Umm...
I'm not saying my personal standards aren't up to debate (because that was one of the points of the thread and jacobhinds challenged them with an excellent example), but I do consider them relatively accurate because I've based them on views and opinions given by historians.
But kweassa, we have to remember here that world war status is not a prize any major war can claim but a description of a single confined conflict's physical spread, which in the given context is directly global in contemporary sense. If we'd go by the standards you're giving then indeed many large area-covering wars from the Crusades to the Thirty Years' War, the war of the Spanish Succession, the American and Kongo Civil Wars as well as the ongoing War on Terror could be classified as world wars. However in my mind that would be biased nonsense and make the term seem more ambiguous than it actually is.
Though I'm glad that there are strong opinions on the subject, I must agree with Mamlaz that bringing race into the discussion is utterly tasteless and only shows lack of understanding regarding the near complete lack of value contemporary white people actually give to their skin color.
For example, I personally consider WW2 having started in 1937 in China instead of 1939 in Poland, a viewpoint that is getting discussed more and more in the west novadays. Reasons for my... reasoning aren't also based on abstract racial reasons, but on political ones.
And yeah, the Imjin War was a great one and absolutely worthy of more attention in the west. But a world war it wasn't in any reasonable sense. And there were multiple longstanding fronts and theaters in WW1 outside of Europe.