Template talk:Globalize

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Move to Template:Worldwide[edit]

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 (tc) 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)
I agree to this proposal. I do believe, though, that "Worldwide view" would be a more precise template name than "Worldwide". --Jhertel (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Template text loophole[edit]

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)
As of 2014, this has now been taken care of; the template says "improve the article and discuss". Please read the usage notes, and note that the burden of proof for starting a talk page discussion lies with the person who placed the tag, not with the person who removes it. The tag implies WP:systemic bias, and mere omission of international information is not in itself proof of this bias. If information from different countries is missing and there is no reasonable assumption of differing global perspectives, perhaps a different template such as Template:Missing information is more appropriate. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move.Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:GlobalizeTemplate: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 (tc) 09:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose "globalize" is an action, "worldwide" isn't. You're requesting an action be performed. (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 (tc) 09:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
      • A "dead end"/"unreferenced"/"orphan"/"advert"/"howto"/"no footnotes" page describes the page, a "worldwide" page describes the opposite of the page, so it's still bad. (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I think the word you might be looking for is "parochial", but that only works if it is locally focused, but some articles have several localities, with the problem of missing still more, so "parochial" isn't the right term to use. (talk) 05:33, 9 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 (tc) 11:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • OED prefers -ize in general against common BrE usage. "Correct" as in "permissable" it may be, but it's still uncommon in BrE and will continually lead to people pointing it out as being archaic/American. As I said above, I'd strongly support this move. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Overriding autolinking[edit]

IMO this template should have a way to override autolinking. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the date format? This template doesn't autolink dates: it presents them in the format they're given, which is free text. They shouldn't commonly be linked anyway: this is just something which should be edited out in the particular cases where it happens. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm referring to topic autolinking. For example, {{globalize|1=former European colonies}} produces a red link, while {{globalize|1=list of former European colonies}} produces the gramatically incorrect "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with list of former European colonies and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.", there does not seem to be any way to make it say "former European colonies" and link to list of former European colonies, say "the former British Empire" and link to the British Empire instead of a redirect which points to the Commonwealth of Nations, or make it produce something like "the examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with European colonialism during the Age of Discovery and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Tony has apparently resolved this by disabling autolinking. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that there's also an auto-categorization issue. There should parameters which make it possible to set the link target, displayed text and category name separately. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Small version for sections[edit]

I am trying to get the template to show as small (for use in sections of an article) by using the "small = " line of code. I cannot seem to get it to work. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sibling templates up for deletion[edit]

The sibling templates for individual regions have been put up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 21#Template:Globalize/Australia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 11#Template:Globalize/Australia for more discussion. --Closeapple (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

New Globalize template[edit]

As part of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 11#Template:Globalize/Australia I've rewritten the Globalize template so that it:

  1. automatically converts country names and certain abbreviations to standard wording (e.g. "USA" becomes "United States", "Jemen" becomes "Yemen", "west" becomes "western culture", "northern" becomes "northern hemisphere")
  2. automatically adds categories (but allows nocat= to prevent this)
  3. knows when to add "the" to the wording in the message without adding it to the category (e.g. the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands)
  4. assumes the first parameter is also a country/region name if it is not "article" or "section", and adds a type= parameter to specify something other than "article" or "section"; but I've thought about disabling this at first, to allow nonstandard types in the first parameter to survive if they are any hanging around in articles
  5. allows all the parameters of the current Globalize, including 2name/3name/4name overrides, etc.

In other words, it is backward-compatible with the current template, except that it thinks that anything that is not "article" or "section" for the first parameter is a region also, and I can fix that if people want that behavior to stay the way it is. Test cases are at User:Closeapple/new/Globalize/testcases. When it is moved into place, it will be with documentation, of course. Are there any objections? --Closeapple (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work. Can you update the template documentation? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I'll consider documentation a prerequisite before I move my version into place. (I'm not sure if I'll need administrator help when I'm ready — the template is semi-protected.) --Closeapple (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Established editors can edit semiprotected pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Whats the current status of this template? The TfD result was for redirect, with the implication that Closeapple's new version be used. It looks like its still using the old version, and the documentation does not reflect the new syntax. As far as I can tell none of the templates have been redirected, they have simply had the tfd tag removed as stale.[1]

Further if its going to be a strict redirect i.e. #REDIRECT [[Template:Globalize]] then all the pages which include the child templates will need to have the inclusion changed from {{Globalize/Australia}} to {{Globalize|Australia}}. The alternative is to use a tranclusion {{Globalize|{{SUBPAGENAME}} }} which would not require articles to be changed, but might break the spirit of the closure.--Salix (talk): 18:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We'll get a bot to make the changes once the templates are moved over the {{globalize}} template. I haven't heard back from Closeapple in a few weeks on this, I've asked another editor if they'd like to do the move. Anyone can probably carry out the moves but be aware there are 3 pages that need to get moved in the right order, and some links need to get changed on those pages to reflect the moves. See details here. delldot ∇. 18:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been a bit late on this, haven't I? Oops. If someone else wants to move it before I get to it, go ahead. Something to keep in mind: the current templates {{Globalize}} and {{Globalizecountry}} differ by the first parameter: Globalize takes "article"/"section" type descriptions; Globalizecountry does not. In theory, one should be able to move my Globalize/content (don't forget Globalize/name too!) into place and then have a Globalize and Globalizecountry that just call it slightly differently. I think I changed my Globalize itself to use the current globalize syntax exclusively; my testcases assumed that Globalize and Globalizecountry syntax are autodetected. I have a preliminary Globalizeregion to move into place (or get redirected from) Globalizecountry also for that form of syntax. --Closeapple (talk)

Use of template to refer to article titles?[edit]

Folks, could someone clear something up for me? An editor at Tussock (grass) keeps reinstating this template when I remove it. They seem to only have an issue with the article title. I explained on the talk page that article titles are a special issue, since we have to weigh things like WP:ENGVAR and strive for succinct titles, not the proposed (and briefly moved to) article title that incorporates both English varieties in the title (here meaning they wanted to include "tussock" and "bunch grass" in the title). I assumed because of this consideration and those covered at WP:AT that {{globalize}} is not meant to be used to refer only to article titles. Is that your understanding as well? Thanks Rkitko (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

UK-centric and US-centric categories[edit]

There are two categories employed by the globalize template for the United Kingdom: Category:United Kingdom-centric and Category:UK-centric; and two related to the United States: Category:USA-centric and Category:US-centric. In there something in the template that can be changed to put all into the main category of each? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Request template for entire British Commonwealth[edit]

There are times when "UK" or "UK and Canada" just don't cut it, and attention should be drawn to the fact that an article is biased towards a larger political entity. Example could include a case where paragraphs are authored regarding England, Canada and Australia, but just a sentence is given for U.S.A. (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary #ifexists tests[edit]

Howdy. Would anyone object to the "-centric" category existence tests in this template (shown below) being wrapped in checks that the relevant parameters are set? As is, a few thousand (I believe unnecessary) tests for "Category:-centric" are being made, in particular when the third and fourth parameters are not provided - TB (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

| all   = {{#ifexist:Category:{{{2}}}-centric|{{{2}}}-centric|Pages in non-existent country centric categories}}
| all2  = {{#ifexist:Category:{{{3}}}-centric|{{{3}}}-centric|Pages in non-existent country centric categories}}
| all3  = {{#ifexist:Category:{{{4}}}-centric|{{{4}}}-centric|Pages in non-existent country centric categories}}
I've gone ahead and made this change. There should be no difference in usage or results. - TB (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

New subpage[edit]

I want to make a new subpage on this template for Japan. Is this necessary? Philroc (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Section version of this template still says "improve this article"[edit]

When I supply the section parameter to this template, as in globalize|section|date=July 2014, the link to edit the section it exists in still shows as "improve this article" and points to editing the whole article. On other maintenance tags, I normally see "improve this section" with a link to editing the section when I supply the section parameter. Gparyani (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Inline version[edit]

This template needs an inline version to be able to tag specific statements. Opinions? Volunteers? Debresser (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)