get involved in UAC organizations, because they don't feel like they should. Now that we have a list, everyone is able to see which member has got involved how much in which organization. Also I want each UAC organizations to be headquartered in one UAC member state and therefore we need to know who's member and who isn't. --Stjur (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2017 (CET)
I think you can safely assume that if a UAC organization is headquartered in a country, or if someone lists a heritage site, etc, then that country would be a member of the UAC. So there's no need for a membership list. I think the only effect of the list is that it makes the UAC look smaller than it should. --Isleño (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2017 (CET)
I want Pretany be a part of this but don't even know where to start.Bhj867 (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2017 (CET)
Don't worry, you're in! --Stjur (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2017 (CET)

Shilesia

As it is more of UNESCO than of UE then I guess that Shilesia wants to get in ;) . --Trabantemnaksiezyc (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2017 (CEST)


HQ for the UAC

As part of my recent work, could the Headquarters of the UAC (or one of it's subdivided organizations) be in Litvania? Litvania is a founding member. --Litvania (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2017 (CEST)

Hi, sorry for my late answer, but I'm kind of on a break from OGF right now. This was my idea, to give the subdivided organisations to the founding member states, who will not only host the headquarters, but also manage and organize those. When I'll come back to OGF, I'll write an user diary entry on this topic, to discuss this sharing of organizations together. I don't want this organization to look centered on one single country, that's why the main headquarters is in Gobras. --Stjur (talkOGF) 15:48, 16 May 2017 (CEST)

Joining the UAC

What would be the process for a new nation to become a member nation of the UAC. Alora Flag 800.png Alora would like to join.