Template talk:Globalize section

Requested move 13 March 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) sst✈  08:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Globalise-section → Template:Globalize section – Remove ungrammatical hyphenation (this is one of the only section templates left with "-section" instead of " section"); consistent spelling with the rest of the templates in the series (Globalize, Globalize country, Globalize/Common law, Globalize/Eng, Globalize/Southern, Globalize/West, and all the Globalize/Australia – Globalize/US country-specific ones. I have nothing against the Commonwealth spelling, we just don't need a lone template with divergent orthography; it's a maintenance headache.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like an uncontroversial move, and makes sense in Wikipedia backstage formatting. Randy Kryn 18:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Aye, technically it's uncontro, and I thought of listing it for speedy RM, but I'm wary any time there's a slight whiff of WP:ENGVAR in the air. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Per op. Speedy RM would be ok.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:21, 14 March 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 21 March 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Per this discussion, Philg88 was not objecting to the move request made pursuant to the above RM, but recusing himself from performing it; after the discussion he ended up performing it, per the close above. Therefore, this is moot. (Non-admin closure.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Globalise-section → Template:Globalize section – Per RM, see talk page – sst✈  08:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that this isn't uncontroversial. Yes, I know there's been an RM discussion but it has only two support !votes, which doesn't appear to me a swingeing consensus. Some editors are particularly sensitive re the WP:ENGVAR issue and I'd like to see a wider discussion. Philg88 ♦talk 10:34, 21 March 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redirect
The redirect to was clunky and ill thought out. Remaining uses of this template will show as "This article is in need of.." rather than "This section...". It has always been considered good practice to use these "section" templates as wrappers with the set to "section". If anyone can change this, it would be a good idea. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC).


 * I have made this a wrapper as above. Note that it does not need de-subst code, as subst'ing will simply invoke a correctly parameterised