Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

International relations Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

	Edit requests
This page is the within the scope of WikiProject Edit requests, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's edit request process and reduce the number of edit requests in the edit request queue.Edit requestsWikipedia:WikiProject Edit requestsTemplate:WikiProject Edit requestsEdit requests articles

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

"… specifically for the US"? In the UK, "-ise" is probably the most common spelling. But the UK's most famous UK dictionaries are from Oxford University Press, which assert "-ize" to be the preferred spelling (their dictionaries list both "-ize" and "-ise" where appropriate, but place "-ize" first). Publishers who follow Oxford in their house style will therefore use "-ize". Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tony has apparently resolved this by disabling autolinking. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Good work. Can you update the template documentation? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Established editors can edit semiprotected pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. 58.11.240.151 (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

| 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Will fix this now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is fixed to reflect "section" when {{globalize|section|date=whatever}} is used now, but the edit link still applies to the whole article; off the top of my head, I can't think of what markup to use to locate the section in which the globalize template is placed.

Since this user is no longer active on Wikipedia, if anyone can point me to a maintenance template that provides a link to the exact section in which it's placed when |1=section is used, I'd be able to import the section link markup used in that template and add that functionality here. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note there is a {{Globalize section}} template. It might be good to add this to See also. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

If anyone else wants this, please voice your support (and {{ping}} me); I'll create {{Globalize-inline}} if at least a handful of people would find it useful. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it would be useful. It is a standard part of the toolkit for other issues. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Please do, Seppi333. I came here looking for one. Sometimes information is probably good globally (availabilty of COVID-19 test types) but only explicitly sourceable for some regions at first. HLHJ (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ, Seppi333, and Rich Farmbrough: Seems like there is consensus for such a template. How do you imagine it should look? ^[globalize]? ^{[globalize – discuss]}? ^{[euro-centric]}/^{[america-centric]}? Maybe something else? This question has to be answered before a template can be made. --Trialpears (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trialpears, I'd be happy with ^[globalize], and a "reason=" parameter giving a mouse-over text. I can forsee some problems from putting the centricity in the display text; for instance, it's not uncommon to have things refer only to the UK and the US, but "sub-set-of-the-Anglosphere-centric" seems a bit longwinded and vague. We could have "from=" parameters, "from=US" for US-centric, "from=EU" for eurocentric, "from=US, UK" (can one comma-separate parameters?) for my example, and so on. A few synonyms to document as they get used, but they'd be machine-readable and sortable. A "from" parameter seems like an improvement that could be added to the basic template later, though. HLHJ (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HLHJ, if the -centric solution is used it would probably use the same system as the categorization which has several aliases for each region. If the template doesn't specify an area or the area isn't recognized it would fall back to globalize. Categories for reference: Category:Articles with limited geographic scope. --Trialpears (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trialpears, that sounds good. Glad the aliases are already in existence; thank you for the link. I'd be happy with the centricity going into the mouseover text, and being used to categorize the page, but perhaps under some circumstances it might be better to have^[US-centric]-type texts, to make centricity more easily visible. Not fashed either way; if this is purely a matter of display format, then if it turns out problematic we can modify it automatically. We could even give editors the option of either form. HLHJ (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HLHJ, I think it's desirable to have the country/region in the tag if possible since mouseover text doesn't really work on mobile and since it may be useful for readers to know. That being said I've created the template. Further changes can be discussed at the talk page. --Trialpears (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Trialpears; I like the way you've done it. I hadn't thought of use by mobiles. If I have any problems, I'll post at Template talk:Globalize-inline, but so far so good. I've added it to some meta pages. HLHJ (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed merging this template with all its sub templates. Please participate in the discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new version of the template in the sandbox that use a large switch block to correctly categorize and display calls with terms such as the United States, US, European, DE and a lot more for various reasonable inputs. This is non-breaking and I have tested it without finding any issues. I'll leave this here for a week and if no one objects submit an edit request. -- Trialpears (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a looong week but now I've added an edit request. --Trialpears (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks.  Done — JFG ^talk 16:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this use case on Legal guardian as of 26 February 2020. I've added the parameter to Template:Globalize/sandbox. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trialpears: Just added the TemplateData for this template. In a month's time (1 April), we'll have full usage data for everyone using "reason", so we can see if it really needs an addition. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be added, having only just discovered that it isn't functional. A problem with usage data is that it could underestimate how much the parameter would be used if it were made functional since some people who intend to use the parameter might decide against it when they discover that it isn't functional (that's what I was about to do before I saw this discussion). TompaDompa (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the reminder. You would be surprised at how many changes have been proposed but never implemented. --Trialpears (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The code

{{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|section|section|article}}

should be replaced with

{{{1|article}}}

in line with the rest of the template.

No reason why that part should forcibly say "article" unless the type value is "section" but the other part not. Both should say whatever the type value says or "article" if not specified.

I've added the fix to the sandbox (but it contains other edits that aren't part of this request).

Here are the testcases (bottom of the page to see the issue). · • SUM1 • · (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor SUM1:  done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 12:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's an irony that a template called "Globalize" forcibly uses the serial comma, not common in Britain.

For articles not using the serial comma (or for personal preference), I've added a serial-comma-removing parameter to the sandbox, which can be viewed at the bottom of the test cases. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trialpears Rich Farmbrough Seppi333 Views? · • SUM1 • · (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I pretty much loathe commas and often omit them even when I probably shouldn't. So while not a friend of the serial comma, I really don't know what the "global" usage should be. Perhaps an option for its use is the way to go as is seen in the sandbox? I'll leave that to the editors who have expertise in the globalness of the serial comma. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: I'm not sure if there has been a misunderstanding, but I'll clarify anyway; I was referring to the grammar of the message inside the template, not a variant of the template. The template itself uses the serial comma. Those are the changes that are in the sandbox diff and testcases. The new parameter allows the user to omit the serial commas from the template message. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this is dangerously self-referential! The Oxford comma has caused more and bloodier wars...

I don't know that we should be worrying about it too much. I would be cool with removing the comma completely. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: It's less of a "worry" and more of a nice-to-have add-on. It just sits well when the template is in line with the English standard of the article. It's only a harmless parameter; don't see any reason why it shouldn't be added. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to stop you. Serial comma in this case is pointless IMHO, but it's not something I would bother disputing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 09:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

English Wikipedia almost completely eschews USA in favour of US, apart form the cat for this template. We used to have both, but one was made into a redirect, I suggest the wrong one, and propose to make Category:USA-centric the redirect to Category:US-centric. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Every article that has the {{globalize|article|US}} tag shows up in Category:Pages in non-existent country centric categories (for example, when I made this edit). It should show up in Category:United States-centric. Is this something fixable? Coldspur (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coldspur Fixed now. The cause was an untested change to {{globalize/name}} which tried adding them to Category:The United States-centric instead of Category:United States-centric. I've requested page protection to avoid this happening in the future. --Trialpears (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please change

|the west
|western
|western culture
|west=Western culture

to

|the west
|western
|western culture
|western world
|the western world
|west=Western culture

because "the Western world" is used in Anti-imperialism. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 09:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template should include the Philippines (with proper support for "the"). It is used on Australia–Philippines relations. Numberguy6 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put a post up on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) with the name above. It may have been moved to a different area if I got the categorization wrong. I welcome your comments, and perhaps you will change my mind about the template. -- Kjkolb (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

taking the current line numbering the key 'english' appears twice in the first #switch statement, lines 16 and 52

#switch always take the first occurrence, so english => Anglophone

The second occurrence would give english => England

I am not sure which one should be removed, but one of them should be. Desb42 (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. an article on a technology that primarily discusses its use in the US and only briefly mentions its use outside the US. Would this template be appropriate to place there? Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be some formatting and grammar errors, like extra spaces, like in Screw § Differentiation between bolt and screw Pksois23 (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]