Template talk:Globalize

Move to Template:Worldwide

I just came across this template's proper name, and the whole amusement of it being "globalize" - a spelling specifically for the US. Now, personally, I would prefer "globalise" to be the default name. But that's just silly, because I know others would complain. I just wondered (and this isn't an official proposal) whether people would support moving the template to Template:Worldwide, a spelling which is the same in all forms of English and doesn't promote a particular spelling. I know there's the whole "take the original spelling" naming convention, but why settle for it when there's something available that would please everyone? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! This proposal makes a lot of sense. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I came here to say this. Smurfy 23:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Template text loophole

The text of this template presently reads (...)Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. This is inadvertently creating a loophole being exploited by disruptive editors who persistently remove templates from articles for spurious reasons without correcting the problem indicated by the template. More than once, I've seen this kind of removal justified by reference to the text in the template: "It says to improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page. Here we are on the talk page, so I've met the requirement of the template and removed it."

Obviously, that's not in the spirit of what was intended. There are administrative means by which for such disruption to be dealt with, but we could make life harder for the willfully disruptive and easier for those of us who clean up the messes they make if we will change the text to read (...)Please discuss the issue on the talk page and improve this article. This puts discussion first, which won't deter problem editors from making changes not in accord with consensus, but will gently encourage non-problem editors to participate in discussion and consensus-building on the article's talk page. The proposed text also replaces or by and, which closes the loophole. What do we think? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe then improve the article or so the article can be improved would be better... twilsonb (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Move request

Template:Globalize → Template:Worldwide — I find it worrying that this move hasn't already been done. It's ironic and almost insulting that a template requesting a globalised view rather than a local one would itself promote American English over British English. I'm not saying all templates should be moved to neutral words, but it should be obvious why this one is an exception. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose "globalize" is an action, "worldwide" isn't. You're requesting an action be performed. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sure the meaning of the word doesn't need to be taken that literally. And what about {{dead end}}, {{orphan}}, {{unreferenced}}, {{no footnotes}}..? None of those are actions. {{Advert}}, {{howto}}, {{crystal}}. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Globalize is correct in all forms of English including British, is preferred by the OED, and is certainly not "a spelling specifically for the US" as stated above. See -ize. Blisco (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps not, but it's still controversial as people spell the world differently. I'm not stating that we should choose one spelling over the other, but that we should use a word everyone would be happy with. It also makes more contextual sense, seeing as the template itself uses the word "worldwide" but not the word "globalize". Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 11:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)