I agree with the assertion that WWI became WWI simply because WWII came so soon after. WWI came 100 years after the Napoleonic Wars, a name that had a long time to sink in over more than a generation. Depending on your region and when you consider WWII to have started, we had less than a generation between WWI and WWII. There are historians who argue that WWI and WWII should be considered one really long war (remember the Napoleonic Wars had several intervening peace treaties and peace times for varying lengths, though none as long as between WWI and WWII).
What is called the French and Indians Wars in the USA are several separate wars in Europe.
As for these arguments about Eurocentrism, well... history is written by the victors, surely we all know that. Though I guess AH.com should logically then, by default, be written by the losers!
Wars have consequences, you lose territory, resources, people, and the winner gets more territory, resources, and the ability to have its people invent things first and use the losers inventions to their own profit for more effective than the loser. Wars create superpowers. Even China's future plans recognizes that historical fact, though if they do become the next superpower and manage it through economic domination without a war that would be best for the world.