Template talk:Globalize/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Geopolitical more appropriate than geographical

Comments sought on changing the central term used in the template. GEOPOL has been reverted back to GEOGRAF because it is "more clear and also wider". GEOGRAF may be "wider", but only if we are concerned with sheer geophysical scope. Using GEOGRAF suggests that the WikiProject is merely concerned with whether there is sufficient depth to articles on geographical locations. Also, GEOGRAF in its plain meaning does not speak to concerns about the effects of demographics, ethnocentrism and the North/South divide. So how can GEOGRAF be more clear when it does not contextualise efforts to CSB? GEOPOL is a more appropriate vehicle for conveying this context. Alternatively, if GEOGRAF is ultimately retained, then the template should link away from the CSB page (following the comments of BlankVerse, below). Obey 04:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

My main problem was the change of "world-wide view" to "geopolitically balanced world view", which to me is not only more verbose but also less clear. I feel less strong about changing geographical to geopolitical in the last words of the template; I think you have a point there and would not object to the following version of the template:

The perspective and/or examples in this article do not represent a world-wide view. Please edit the article to improve its geopolitical balance.

What do others think? — mark ✎ 06:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Mark, I would support your revised version above, it looks fine to me and conveys the intended sense without overdoing the terminology.--cjllw | TALK 07:37, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Obey 09:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

A template for the discussion page

Templates of this type should be included on the talk page, not the article page, as it is clearly a message for editors, not for readers. Pcb21| Pete 00:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even before I wrote the above, most uses of this template were on talk pages, even when the wording suggested that the article page was the appropriate place for it. I've re-done the wording to make it location-agnostic and moved the remaining uses to the talk page. Pcb21| Pete 00:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree, only the very worst of articles should be defaced with such tags. - SimonP 01:02, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Include an image?

Standardisation seems to suggest including an image to the left of the text. To that end I included The_Blue_Marble, which was reverted by Mark Dingemanse, who suggested that the image included should be 'pretty'. Any ideas for an icon? Existing images/Suggested design?-- Ec5618 08:42, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

It looked like this:

This article is geographically limited: the general perspectives and/or specific examples represent a limited worldview. Please edit this page to reduce systemic bias.

I thought it was pretty. -- Ec5618 10:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

OK, actually it's not that bad, so I reverted myself. But what I meant is that most of the other Talk page templates have a pretty icon, so having a satellite picture is not very consistent with the general layout of the others. I'm OK with keeping this one until we perhaps find a better one. Thanks for you sensible way of handling this; sorry for being impatient and treading on your toes :). — mark ✎ 10:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Biased wording?

RickK has been the wording of the template to be biased. He feels that "the general perspectives and/or specific examples represent a limited worldview." is harsh, and offensive to editors. His response was to remove the 'offensive' text.

This article is geographically limited. Please edit this page to reduce systemic bias.

I feel that geographically limited is not self-explanatory. To avoid the perception of bias, I have reworded the template:

This article is geographically limited, as it does not represent a full worldview. Please edit this page to reduce systemic bias.

-- Ec5618 18:55, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah whatever. Like Peregrine said on TfD, "interpreting this as somehow "anti-western" is perverse". The previous wording was better because it was more explanatory. The "general perspectives and/or specific examples" part was simply more clear. I would support going back to the pre-RickK version, because RickK in my opinion has failed to explain what was 'POV' and 'offensive' about it in the first place. — mark ✎ 22:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for TWO personal attacks. The first one being, that the author of any article that this extremely biased template is slapped onto must either be retarded or prejudiced, and then the attack on me for being "perverse" because I see it as biased and all of you good, anti-Western, anti-imperialists only see it as trying to right the wrongs done by the capitalist world. RickK 23:01, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and "yeah whatever" is certainly meaningful dialogue. RickK 23:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've responded to this points at my Talk. — mark ✎ 23:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Please don't attack the users of this template with unfounded claims of anti-western bias. This template isn't anti-anything, it's pro-covering the topic from all regions and cultures. It has very little to do with politics. Please provide a reference to the person who made the "retarded or predjudiced" claim, as they clearly misunderstand this template as much as you do. Joe D (t) 23:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - your speculations about motivation are not only irrelevant, but way off the mark. Can you get back on topic and explain calmly why you dislike this wording? I agree with Ec5618 and Mark D that simply removing the text in question leaves it unclear. I suspect your objection to it is that you see "limited worldview" as implying some kind of accusation, interpreting "worldview" metaphorically rather than literally. - Mustafaa 23:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Neither are personal attacks. And I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not consider myself to be anti-Western, anti-imperialists. Indeed, I could reverse your argument at this point, and 'thank' you for that unfounded slanderous attack.

The template is A) used on talk pages and B) useful. Indeed, if I were to author an article I knew was going to turn out geographically biased, I would want to place this template myself.

I interpreted mark's "Yeah whatever" to mean that he was not going to pursue the matter agressively, but still wanted to make his feelings clear.

Finally, several people have commented on your edits to this template; none of them agree with you. While you might find it satisfying to thing of all of 'us' as 'anti-something, please don't call us 'names'. -- Ec5618 23:24, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't attack the users of this template with unfounded claims of anti-western bias. Then don't use the wording on this template to attack the editor(s) of the article it's slapped onto as biased towards a particular viewpoint, which is what this wording does. And don't take me to task for calling people names, when just above there, I am being called "perverse". And please note, none of the articles I've worked on have had this template slapped on them, so it's definitely not a personal thing. It's just so obviously, blatantly, an attack on the original author, and I fail to understand how you don't see that. RickK 23:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

And don't take me to task for "calling names" when User:Pcb21 said, over on the tfd page: Finally, I think there is a small amount of deliberately disrupting WP to make a point in this nomination. Anyone who's interacted with RickK is likely to know that his attitude is not likely to sit comfortably with CSB project members attitudes. Part of the reason for this nomination was to take a pop at those people. RickK 23:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not taking you to task for it, I'm just asking who did it so we can explain to them what the template is really about. The only reason I asked you is because you mentioned it. This is so obviously not an attack on the original author. Authors are expected to present a topic from the aspect they know, if we asked them to do anything else Wikipedia wouldn't be anywhere near as successfully as it is. The template flags articles that only present information about a subject in a limited number of regions so that the CSB project can come and do some research and fill in the missing regions, not as a way of attacking the people who have contributed high-quality info on their own region. Joe D (t) 23:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I've never been called anti-American before. I'm totally lost at how you could possible interpret it this way but then, that seems to be mutual. I regret offending you by citing Peregrine's comment out of context. I'm honestly sorry. — mark ✎ 23:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Mark, I appreciate your apology. RickK 23:41, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I also strongly object to the use of "systemic bias", but that's a lost cause amongst the anti-American crowd. RickK 23:32, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

RickK, I just do not see what it is about this wording you think accuses anybody of being "biased towards a particular viewpoint". Neither, apparently, does anyone else here. I do think the wording is a bit odd - "limited worldview" is no more self-explanatory that "limited geographic scope" - but accusatory? As to the persistent accusations of anti-Americanism, I for one find them offensive as well as obviously irrelevant. Can we please stay on topic here? - Mustafaa 23:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. The topic is the biased wording of the template. How are we going to fix it? RickK 23:41, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I still see no bias to fix. I do see an unclear explanation which could leave the reader little wiser than he was to start with, however. I think the wording: "the general perspectives and/or specific examples do not adequately cover all relevant parts of the world" might be clearer, although it might also leave the misconception that the coverage has to be all, rather than representative of the global situation. - Mustafaa 23:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

How about something like, "The article in its present state does not reflect its wider application to other parts of the world"? Something not so clunky as that but in that general direction. RickK 23:49, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

RickK, you were not called names in this Talk page. Another editor was quoted. And he/she did not call you perverse, but rather called what they saw as a twisting of words as being 'perverse' (my interpretation). It is you that chooses to interpret the comment as both offensive and directed.

And, assuming systemic bias exists, geographic bias must also exist. It would then logically follow that a template regarding it would not be out of place, nor biased.

Also, I can't resist asking. Have you ever considered that you might not believe systemic bias exists because you're an American? Most editors on en.Wikipedia are (native) English speaking males. So, the feelings of a specific Maori tribe will probably not be as well represented as 'your/our' feelings.

The topic at hand is the suggested biased wording of the template, as suggested by RickK. While most ofter editors in this discussion, and on the TFD page seem to disagree, we should try to accomodate all views. Mustafaa, do you have any suggestions for wording?-- Ec5618 23:49, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

People, let's at least stop the unilateral reverting of each other's unilateral reversions. We should know better than to start an edit war over this. — mark ✎ 23:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

My suggested wording, something like: "This article currently describes the topic as applicable to a limited number of regions or cultures, if you know more about this topic please expand it." Joe D (t) 00:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I like this. I can live with this. RickK 19:04, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I like Kappa's wording; it's more concise, and I think clearer, than the original. - Mustafaa 16:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see Kappa's wording. Where is it? RickK 19:04, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Mine is this "The perspective and/or examples in this article do not represent a world-wide view. Please edit this page to improve its geographical balance ." It's intended to be the same but shorter, and without the word 'bias'. However something like Joe D's is probably better IMO, except it needs a link to WP:CSB somewhere. Kappa 19:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

An alternative wording

Although I voted to keep this template, I do have problems with the current wording (and some of the suggested rewordings) as well as the current link for the template. First of all, I think that the wording focuses too much on what is missing, when it should be emphasizing what can be added. Below is a rough example of the direction I think the text should take:

The topic of this article is relevant to many areas or cultures in the world. Please help improve it by adding additional examples or viewpoints to the article.

The other problem that I have is the CSB link. Although I think that it is a worthwhile project, it still has some of the anti-Western accusatory tone of the CSB founder (also, how active is the CSB currently?). I think that it would be much better to have the link go to a new page that would point to all of the internationally oriented resources on the Wikipedia, such as CSB, plus the various Regional Notice Boards and Collaborations of the Week, and also include some useful links to other resources of information on the internet. BlankVerse ∅ 10:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Also: I don't know that much about writing templates—is there a way to force this template to add a ToDo list? This would be a good way of helping keep track of what different editors think should be added to the article. BlankVerse ∅ 10:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

From what I know CSB is just about ticking over but since it at the moment it mainly exists to draw attention to the problem it's not going to appear as a hive of activity.Geni 16:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

To the contrary, CSB is fairly active nowadays — especially the Open Tasks template is updated frequently and it is linked to by over 50 user pages! It's listing on the Community Portal also attracts attention.

BlankVerse, could you maybe provide examples of the "anti-Western accusatory tone"? We might be able to reword it so that there's no need to change the link. CSB seems the best page to link to anyway, I think. — mark ✎ 20:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Template not for deletion

This template was nominated for WP:TFD, but the consensus was to keep it. The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/May 2005#Template:Limitedgeographicscope. Radiant_* 07:56, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Template placement

See Wikipedia:Template locations for discussion on template placement (article versus talk page). <>Who?¿? 15:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

If this template is to be placed on Talk pages, then the "discuss the issue on the talk page" mention in its text is redundant, and the associated link it creates is actually misleading.--cjllw | TALK 00:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

In about half of the articles, this template is placed on Talk, and in the other half is it placed within the article. We need to iron this out. Which way do we go? The vote mentioned above is not really decisive. I'd be for talk, because it is an editorial message. — mark ✎ 09:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ironic

I find it slightly ironic that this template is called "Globalize", which is itself a non-worldwide English spelling (compare to "Globalise"). Not that I think it should be changed, I just think it is a little amusing. Batmanand | Talk 00:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a little more than slight. Even though the page on commonweath spelling says that the -ize spelling is an acceptable alternative in Australia, I havn't actually seen any Australian use it... ever. Not once. 58.162.236.154 12:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, violate WP:POINT and create a duplicate "Globalise" version. Or better, create redirects that lead here. Seriously though, US bias on Wikipedia goes a lot further than spelling - it's about articles on global phenomena that focus on the differences between Pennsylvania and New York, or articles on crops that contain endless statistics from the US ("In the United States, 4,000,000 pounds of Magic Cruft Cheese are harvested each year..."). Btw I agree with the anon's comment - ever since people became aware that -ize = American, the rest of the world tends to avoid it. Stevage 16:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither of us said that we were going to do anything about it, we just thought it was ironic... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.162.236.154 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

The situation's only irony pertains to the belief that English spellings fall into the categories of "American English" and "worldwide English." When last I checked, the U.S. was part of the world. —David Levy 05:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why, whatever did give you that idea? The template is about globalisation, and is spelled with American english, which is ironic. I realise it would be just as ironic for an American if it were 'globalise'

"breaks edit link"

Breaks in what way? As coded, the template's behaviour is not internally consistent: some links are namespace-qualified, and others aren't, in such a way that if used on a non-namespace page, the edit links points to a different page from the rest. (If it's not intended to be used on non-mainspace pages, why the other namespace qualifiers?) Alai 01:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry for the late reply, I just got back from lunch. The edited template was returning a malformed url link; perhaps the doubled colon was the problem, as I don't think I've seen a colon function with the form {{localurl:: (with the second colon) in the documentation before. Then again, I'm hardly an expert, just saw that the new revision wasn't working. Ziggurat 02:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, OK, I must not have tested on a sufficient variety of usages; seemed to work first thing on the page I was "fixing" it for, so I assumed it was fine. I'll have another bash in due course, unless some template-coding maven is able to step in first to help out... Alai 03:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Politeness

It might be better if the template included a "please", or at the very least, didn't imply the reader's mandatory duty to globalize the article. This should also be taken into account for international wikipedia (politeness in other languages) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.100.35.58 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

New template for Northern Hemisphere/3rd world...

One of the biggest problems with Wikipedia, as I see it, is that it is generally edited by people from the Northern Hemisphere and from 1st world countries. Any objections to creating a new template reading "This article or section deals primarily with first-world countries and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page."? Mikker ^(...) 02:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. wikipedia needs to be NPOV, i mean actually NPOV. -- Zondor 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. -- Ansett 08:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Caution. The reason for this bias has more to do with where the writers of reliable sources are from than where WP editors are from. And the former problem is unsolvable, because WP:NOR trumps WP:NPOV in this case. Dhaluza 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted a few unused ones

What's with the profusion of specific globalize templates of late? Using {{globalize}} and being specific on talk is much more useful and productive. I have deleted four templates which were not used (/Muslim, /Catholic, /Christian, and /Israel); more pruning might be needed. See the recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#Dealing_primarily_with_Western_world. Crossposting what I said there:

Quite frankly, I have always been sceptic about the effect of employing more specific tags as opposed to the general {{globalize}}. The most important thing, to my mind, is to be specific on the talk page. Simply tagging an article and moving along doesn't work; when tagging, one should always explain where the problem lies, and if possible sketch how the problem may be solved.

The tags go on talk. Now, the talk page isn't a place for cleanup tags, it is primarily a place for discussion. Almost everyone ignores cleanup tags if no further information is provided. Some even remove them. Thus, the point is not so much which tags exist and which don't; the point is how we use them.

In short, we should keep thinking about the effectiveness of our tags. I believe the effect is strongly reduced when we create a 'tag forest' of specific templates (this is also the reason that specific NPOV templates are discouraged, and why {{NPOV}} is used widely). Discussing is more effective than tagging. — mark ✎ 07:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Examples vs. Perspectives

I'm deleting this tag from Child marriage, as while I concede that there needs dramatically more examples from other regions, the article itself is rather balanced. I think the template needs to be reworked so that examples and perspectives aren't always lumped together. Xiner (talk, email) 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Globalize/Christian

What about adding a new template to tag "Christian-centric" articles? --BMF81 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I second the motion. --Atlantima (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, you second the motion? Senator - I object! Actually, I do have have an objection - I don't think that the christian centric template would be used enough, I mean it could just be that I'm just not thinking of any - but perhaps you could provide pages that would need the template? Because if you can't - or if you can only provide one, I think the best thing to do would just be to raise the issue on the talk page.--danielfolsom 02:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Overuse

I have seen this template applied to more and more articles where it seems pointless. Many articles do not represent a worldview because NOR limits us to published sources, and all available sources are published in one part of the world. In these cases I think it is appropriate to move the tag to the talk page, since there is nothing that editors can do to address the issue (other than to wait to see if some other published sources materialize). Having a tag on the main page should be an actionable issue that can be addressed with reasonable effort by editors. It should not be a permanent stain. Dhaluza 02:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added template usage notes to address the concerns raised above. Dhaluza 00:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Perspective vs Content

There are a few articles on which I want to place this tag; however, the phrasing of the template is wrong. The articles deal with China but with a Western-centric view. I wonder if we can get a template that refers to perspectives, so that it says "This article or section deals primarily with the views of (country)", rather than just "This article or section deals primarily with (country)". --Voidvector (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

usage note: local topics

Hi - This template sometimes gets added to articles where editors without much area of the article assume incorrectly that there is a global perspective. For instance, Category:Law has numerous articles that are specific to one or another jurisdiction's law. There is no point to putting {{globalize}} on things like "nominative use" which is a trademark law doctrine in some parts of the US. (And unfortunately it can often leave an ugly, unnecessary, distracting, and confusing-to-the-common-reader GIANT BOX on a page sometimes for years, as editor after editor feels unprepared to certify that the doctrine does not exist in other areas of the world.

I propose adding the following to the "Template usage notes":

For articles that may be local in scope with no corresponding content in other countries, do not add the template without affirmative knowledge that there is corresponding content in other countries. For instance, legal doctrines (as opposed to general principles or concepts); local historical events; etc. For these articles, simply note the appropriate local context in the lede.

--Lquilter 14:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the usage notes adequately address this case, but in a more succinct rather than direct way. Dhaluza 15:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the current guidance is apparently too oblique, because I've had to pull "globalize" tags off of articles about specific legal jurisdictions where the tags weren't appropriate. And when I tried to explain why, I wasn't really able to get any help from the guidance on the "globalize" template. Is there any reason why we shouldn't also include something more direct? ...

In other words, what I don't see on this tag anywhere is a recognition that some topics are not global topics. The current guidance recognizes that we can remove the tag if there are no sources, but that's a rather different matter. What about Some topics are inherently local, not global, and should not receive the "globalize" tag. That's succinct, I think.

--Lquilter 16:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The why is simple: it's not actionable. But to determine this does require some research. Using your example, why is "nominative use" only valid in some parts of the U.S.? Did other jurisdictions in the U.S. or worldwide reject it, and if so why? I don't think there are any topics that are inherently local. But if there are no sources with a global view, we can't manufacture one per WP:NOR so the point is moot, and the tag should be removed (after doing the research). Your proposal assumes foreknowledge of global views, which is really a case of WP:SOFIXIT. Dhaluza 17:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I can better explain the problem for legal topics. There is a useful distinction between "doctrines", which are specific rules developed out of specific laws & cases; and, say, "principles" or "concepts". Obviously things like "rights" or "property" are general concepts and principles; these are, indeed, universal topics of global significance that would very likely have unique local variants. "Free expression" and "property" should have information about how these concepts are treated around the world not just in any one jurisdiction. But, for instance, there are all sorts of legal doctrines that are notable that are simply based in one jurisdiction's law. "Nominative use" for example was made up by courts in the 9th Circuit in the US. It was never "rejected" by other courts in the world; it's just not part of their law. Perhaps there are analogous concepts, but "nominative use" is not a generic name for the concept (at least not right now); it is the name of a specific legal doctrine that is rooted in US law. It is very likely that every body of law is going to have specific local doctrines for which there will be no counterparts in other bodies of law. I'm very interested in working on articles about topics and concepts of law that are global, but to just decree that "nominative use" is a global concept and go looking for counterparts in other bodies of law that are not called "nominative use" is, at best, original research. Does all this make sense? --Lquilter 17:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think the issue is specific to legal doctrines, and we don't need a specific reference in the usage notes to every possible subject area. The basic issue is that you go as far as the available reliable sources will take you, and no further. A little extra research has provided sourcing for a more narrow definition, which should address the worldview issue. But it looks like other circuits may have rejected, or at least modified the doctrine, and legal scholars have provided critical commentary of the doctrine. This is certainly relevant, and should be included in the article to provide a NPOV, otherwise this article would just be a content fork from the 9th circuit court's POV. Dhaluza 20:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• [B]ut I don't think the issue is specific to legal doctrines. Neither do I. Since you don't like either of the two other versions I proposed, then perhaps simply clarifying the existing language will solve the problem I have observed. Splitting the second bullet point (which two points don't really seem to belong together anyway) into two separate notes, and clarifying the "actionable" language into something that's a little more descriptive would help. For instance:
• These tags should only be applied to articles where there are global issues.
• These tags are not a badge of shame.

That preserves the current set of materials but explains "actionable"; since you described that as covering my concern, this would be a fairly small change to clarify. Thoughts? And, if you don't like this, would you please propose some alternative to address the problem?

--Lquilter 14:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, per lack of objection to my last proposal, I made the (relatively) minor change of splitting one of the bullet points on the usage guidelines into two. The new wording is:
  • These tags should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist.
  • These tags should not be used as a badge of shame.

The old wording was:

• • These tags should only be applied to articles where the concerns are actionable — They should not be used as a badge of shame.

Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)