Template talk:Globalize/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Include an image? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "breaks edit link" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Politeness 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New template for Northern Hemisphere/3rd world... 

message: What's with the profusion of specific globalize templates of late? Using  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 . 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  is used widely). Discussing is more effective than tagging. — mark ✎ 07:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted a few unused ones 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Examples vs. Perspectives 

message: What about adding a new template to tag "Christian-centric" articles? --BMF81 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the motion. --Atlantima (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Globalize/Christian

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Perspective vs Content