Template talk:Use

	This template falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
	This template falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
	For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Is there a reason the Globalize template is here?

{{Globalize}} doesn't really belong in the family of Use templates, as it has a different purpose. Also, in the situation that someone were to simply swap the parameter in an existing call of this template, it would introduce an MOS:ORDER issue. I'd recommend removing that option, as it should significantly reduce confusion around why we created this template. (Pinging page creator Edward-Woodrow.) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation updated. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separate calls

@Cremastra, is there a specific reason why datevar and engvar can't be called in one template, other than the design only using one switch statement? I suppose I don't see why this template couldn't be used following it to its logical conclusion—one place as a catch all for potentially more specific consensus in a given article. I know people would think to do odd things with that, but I still think it's a fine idea especially since we already have this here. Remsense ‥ 论 01:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason is that I didn't know how to do that when I bashed together this template. I will look into coding this tomorrow. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense, were you thinking something like this? Cremastra (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]