Wikipedia talk:Babel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Pending Deletion Discussion: Template:User en-6

This section is to debate implementing Template:User en-6 into Babel as an only-for English, due to the fact that level six would show professor-level skill to contribute, which is not needed in other languages.

Question What is "professorial" as applied to language proficiency? It doesn't seem to have any meaning distinct from "professional level". Paul Koning 21:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply I think from previous discussions we agreed that it meant exactly what the explanation page says - that you can confidently tell whether a certain sentence/part of a sentence is correct, plus you know the literary language - words that most people will never or seldom come across. Maybe it could use a better explanation, but I think the current one is OK. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Question I looked for "professorial" and don't find it. And I don't find an explanation. What "previous discussion" and what "explanation page" are you referring to? Most of the relevant pages don't show level 6. The wikilink on "-6" goes to descriptive linguistics which isn't obviously relevant. The link on the word "professorial" goes to the en-6 page. It says that it's between "en" and "en-5". But if it implies skill with the literary language, that isn't necessarily true; arguably it's "higher" than level "en". Then again, the description for en-5 mentions the literary language.

Comment So part of my comment is that it's not clear to me this level has meaning, and part of the comment is that there is no description of what it is supposed to mean. At least, no such description can easily be found. Paul Koning 22:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Go to Wikipedia:Babel/Levels. Also look in the archived discussions on this page. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I see now. It was in Wikipedia:Babel/Levels but was reverted [1]. And as you said in the reversion comment, it seems the same as en-5, and it wasn't discussed. Indeed I can't find any mention of it anywhere on the talk page, including the archives. Maybe I overlooked it, but if so it was pretty inconspicuous.

It seems to me that the current list (not including en-6) is already a partial order even though it claims to be a complete order. (For example, en-5, and for that matter arguably en-4, is not necessarily "lower than" en.) If I understand en-6 right (not clear) it's not necessarily higher than en-5, or even en-4, nor lower than en... Paul Koning 16:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment The xx (native) level is equivalent to xx-4 as far as writing goes. This is what the description for xx-4 says. xx-5 should usually be higher than simply xx, as it claims professional proficiency (by far most native speakers are not professionals). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Question So is en-6 in or out? It was added in a few places, then reverted in most but not all of them. Right now it exists in the main article. But there is no discussion, and there is no explanation. Maybe it would be best to complete the reversion until/unless there's some consensus that (a) it should be added, and (b) what it means. Also, if it is to be added it really needs to be added for more than just one language!

Comment As for "native" == "xx-4", that makes sense to me. But that's not what I read on the en-6 page; it says that en-6 is greater than en-5 (doubtful) and less than en (clearly incorrect). Paul Koning 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply Yes I agree it shouldn't say it is less than en, that is probably the mistake of someone who came across it and was unknowledgeable in the subject. -Sox207 19:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Just to clarify, en-6 was a level added unilaterally by User:Sox207, and is not endorsed by WP:BABEL officially. This discussion is primarily for the purpose of establishing whether it will or will not be endorsed by WP:BABEL. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The userbox was already made so I thought it needed an explanation. -Sox207 19:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep No no no, professional means that you are up to the level of using English in your everyday life and must use it well for that purpose. Professorial means that you and an English professor, or you have a major in English language, etc., a way to say that you have the highest level of knowledge pertaining to the English language that you can. -Sox207 21:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply As I told you before, I don't think you understand what the word professional means. It certainly does not mean just 'up to the level of using English in your everyday life'. This is xx-4 (near-native). Professional is a level above that, and should be the highest level. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply But professional means "following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain" as such it is unclear if you are using it for any profession that uses English, or an English major, or anything that would need such a level of English. Near-native means that you might use the language in everyday life, but maybe not, because you would be using your native language as the primary. As such near-native also may not be usage in everyday life 100%. -Sox207 19:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per my comments above. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It has no plausible meaning. To the extent that it means "English major" or the like, that doesn't imply anything about the level of language use competence -- it most definitely doesn't mean the person has higher than en-5 skill (or even en-4 skill). Paul Koning 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Also would a level 5 speaker know everything in Template:Linguistics? -Sox207 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Look here, the deciding power stated one difference between the two. -Sox207 17:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Reply I looked there. It doesn't state the difference in a way that I can find. Who is the "deciding power" and what did he/she claim the difference is? I see a vague comment about linguistics. Linguistics is an interesting field but it's not directly related to competence in English. In any case, the biggest problem is that the other levels are pretty much a total order: the higher the number the higher the skill. That is absolutely not true with en-6 -- it is not the case that academics working on English have superior writing skills than people who make their living writing (which is what en-5 means to me). A few do; I know some. But many, perhaps most, do not. Paul Koning 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Reply By deciding power I meant the admin who closed the discussion, I will quote what he said in a second but I still stand by one of my last comments:

"But professional means "following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain" as such it is unclear if you are using it for any profession that uses English, or an English major, or anything that would need such a level of English. Near-native means that you might use the language in everyday life, but maybe not, because you would be using your native language as the primary. As such near-native also may not be usage in everyday life 100%."

• And I would say that people who work with English in academics would most definitely have superior grammar/spelling skills in most cases, actually if you are talking about people who write for a living, then you would include authors with them, and one thing I have come across while reading is that there are a collection of authors who don't follow grammatical rules in their writing. As such someone who writes as a profession would not always be better than someone who works in academics. -Sox207 15:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI: User:Sox207 was a sock of an indefinitely blocked user, and has also been indefinitely blocked. Please feel free to close the discussion as you feel is appropriate. - jc37 13:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't make sense to me. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 08:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Professional' pretty much covers it. Emil Kastberg (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, along with en-5. They are both unnecessary and confusing. See discussion below at Wikipedia_talk:Babel#.22Professional.22_level_.28xx-5.29. -Eric ^talk 13:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Nervous about latest edit comment

The new Babelbox is no less "agenda-pushing" than the old one; I fail to see how Polish or Dutch "reflects the reality" of this project better than Swedish or Norwegian. The other language choices I can understand (since they're among the most widely spoken ones worldwide, not just on Wikipedia). But if the sample box should conform to a NPOV rule, I think the sample boxes should list languages from one or more of the following categories:

1. Artificial languages not associated with a real-world country (such as Lojban or Solresol).
2. "Official" languages of an international group like the UN (results would be similar to the "greatest number of speakers" list).
3. Extinct languages with no living offshoots (such as Gothic or Ancient Egyptian).

If the recent edit was not meant to promote NPOV...I still maintain that the "reality" of Wikipedians' language skills is constantly changing as accounts get added, dropped or blocked. Besides, a language which is useful for one topic may be irrelevant to another: knowing Polish may help someone find good sources if he's writing about Lech Walesa, but Swedish would be more appropriate for finding critiques of Ingmar Bergman's films. For articles with no obvious cultural slant, then any language with a Wikipedia of its own is useful if one of knows enough to translate some necessary text.

--Ingeborg S. Nordén 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted that edit as frivolous. To me, some harmless idiosyncracy is not NPOV, and the attempt to sanitize it is a road to ridiculous. Thanks, Cliche, for the attempt, but I think it's better to nip that in the bud. --Homunq 14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just been re-reverted by User:Codex Sinaiticus, I personally think this is a bad idea and actually a road to more argument not less, but OK. --Homunq 17:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the main page should include a disclaimer like this one: "The languages in the sample Babelbox, and the order in which they appear, were chosen arbitrarily. Their presence does not mean that Wikipedia editors consider those languages better or more important than other languages not listed." Otherwise, the chances for a reversion war (or more editing to include a different language list) are fairly high; I'm requesting to have the Babel page protected and warn new users about the hot debate here. --Ingeborg S. Nordén 21:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest putting the disclaimer as a comment in the wikicode. I wouldn't call this debate "hot" but I'm glad it's getting admin attention. Either way, no hard feelings. --Homunq 21:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken! If I knew how to write Wikicode comments, I would do just that; could you give me a hand with that, please? (I'm not an admin myself, but I'll ask them to protect the page if a reversion war breaks out for real.) --Ingeborg S. Nordén 22:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's like HTML: <!-- comment -->, see mediawiki on comment. I'm not going to revert this again so it's up to you. --Homunq 15:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I reworded my disclaimer for clarity's sake; the comment I'm now adding to the main page (minus the Wikicode) reads as follows--

(1) The languages in the sample Babelbox were chosen arbitrarily. They illustrate ONLY the rules of Babelbox coding, NOT typical skills in the Wikimedia community or the outside world.

(2) The ranking scale used in Babelboxes describes ONLY fluency in those languages, not the relative value of those languages to Wikimedia or the outside world. Like any real user's Babelbox, the sample lists some languages higher than others...not because those languages are inherently better, but because the sample speaker knows them better. The absence of any specific language, similarly, does not imply that it is inherently worse than the ones listed.

Does the text above sound clear and neutral enough for the next editor to understand? Please let me know! (The sample box is now a compromise between the old version and the newer ones, BTW: our hypothetical speaker is still a native Swede, BUT one who's a bit less eccentric about what he's learned.) --Ingeborg S. Nordén 19:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In your edit summary, you called that a "compromise". But I thought a "compromise" meant something that had been agreed by two or more parties. Not something that was unilateral on one party and as you put it, "arbitrarily chosen". And I like to assume good faith but something tells me it is not so arbitrary, Ingeborg... Why is it so all-fired important to have a Scandinavian language at the top? If it were truly "arbitrary", you would let a computer pick a random language from the entire list, and end up with languages like Telugu or Guarani on the sample chart. This isn't at all an "arbitrary" list, the criterion we keep getting reverted to again and again seems to be "large, well known languages, but not the very largest - just so long as they include Scandinavian at the top"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right that I didn't practice what I preach; Swedish wouldn't even fall under the three categories I proposed as "least likely to violate NPOV". *hangs head shamefully* No matter which language gets placed where, though, someone will always suspect favoritism. No one here has a reliable way to guarantee that a replacement list is random or unbiased, so another solution comes to mind.

How would you (and other users) feel if I created five or six sample boxes with "fake" codes (letter combinations not assigned to any specific language)? The descriptive text would refer only to "Language A", "Language B", and so forth (perhaps with some "lorem ipsum"-style texts to make each box look authentically different). Since the box in the article is only a sample (not a real user profile), dummy text would do just as well to show what a Babelbox looks like and how the code numbers work. (In the meantime, I'll re-revert to your edit with the disclaimer comment added...)

--Ingeborg S. Nordén 23:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, now that's an interesting idea...! By the way, don't get me wrong, it isn't that big a deal with me either, and I have lots of more constructive things to worry about than whether Swedish is used for the first sample language or not; I was just a little curious about why it seemed so important, but never mind... Here is another idea for more of a diversity though... There are six boxes, and six inhabited continents. The only language we have a wiki for in Australia is probably English. Then, pick one other language from each of the other five. That is, one native N. Am. language, one S. Am. language, one European language, one African language, and one Asian language... That will give you a diverse array no matter what languages you picked, I think... Then we could either go with the most spoken on each continent, the biggest wiki on each continent, or whatever other method you like... What do you think? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The one-of-each system balances representation well enough, if the method for choosing each continent's language is consistent and acceptable to most users. The touchy problem of placement, though, still exists: since we're not representing a real person's skills, putting any given language first or last could still be taken as POV bias whether it was intended that way or not. (Perhaps random selection is the best way to place them fairly after we've narrowed the list down to six; anybody with a dice-rolling simulator could handle that step.)

That problem is what inspired my original comment in the first place: I originally had nothing to do with the arrangement of the sample Babelbox, which already listed that atypical assortment of languages long before I'd created an account. Because of that, I personally wouldn't know whether the original box-creator had meant his choices to promote an agenda. Still (because I have spent a good part of my life studying and writing about Sweden), I felt proud to see Swedish mentioned on any WP project page at all, in any place at all. Devoted scholars and speakers of any lesser-known language could make similar claims, of course; I'll concede that it didn't justify my taking sides in the recent edit war. (NPOV is about putting our own feelings aside, among other considerations...)

The dummy-text Babelbox alternative, too, has both advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, dummy entries look as neutral as humanly possible (if the box coder is very careful not to make his random text resemble an existing language). No matter how they're placed, no one would read that placement as an editor's ranking of preferences. Some WP project pages, furthermore, already use dummy text--such as the editing help and the redlink policy page. Since the Babel page exists mostly to explain how part of Wikipedia works, treating it like the other help pages makes sense in my opinion.

On the negative side, dummy-text boxes would still raise objections from some users. First, they may confuse new Wikipedia users (who typically can't tell which language codes are real or fake). Second, some admins may consider them "frivolous" userboxes that don't belong in template namespace. Third, even a "lorem ipsum" text may look enough like some real language to make some people suspect bias. (A coder with a random syllable selector and the right "meaningless CV-combination" list could solve the last problem, though...)

After looking at many sides of the sample-box problem, I suggest that we allow other users to vote on which selection method(s) they consider fairest. Would you object to having an admin run a poll? Please let me know soon! --Ingeborg S. Nordén 15:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

making these meta

This is a continuation of the "Move?" topic on archive 2, regarding the possibility of standardizing babel boxes across wikipedia languages. Here is the last comment there:

See this proposal on meta, although it never went anywhere. The issue has been discussed here (see above), and on TfD, at length, with no consensus. A standard policy would be great but given the tone of previous discussions it seems unlikely to me that consensus can be reached on this issue. ntennis 23:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My proposal is:

• principles: allow variation but encourage conformity

• • 1. Only levels 1-3 should be encouraged interwiki.
    2. Levels 1-5 and N should be acceptable on any wiki.
    3. personal extensions should be allowed and not break any wiki.
    • These extensions should be allowable in the form of straight variables or templates
    • There should be templates for an above- or below-own-level on idiom, style, copyediting, and comprehension

• implementation
  • Only categories for levels 1-3 should be accessible from the main category.
  • There should be orphaned categories for Levels 4,5, N, but the pages with these categories should also be directly included in category xx-3.
  • There should be orphaned categories for above- and below-own-level templates.
  • in some easy-to-use way the main babel box should pass optional variables to the templates.
    • In the simplest case, this should do a textual include: "This user has not spoken xx in some time" or whatever.
    • Or this could be some subset of above- or below-level templates ( x = "This user can reliably correct small or common errors at their level.")
      • The templates should be conventionally named something language-agnostic. For instance x and -x for copyediting, & and -& for idiom, ? and -? for comprehension, * and -* for style, and / and -/ for actively-improving. Use of ? would be discouraged except for special cases.
    • Or this could be a SINGLE template in userspace. The babelbox wikicode would notice this, check if this exists, and omit it if not, thus making a box that used this option crosswiki compatible.

Obviously, this is just a sketch of a proposal. I'm going to leave it here for comment. If you want to help me flesh this out, contact me on my talk page; otherwise, I'll just let it drop. --Homunq 16:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ILR scale is 1-5. Rich Farmbrough 10:34 24 August 2006 (GMT).

Good reference, those are good clear definitions. Sadly, as they're US-government-based, I doubt they'll be accepted as a basis for an interlanguage standard. Also the current Babel xx-1 seems to fall between 1 and 2 here. Let's model our definitions on these, but we can't use them directly.--Homunq 15:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Sample box problem...!

Okay, we are getting somewhere... (I must be bored to spend so much time on such a trivial point!)

Out of curiosity, I have checked the largest language on each of the continents, by

• a) number of speakers
• b) number of articles
• c) possibly even more relevant, number of members in the category for the template. This may be the most relevant, because it would give the advantages of using the sample templates that are the most likely to be used by someone reading the sample... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

(Using English for Australia in all of these)

A: by number of native speakers in the world (1 per continent)

Source:List of languages by number of native speakers

{{Babel|zh|es-5|en-4|am-3|qu-2|nah-1}}

B: by number of wikipedia articles:

Source:m:List of Wikipedias

{{Babel|en|de-5|ja-4|af-3|ht-2|qu-1}}

C: by number of members in the template category:

Source: Special:Mostlinkedcategories for larger ones, Wikipedia:Babel for smaller ones

{{Babel|en|fr-5|ja-4|af-3|nah-2|qu-1}}

Number of users seems like the fairest criterion to choose, considering what the template is for. (Even the first editor to comment about the original box being unfair said that he wanted to reflect what users spoke.) --Ingeborg S. Nordén 17:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Personality userboxes

Where are the personality userboxes located?--Lucy-marie 09:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Babel nomination on CfD

As many of you know, on CfD we've been converting all User categories to "Wikipedian (X)" categories. My most recent nomination concerns the proposed limitation of the Babel templates to languages (spoken or computer) only; all other categories would be normal Wikipedian categories. If you agree or disagree with this position, please post a comment there.--Mike Selinker 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

ROT13

There's no template for ROT13. Could someone make one? --Captain538 00:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Non-ISO Languages. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 22:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

can I add my spoken language's template

I speak a language, but there is no template of that language here in Babel. Can I create the new one? How? if you dont mind, please leave message on my talk page. Thanks --Nielswik 10:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you can. Go to the page with the alphabetical list of templates. Edit -> copy another list of template links (e.g. English en). Paste at the appropriate place (alphabetical), change link names etc., then preview, then save when good. Now the links (red) to your template pages exist. Go to each, e.g. English template, edit -> copy the code, go to your template page, paste. Translate the message into your language, then save. Do for each template for each Babel level. Nov ialiste 16:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a langauge that I know which has no script. How do you create a box for that?--007ketan 07:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

New level

Would a level for those who want to learn a language, but know very little of it (exemplī gratia Latina for myself), be at all of use? If not, what about a single userbox where users can specify a language? --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 23:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, I myself was just about to ask. In my case, I am involved with Hungary-related stuff on EnWiki, but I can barely speak Hungarian at all. It's not entirely correct for me to put up "hu-0", since I do know a little bit, but even "hu-1" might be an exaggeration--I am not yet functional in the language, but I am learning, and I know a bit here and there. New level please, some sort of "hu-0.5" or something? K. Lastochka 00:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea also. I suggest -l0 for 'want to learn' and -l1 for 'I'm learning, please be patient'. I can speak enough Spanish to say hello, order from a restaurant, buy groceries, ask directions, count change, get my gringo *** out of the store when asked to, etc. But just simple stuff. I can't carry on a conversation. Neither es-0 nor es-1 is accurate. I want to learn Italian at least on the same level as the Spanish I know now. I'd really like to learn Brythonic/Early Welsh, there doesn't seem to be any codes for those yet. I'm actively trying to learn Japanese. But I'm a long way from ja-1. I think having -l0 and -l1 markups (or equivalents) would be a great tool to match up users so they could practice conversing and improve their skills. In the long run, this would eventually add people to the skilled contributors for Wikipedia.--Zerothis 09:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of the "I'm learning" level. How about "textbook" as a level of fluency? As in, you know the language, but only through scholastic settings. Bear Eagleson 19:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm against a new level for 'learning or wish to learn', not out of any disrespect for those undertaking to learn a new language, but merely out of a desire for a simpler and more useful Babel system. If one isn't yet at a level where one could carry on a simple conversation, it doesn't seem particularly relevant to Wikipedia. Until one can claim xx-1, a simple note to the effect that 'I am beginning to learn xx' or 'I'd like to learn xx', without a userbox and category, ought to suffice. Alkari (?) 02:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've created a few 0.5 templates, and others seem to be catching on. I believe it is a good idea, as I myself like to learn several languages at a time, and would like to express this in my babel box. Josh 04:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Question of whether category xx-0 needed

Can I please ask why there is a category to indicate that one does not know a language at all? Given that there are an estimated 4, 000 languages in the world, statistically, the chances that are an individual Wikipedian will not know about an individual language. Surely the purpose of Babel boxes is to facilitate communication between people who at least have rudimentary knowledge of different languages? I could, if I so wished, declare that I have no knowledge of Swahili, Tekrouhian or Malay, but I am not sure how useful this knowledge would be to the majority of Wikipedia readers. ACEO 08:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Don't use it for every language that you don't know; only when there is some reason why you might be expected to know it." For example, if you claim to live in Spain on your user page, but you know nothing about the Spanish language, you can place the es-0 box on the page so people don't go submitting comments en Espanõl or asking you for translations. I, personally, use some level 0 boxes to show languages I want to learn (see the suggestion in the section above this for my proposed solution to this). Unlike the other Babel boxes, level 0 is to show what you don't know instead of what you do know. Was that at all helpful? --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 22:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that it would be extreme to post 3,000 -0 templates, but in some case the use of a limited set of -0 templates makes sense.

I will sometimes use an automated translation tool to try to communicate with a user who indicates a different native language. (I post my response in English and the automated translation with a link to the tool.) However, I don't want that person to think I understand their language at even a level 1 ability. I can't check the translation. I also participate in wiki where more than one language is used. So, sometimes it is useful for me to indicate that I do not understand one of the languages used on a wiki. (This doesn't apply to Wikipedia, but applies to other wiki that use Wikipedia as a template source.)

Other examples where it migh be useful, is if we don't have a learning template, and someone is just beginning to learn a language. Or someone with a heritage, and possibly a family name, from someplace where a language is spoken that the person does not know. Someone might know how to write their name in Chinese characters, might even understand some spoken Chinese, but not be able to read or write anything else in Chinese characters. And for the most part, these templates are more important in indicating a person's reading and writing level, that the person's speaking capabilities.

--CocoaZen 03:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I always figured the only language(s) needing a xx-0 template on each wiki was the language(s) of the wiki itself. For example, here on the English Wikipedia, only en-0 would be needed, because although many people do speak other languages, only discussion in English is widely accepted (on non-user talk pages, I mean). If you want to indicate you don't speak any other particular languages, just say so (or "grow your own" user boxes for the purpose). On the other hand, on a wiki where most discussion takes place in, say, Slovenian, Italian and Hungarian, then you'd probably need sl-0, it-0 and hu-0 templates. My opinion, anyway. - dcljr (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And in meta, you may need a lot of these boxes as well. So, since we need at least a few, there's no real reason why we shouldn't have all of the xx-0 languages. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich

Would you be interested in helping out atWikiProject Munich? And you don't have to know anything about Munich. Maybe you could help out on bringing Munich-related articles up to Wikipedia Policies and guidlines standards or maybe another area where you could help improve Munich-related articles. Kingjeff 23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

de-5

so the de-5 template was voted off by arguments not reaching beyond "same as with en-5", and yet the en-5 template was decided no consensus. to me, this sounds rediculous. either delete because of arguements why specifically the german one should be deleted (which werent really given, and at which you probably should nominate all of them), dont delete it, or delete them all.--Lygophile 04:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Far too long

This article is ridiculously long. I got totally frustrated scrolling through it. On top of that, the "contents" section is absolutely incomprehensible. Serious problem that has to be solved. I suggest breaking it up into several smaller and easier-to-understand pieces. Daniel Montin 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the table of contents is way too long — it needs a table of contents of its own! At least it can be "hidden", though. (But still…) — Ti89TProgrammer 23:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The label itself is IMO too large as well, compared to its tiny usefulness. In my case (fr|en-3|de-1) my situation is pretty obvious only by reading me: everyone sees I am French, everyone sees that I can somewhat but not natively read and write English - none sees (but at that level none needs to know) that I can some German. So the label, itself rather big, is essentially useless in my case - and in the probably millions similar ones. Hence I suggest, either to make that label drastically smaller, or better to barely remove that Babel thing, that (by bringing more complexity than help) lessens the efficiency of Wikipedia pages. --Michel Merlin (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ojibwe language userboxes

The red thingy where your "oj-3" userbox should be keeps bugging me, so I've decided to go ahead and make the necessary Ojibwe userboxes. The problem, however, is that I don't actually know enough to be sure how to word them correctly. Like, for the oj-3 box, would this be good?

oj-3	Wa'aw eyizhiid mino-Ojibwemo.

And what should I use for, say, oj-1? "Wa'aw eyizhiid bangiishenh ojibwemo"? --Miskwito 01:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How about these?

N: wa'aw enaabadizid gaagige-anishinaabemo.

4: wa'aw enaabadizid nitaa-anishinaabemo.

3: wa'aw enaabadizid mino-anishinaabemo.

2: wa'aw enaabadizid gomaa-anishinaabemo.

1: wa'aw enaabadizid bangii-anishinaabemo.

0: wa'aw enaabadizid anishinaabemosiin.

The reason I chose inaabadizi over ayizhii is because when I looked at other languages to see how they translated "User" and in my opinion inaabadizi was the closer in idea. Also, I would suggest at least three two lines per user box:

ᐊᓂᔑᓇᐯᒧᐎᓐ

Anishinaabemowin

English

or at least that is just a thought. Now, of course, this automatically brings in scripting biases since not all users learn/use the Fiero Double Vowel Roman orthography and not all users know/use UCAS Eastern A-finals with pre-glyph W-dot. The reason I haven't made the templates for the user language boxes is because of these very issues. One might be fluent in speaking the language but very poor in expressing things in writing and then there are new generation of speakers (mainly the second-language speakers) who insist on a "standard orthography" and there is no such thing as a pan-Anishinaabemowin "standard orthography". Then there is the next issue of dialectual differences. After I put in the user language code for Dakota, I thought about Ojibwe and thought instead of the two-digit ISO 639-1 code, maybe the three-digit ISO/FDIS 639-3 code would be better, because the implied scripting biases presented in the user language box would be minimised. Another solution would be to have a secondary, augment user box expressing what method of written Anishinaabemowin the user perfers. If such augment were to be used, then the question of 639-1 v. 639-3 is no longer an issue. As for Dakota, there are at least 6 different orthographies as well, though they are all Roman-based. So, these are some of the reasons why I haven't completed a template for the user language boxes for either Ojibwe or Dakota. CJLippert 17:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[struck out words above] Probably for the XX-1 through XX-N levels, two is all we really need, but the XX-0 probably should also be in two lines but one line in English and the other in French, effectively saying the user does not speak XX... which then brings up the next question of what to call this language. Anishinaabemowin or the Anishinaabe language would be my choice rather than Ojibwemowin or the Ojibwa language (implied by 639-1).... Now I wonder if there is a way to automatically have 639-3 user language boxes also be reflected in the 639-1 category pages in addition to the 639-3 category page? CJLippert 17:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet on another thought, let's move this discussion to the rest whole of the community and see what they say. The feed-back on if a single language box would be the way to go (as well as if 639-1 or 639-3) or having two with one box covering the user's speaking abilities and the other covering the user's writing abilities, and in which written form. CJLippert 19:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ack! I forgot all about this! My apologies. My thinking now is that it's not really worth the hassle of dealing with all those issues of dialectal and stylistic variation across communities and between speakers that you mentioned. If a number of Wikipedians were Anishinaabemowin speakers or learning Anishinaabemowin, it would probably be a different story, but ... how many people would really use these userboxes? Me, you, Leo...are there any other Wikipedians who speak and/or are learning Anishinaabemowin? I actually feel kind of foolish now for bringing up the issue of the language boxes in the first place...I don't know. What's your feeling on the importance of creating them in the first place? --Miskwito 08:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That being said, if we do go ahead and make them, I agree that "Anishinaabemowin" or "Anishinaabe language" are preferable to Ojibwe or Ojibwemowin, being broader and more inclusive. Even though that actually opens the floodgates even more as far as spelling, standardization, writing systems, language codes, etc. are concerned. Anyway, I also agree that two lines, one in syllabics and one in Latin characters, is the way to go (I believe the Cree userbox does it like that, if I remember correctly). For the Latin characters, I guess we'd probably want to go with the Fiero orthography, simply most other orthographies, as I understand it, are fairly idiosyncratic and speaker-specific (am I wrong here? Are there other relatively common "standard" Latin orthographies?). I don't know enough about the syllabary to make a good decision on which set of glyphs to go with, unfortunately.

My final though is that, assuming we do make the boxes, we might just want to go with something like "this user speaks Minnesota Ojibwe at such and such a level" or "...speaks Southwestern Ojibwe...", specifying the dialect. This, in my opinion, would have several potential advantages: (1) since the only Wikipedians I know of who'd probably make use of the boxes are learning or speak Southwestern Ojibwe, it would allow the box(es) to still be correct, but also more precise as well as... (2) we wouldn't have to worry about the syllabary, since it's rarely used in the U.S. (as I understand it), and (3) it would partially solve the whole standardization issue, in that we could just write it in the Minnesota or Southwestern dialect or whatever. If we did this, though, we'd probably not want to call the language "Anishinaabemowin"...obviously. If other Wikipedians came along who spoke/were learning other varieties of Anishinaabemowin, we could either create additional boxes then, or modify the existing ones to be more inclusive (and have this whole discussion all over again). --Miskwito 08:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Another choice would be to have many userboxes be made available, sort of in the same line as the XX-0 through XX-5 (as in en-0 ~ en-5) levels, XX (as in en), XX-yy (as in en-us). This way the generic userbox would be the most common one but if anyone wants to specify the dialect, they can. As far as I am aware, there are 16 of us who speaks Anishinaabemowin, of which 3 are regular contributors. CJLippert 00:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean, like, we'd have XX-0 through XX-5, and then a separate series of boxes for XX-yy if you wanted to specify the dialect? That would still leave the problem of which dialect/writing system(s) the main XX-0 to 5 boxes are written in, though, wouldn't it? I guess we could kind of go with the most common "standardized" dialects/writing systems--which I guess would be a non-syncopating dialect (since the syncopating dialects can be derived from the non-sycopating ones, but not vice versa), written in Double-Vowel orthography, with Eastern syllabics and pre-glyph W? Or am I mistaken? We could also ask Chris Harvey's advice on this; it certainly couldn't hurt. I'll leave a note on his talkpage. --Miskwito 21:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but now we get to the issue of that "s" word -- "standardised". Flexibility is the most important part of all this. Though there are some degree of "standardisation" going on, in general this word is looked down, mainly because among Anishinaabeg in both the US and in Canada, the word is equated with assimulation, which basically means to them extinction. So, the question is would one use the language box, and if so, how? Would the userbox be a single OJ language representing the over-all language or the specific dialect? Would there be a second userbox representing the user's OJ orthography be made available, or will that be incorporated into the userbox automatically? Remember, though SW Ojibwe is a commonly used in academic circles in linguistics, in an actual Anishinaabemowin course, it is the dialect of your instructor. Schools can say "teach using double vowel" (but this only narrows things down to Fiero, Rhodes and Hybrid), but if not, it implies the instructor may use any orthographies, from syllabics (CAS or GLAS) to folk spelling (well, maybe not GLAS so much anymore, and CAS option only in Canada and on Leech Lake and Rocky Boy). Anyway, not all people learning Anishinaabemowin is learning the CIW and assuming most would be in the US would highly insult the Canadians. So, yeah, it is a bit hard to pin things down and forcing a pin-down will anger people as well. At the minimum, let's look into these:

• oj-# using both eastern a-final Syllabics and Fiero Roman, with "-#" being -0 through -5 or -N or blank

Instead of en-us or de-ch, we would then have these subcategories (since oj-us and oj-ca don't quite make the cut, and saying oj-mn might make the cut but oj-on most definitely wouldn't):

• oji-# using pre-glyph w-dot/eastern a-final Syllabics and Fiero Roman
• ojc-# using both pre-glyph w-dot/eastern a-final Syllabics and post-glyph w-dot/western-final Syllabics, and hybrid Roman
• ciw-# using Fiero Roman
• ojb-# using post-glyph w-dot/western-final Syllabics and hybrid Roman
• ojg-# using Rhodes Roman
• otw-# using Rhodes Roman
• ojs-# using pre-glyph w-dot/western-final Syllabics and Saulteaux-Cree Roman
• ojw-# using post-glyph w-dot/western-final Syllabics and Saulteaux-Cree Roman
• pot-# using Potawatomi Roman
• alq-# using Algonquin Roman

with all these also mapping to the oj-#... which will ignore the folk-Roman users, though they are quite common, and only the major writing styles of each Anishinaabemowin dialects are shown (which might upset those, especially, in Canada, where there may be community specific orthography that don't quite fit in with the above, but yes, Chris could provide excellent feedback on this matter).

I still think having a speak-box and and a write-box would be prudent, but since there is even so much variations in speech, yes, a dialect box that maps into the speak-box might be nice. Oh, goodness. This is getting quite complex. CJLippert 05:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's language for you :) . I'll respond to you more fully in a minute, but I wanted to point out that someone evidently created a oj-1 box a few days ago... Template:User_oj-1... I've left a message on the user's talk page asking if they'd like to weigh in on our discussions so far (since I'm assuming they hadn't been aware of this discussion yet). --Miskwito 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this far, guys -- I made the oj-1 tag the other day because I was tired of seeing the red box on mine too. I looked around a bit to see if anyone was working on it, but somehow missed this thread entirely -- sorry! I tried to write the text in anishinaabemowin but I quickly gave up, since my skills are definitely on the low end of oj-1. I'm also still a wikipedia newbie and am getting the hang of the markup. The above proposal is very complex but then so is the orthographic/dialectologic situation, so as confusing as it is to me, it sounds like it'd be the most useful to the most people (all of the handful of us that there is.) --Chimakwa 00:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. The main problem I see with your latest suggestion, Charlie (mii na gwayak ezhi-wiizhinaan?), is that it would basically mean 88 possible userboxes. However, if we were to only create one at a time, when it was needed, I suppose that would be possible...? --Miskwito 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's start off with all the cross-linking XXX-0, XXX-1 made and all the oj-# made... which would mean we would start off with 28 user boxes. Other 60 boxes can be made as need arises. (...'shi, henyĕnh sa. izhinikaazoyaan gigwayakowendam. "My user page" ganawaabandaan.) CJLippert 14:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. I got the ball rolling with Template:User_oj-3, then. --Miskwito 21:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice job, they look good! I'm still trying to puzzle my way through syllabics so I can't proofread them, but I did puzzle through them with a chart and they made sense. I've gotta learn somewhere I guess! Chimakwa 00:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: do we want an XX-5 (non-native, professional speaker) category? Frankly, I know of only 4 people who might fit in this grouping, and none are wikipedians. Or shall we just completely ignore this until some future date when such a need arises? As for the dialect userboxes, I have a placed a matrix on the WP:IPNA/Nish Templates, where the oj-# are now all in blue and the dialects are all still in red, but ready to be generated as the need arises. In addition, we should send note to the other Anishinaabemowin-speaking wikipedians to address their needs in userboxes (and possibly get some of the dialect userboxes created for them). CJLippert 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

On WP:IPNA/Nish Templates, for some reason the oji-0 template had been created but was blank, so rather than submit the template for deletion I copied the template from oj-0 and modified it. I am just starting to learn syllabics, though, so someone should probably check my spelling, and make sure the whole thing's not too Southwest-dialect-specific.Chimakwa 21:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've found a problem. In Category:Language user templates, though the newly created oj-# userbox availablility are now listed, the current oj-# users are also listed. We should go into each of them and ensure the individual users don't show up on that particular list. CJLippert 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to figure out from where the instruction to put the Users into the Category:Language user templates originates, but have not been able to isolate the source. Help appreciated. CJLippert 17:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a pain that is. I don't know what I've done exactly but I managed to get it to stop showing Miskwito and I, but when I do the same thing to the oj-3 template you still show up. I don't seem to have broken anything with my edits though, and the code's a little cleaner, so I'm going to propagate them throughout the oj- templates. Chimakwa 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think it's fixed -- I think it just takes a while to filter down to all the pages. None of us are appearing on the Category:Language user templates page now.Chimakwa 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's much better. Miigwech. Now, I see that we now have the oji-0 showing up as a sub-category within the Category:Language user templates page. What would need to happen to keep the oji-0 as the sub-category of both oj-0 and oji but not the Category:Language user templates page? CJLippert 22:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahaw. Excellent question! I don't know off the top of my head; maybe I'll tackle that tomorrow when my head's stopped swimming with brackets and curliques...Chimakwa 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, fixed -- I'd put the template where the category belonged, which was screwing everything up. I copied the category from the Category:User oj-0 page, and once again, someone should check my syllabics.Chimakwa 13:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, new problem: I added oji-0 to my Babel list to test the category, and while the category appears in the list of categories on my user page, the category page itself doesn't list any users at all even though I should now be a member of that category. Any idea what I did wrong? It's propagated and seems to be working now. Chimakwa 13:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! Miigwech. I saw that the oji-0 was listed as a subcategory for the oji but not for oj-0 so I went ahead and made that link. Eventually here, I will be making mine be ciw-3, which should map into both oj-3 and into ciw... maybe I will just make one that says ciw-wi-lco-3 that maps into ciw-3 that would map into both ciw and oj-3 and a ciw-mn-mlb-2 that would map into both ciw and oj-2... and then, maybe not. Looks too busy. CJLippert 19:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's about where my brain starts melting. *g* Go for it, though! Chimakwa 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I even understand what you guys are talking about anymore :( ... --Miskwito 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The categories are those things that appear at the bottom of the article that you can click on to see a list of related items in the category. It confuses me too, they're still kind of magical to me even though I've been editing them for a couple days now, but basically you can make sub-categories that get included as members of the category above them, if that makes sense. I think what CJLippert was thinking about was letting people fine-tune what variety of Anishinaabemowin a user knows, so that, for instance, I could be in the ciw-wi-lco category since I'm trying to learn the dialect from Lac Courte Oreilles in Wisconsin, and that would automatically include me in the overall ciw- category (Chippewa, I'm guessing?) AND the oj- category (Anishinaabemowin) category; maybe he would be in the ciw-mn-mlb category (for the dialect of the Mille Lacs Band, I think) and then would get included in the ciw- and the oj- categories automatically. So basically you could see a list of Wikipedians who spoke Anishinaabe, or your particular dialect. Not terribly useful right now with just a handful of speakers/learners on Wikipedia, but it's a pretty thought anyway, which might be reason enough to do it... Chimakwa 21:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahaaw, miigwech. I think I get it now. Yeah, "CIW" = "Chippewa" (in the Ethnologue's terms, so basically equivalent to the Southwestern dialect) --Miskwito 21:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

...idash the dialect I speak is that of Lac Courte Oreilles but I work and getting familiar with that of both Mille Lacs Band District 1 & 2 (ciw-mn-mlb-#) and Mille Lacs Band District 3 (ciw-wi-scb-#). The particular Anishinaabemowin dialect is a nice thing to know since there are significant differences between pot and ojs even though both are Anishinaabemowin. Also, just because a speaker may speak the ciw, there is a huge pronunciation and enunciation differences, say, between the Leech Lake Band and the Lac du Flambeau Band and the speaker in-between (e.g. "lake": zaaga'igan ciw-mn-llb, zaaghigan ciw-mn-mlb, zaaga'ěgan ciw-wi-lco and zaaga'aïgan ciw-wi-ldf), though the word usage itself remains the same... and not like the case of gichidaasen where in ciw means "pull off your socks" while in ojb means "take off your pants", or desabiwin means "saddle" in ciw but "chair" in ojb and "couch" in ojc. CJLippert 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Next point of discussion: the XX-0 categories. I got this on my userpage that I'm moving here for discussion. CJLippert 01:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it was decided by vote to discontinue the use of the XX-0 categories around the first of this month, but no one mentioned it on the Wikipedia:Babel page, so as new 0-level pages pop up they're having to nominate them for deletion, as no one can just delete an entire article or category without going through this process. In my opinion, it's not a bad decision, as the only real use for a 0-level category on this site would be if someone didn't speak English -- no other language is really a requirement on the English version of Wikipedia. It also will cut down on the amount of work we have to do on our set of categories! Since the 0-levels will pretty much be zapped any time they're created now that the decision has been made, I've edited the WP:IPNA/Nish Templates table you (CJLippert) made to remove the 0-level links to prevent anyone from wasting effort. I also mentioned the lack of notice on the deletion thread so someone who really knows what's going on can edit the Wikipedia:Babel page so people stop making 0-level pages that cause these guys more work. Chimakwa 02:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you can still create 0-level userboxes, it is just 0-level categories we don't want anymore (Although I personally think 0-level userboxes are rather useless as well). VegaDark 02:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. In light of that, I reverted the changes on WP:IPNA/Nish Templates but we'll need to go in and see about making 0-level userboxes for those languages, so we can make sure they don't include categories to prevent problems with stray 0-level categories in those in the future. I'll see about starting that tomorrow.Chimakwa 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My gut feeling says to keep the following: oj-0 (oji-0, alq-0, otw-0 and pot-0) and eliminate all other oj-#-related XXX-0 categories. Reasoning being that these five are the general ethnic identities: Anishinaabe (Ojibwa, Algonquin, Odawa and Potawatomi). Oji-cree is a true exception where the language is growing with first-language speakers and ojs-0 category might be a waste of effort. All others are basically a subdivision of the Ojibwa so they can be easily folded into either oj-0 or the oji-0. CJLippert 03:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Chimakwa 16:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Indo-European

I wonder if anyone is thinking about creating one of these Userboxes for the Proto-Indo-European reconstructed language? Or maybe it has already been created? Not that I can speak it, but I'm sure someone out there can. --Hibernian 20:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Right-hand orientation

Quite a few userboxes are aligned to the right and will look ugly when added to userpages where a great majority are left-oriented. Any thoughts? --Howard the Duck 05:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not ugly but distinct. Preference. { PMGOMEZ } 05:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Can there be an option on the userbox that'll make it left-oriented. I'm sure someone can do that... --Howard the Duck 05:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Should be. Please start researching. { PMGOMEZ } 06:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I made it. Now lets see which orientation will be used the most, lol. --Howard the Duck 16:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So far you're the only one who prefers it that way. Unless other right-oriented box users show up. --Mithril Cloud 06:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Fun. { PMGOMEZ } 06:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And that supposed to mean? --Mithril Cloud 07:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Spanglish

Hi, I'm JavitoMad, a Spanish user who also speaks Spanglish, and I wondered why Spanglish isn't considered a languaje more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javitomad (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 January 2007

Wikipedia:Babel

spEl lenguaje nativo de this user es el Spanglish.

sp-5This user tiene un level profesional de Spanglish.

sp-4This user tiene un level casi nativo de Spanglish.

sp-3This user tiene un level avanzado de Spanglish.

sp-2This user tiene un level medio de Spanglish.

sp-1This user tiene un level básico de Spanglish.

sp-0This user doesn't habla Spanglish. (or él understands con dificultad).

You mean major language? Because if anything it is a dialect. -Sox207 21:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OMG that's hilarious! =D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil Kastberg (talk • contribs) 14:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Color scheme for xx-5 level

The "firetruck red" color scheme is very jarring and harsh. Is there a reason why it cannot be changed to something a little less obnoxious? (see e.g., Category:User_en-5, User:Dreftymac/BabelEn5). This is an open request to get discussion started on changing the color scheme. dr.ef.tymac 03:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Again. The current color scheme is illogical. Many others were proposed, most of which are far better than this one. The most recent proposals: Wikipedia talk:Babel/Archive2#Level 5 colors. Unfortunately one can't even solve the problem by being bold, as most Babel templates are protected and, even if they weren't, there are so many that one who doesn't know how to use bots would take years to change them all. I propose a straw poll. Army1987 11:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Moroccan Arabic?

Seems I can't find it... Any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabertooth (talk • contribs) 13:40, 26 January 2007

change en-3

hello, i'd like to change en-3 for logic. please see my user page for explaination. remember colors are important for inter-lingual communucation. thx.--Hollerbackgril 13:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I responded on your userpage. -Sox207 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Could the margin-left be reduced when the box is a child of another user box?

{{editprotected}}

The following posts were copied from Template talk:Userboxtop#Could the margin-left be reduced when the box is a child of another user box? where I had a similar problem.

I am willing to pass a parameter that defaults to no-child if needed. I just don't like wasting the space. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If I don't see a reply before too long, I may create my own variants of {{userboxtop}}, {{userboxbreak}}, {{userboxbottom}}, and {{babel}} to solve the problem. If I do that, they will be listed at User:Will Pittenger/templates. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you make copyable examples? I'd be happy to do this, but I don't know enough about the template code used here to tell how best to make the change you're asking for. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please suggest exactly what changes you wish to be made. We are not psychic ... as far as I know, anyway. If yo put the code here, then repost your editprotected request, it'll get done if noone objects. Proto::► 18:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Image

Why is it a picture of the tower of babel? Is it an inside joke? The word babel becomes associated with translation through the babel fish in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, not the tower (right?). Or is it because there isn't really a picture of a babelfish (being entirely fictional) and so a different thing called Babel is substituted instead. 82.13.83.244 17:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This comment encapsulates, in a nutshell, why Wikipedia will never be a serious source of knowledge so long as it maintains its current model. O good friend 82.13, know that our world's cultural heritage, idioms and metaphors, and shared consciousness extends even to a dark and forgotten period before 1975! Astonishing as it may sound, many aspects of popular culture are in fact rooted in classical history and literature, and did not spring full-grown from the breasts of screenwriters and manga artists. Now go, study, learn, and return to Wikipedia when you have read a book which is bound in hard covers instead of staples. 66.28.247.235 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Which comment are you referring to? Yours? This sounds serious! Please indicate the specific deficiencies in the current model that prevent you from using your obvious eloquence and erudition to improve Wikipedia; and instead relegate you to dispensing snide and derisive comments that do not even answer the question. I'm sure we can fix the problem if we work together. dr.ef.tymac 23:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading the tower of babel article would have been a good place to start before I asked the question... I'll go away now 82.13.83.244 17:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tolkien Languages

I think there should be a babel box for Tolkien languages like Quenya and Sindarin. I guess no one could be a level 5 but I guess the occasional nerd like myself is a level-1 or level-2. Thanks, Voshvoshka 01:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See Category:User qya and Category:User sjn. They've been there (but perhaps not on this page) for quite some time. Jon Harald Søby 23:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

bringing up the difference between something and nothing, again

I don't entirely like the idea of a level of students, but currently, the lowest level is not knowing the language at all and then there's a jump to basic ability, which is characterised as being able to understand "written material or simple questions"

I've taken four languages, three using the latin alphabet. There's no way I hit 1 on any of the scales. I can read Hebrew, though I like vowels and I don't always understand what I'm reading (it depends largely on the type of text), and can't really speak and if people talk slowly I can understand a little. I probably didn't even hit a 1 when I was taking Hebrew, and my skills have suffered since, but I don't know nothing of the language. I don't understand much Latin--it's been years since I took it, and I didn't take it intensively for long, so I probably wouldn't have got past a 1. The grammar has stuck with me, that and I still can understand reading some basic things about the farmer, but I don't hit a 1. The same goes for other languages that I used to take--I haven't maintained the vocabulary, and I didn't really learn vocuably that was useful so it was difficult to maintain, but I do have some basic knowledge and ability in these languages--it just doesn't always translate as understanding.

I can obviously modify these and put them on my userpage anyway, but I do think that this level of just enough knowledge (either learning or used to study, or used to speak), but not enough to understand is crucial, especially when figuring out where someone is coming from from an editing standpoint. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just gone back and forth on the question of whether to label myself "de-1" -- two years of German at college, and a few weeks puttering around Luxembourg (local dialect is close), the Rhineland and Switzerland, but haven't really used it in five years. But I can still understand simple questions, and have enough vocabulary to get the sense of simple German essays, e.g. a short de.Wikipedia article.

That should be the determining factor -- my impression of "-1" is that you could read an xx.Wikipedia article and get a sense of what it's saying, even though you don't understand every word; or that you have a "tourist grasp" of the language -- you maybe could order lunch, or ask when the train leaves, etc. "-2" is more along the lines of being able to carry on a conversation, or fully read simple text (or understand the gist of complex text). I think a lot of people who identify as "-1" are actually "-2," and a lot who say they're "-0" are really "-1." For my money, there's really no need for a "learner" tag, because after you've studied a language for a year (or less!) you should be at "-1." _W i k i _W i s t a h ^t / _c 19:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Category names.

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#User en. This is _NOT_ a UCfD nomination, and it may not lead to one. I just want to get input from people about this. --Random832 14:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Good call. SR - RE 18:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Swiss german.

The swiss german language is a derivative of the german language, however, there is no official grammar or orthography whatsoever. Now, is it worth an official entry? I think it is, what should i so?

• Make the template in the Template:User_xxx space and make an entry here?
• Make the template on my namespace as the migrated userboxes, and make an entry here?
• Make the template on my namespace as the migrated userboxes, NOT make an entry here, and therefor not do anything that concerns the page here at all?

I am not sure if it should be listed. Without any grammar, one may not consider it a "real" language. However, still, it is spoken through all of the german speaking part of switzerland, and therefor used by millions of people as the normal language they use throughout the day. People who move to Switzerland from foreign countries usually learn both, swiss german and german alike, and while swiss german is our native language, we learn perferct german in school, so, i was thinking of one single entry without levels 1-5, because usually you either speak it or you don't. This entry could be just another point in the de- hierarchy, as example {{User de-ch}}. Opinions? ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 18:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Also there are varieties of Swiss German, e.g., the distinctive Baseldytsch. I would love to be able to find Wikipedians who understand it. (Another case is Viennese, which has a folk literature and music. More examples could be given.)
I don’t know how to answer your question about whether to post links to your templates here. I have the same question! -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but I think it would be appropriate to just have a "swiss german" part, since you can sort all varieties under the description "Swiss German". ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Swiss German is already covered by Alemannic; in fact, the Alemannic userboxes are in a Swiss dialect of Alemannic. I don't see the point in splitting up the Alemannic category into every local dialect, when there are only ~8-9 million speakers to begin with. --Chlämens 04:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That split of "als" is exactly what was decided here. Accordingly, the categories Category:User als were "depopulated" by deleting them from the various "Template:User als" [2] in order to use "als" for Albanian. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we've got a problem here: There are quite a few million speakers of a language called Alamannic; some of them, especially those who live in Switzerland, feel very strongly about the peculiarities of their language and do not wish to have it merged, as a category, with standard German. (Whether or not Alemannic or its Swiss German part deserve the label of a language proper is rather futile to debate, as other languages, being much closer, are considered separate, e.g. Norwegian and Swedish.)
What we have now is a language community which does no longer have a category tag, as the "als" has been re-assigned to Tosk; "gsw" (Swiss German) doesn't comprise the entire group, nor does it even exist as a category tag in the English version. I've read the discussion on the matter, but I don't find the solution of further fragmenting the Alemannic category into four smaller ones feasible (given that Walser and Venezuelan Alemannic are unlikely ever to comprise any users).
I would therefore suggest that a new user category be created to replace the now-Tosk "als" tag. As "gsw", an official ISO tag, only comprises one variety out of four very similar ones, I would not recommend it as a substitute. Is there any kind of standard or guidelines to follow when introducing new language tags which aren't occupied by a so far unsuspecting language like Tosk? Trigaranus (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Overcategorization?

Why does a user have to be in both, say, User es-5 and User es? Seems redundant. Xiner (talk, email) 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to have all speakers of language X be able to find each other regardless of the level they speak at. This is particularly the case for lesser-spoken languages that may have only a handful of people to turn to for resources. I could see the viability of cutting the User xx-# categories in favor of just User xx ones, but that would require revamping pretty much every template in the WP:BB project. Chimakwa 12:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Korean language template

What happened to the Korean language template? All the words are erased. Is this vandalism? The words are erased for every single Korean template I've seen on every userpage I've seen. Good friend100 02:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

0-level categories

Just an FYI, all 0-level categories (except en-0) have been deleted here. Please don't create any more 0-level categories. You can still create userboxes for a 0-level if you want, but please don't create a category for it. Thanks, VegaDark 02:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Rusty native?

I need something that isn't allowed for in this scheme: as an emigrant my native language is not the language I use every day. While I can still handle it well, I would claim procifiency at the -4 level. But it seems odd to show "nl-4" rather than "nl" because the description for -4 implies "not a native speaker". Paul Koning 15:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your right -4 does imply that. I can think of 3 ways to deal with your problem:
♦Claim native status for that language(if you still have a grasp of neologisms,idioms,grammar exceptions,etc, it doesn't matter if your slipping your better at it then most people could learn to be)
♦If you feel you may continue losing a firm grasp on the language you might as well go with -4 now rather then later.
♦Make your own userbox for "Rusty Language".
Just in case someone else wants to make a suggestion I'll stick my question here: What are the proper steps for making babel boxs for made up languages(specifically Mando'a). I had a hard time getting my head around the xx,x1's,etc. If you can help just stick the directions on my talk page.--Wilson 17:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

5-level language userboxes

Why is level 5 available for so few languages? Look at my user page for example. Dutch is my mother tongue, but I aspire to get a Master of Arts degree in Japanese. Shouldn't there be babel boxes for those too? Bananas 13:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC) shout at me for doing wrong!

Operation Babylonia Freedom, Operation Freedom Babylonia, Operation Iraqi Freedom

Babel and Tower of Babel have specific un-American connotations. Check out the flurry of activity on various Wikipedia pages.

παράδοξος 04:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? --Miskwito 04:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

a lot of people are using terms such as babel and cabal these days. looks at the article histories for these terms.

babel and cabal have more than one meaning. Tower of Babel was destroyed by god and Kaballah is a secret. Are these cryptic references to real events? i don't know. παράδοξος 16:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this project is named "Babel" because of the Biblical story, yes. Since this project deals with languages, and with the various languages that various Wikipedians speak, it kind of makes sense to make ties to a well-known story describing the emergence of all the myriad languages on Earth. "Cabal" is etymologically related to "Kabbalah", but I don't know that many people notice or are aware of that connection anymore. I hadn't thought of it until now. "Kabbalah" is a Hebrew word; "cabal" was evidently borrowed from French in the early 1600s. In French, it still meant the mystical Jewish tradition, but also "intrigue" or "society". See [3]. --Miskwito 21:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

points well taken, thank you for considering this a response-worthy topic.

i have only seen the terms used recently and in fairly specific contexts -- usually associated with american politics or middle-eastern politics, events in the middle east, and most specifically the situation in iraq. i know i babble, endlessly, but babbling is not בָּבֶל -- america occupies babylonia for some yet unjustified reason and the recent introduction usage of these terms peeks an interest. παράδοξος 00:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Difference between levels 2 and 3

"xx-2 for intermediate ability - enough for editing or discussions.

xx-3 for advanced level - though you can write in this language with no problem, some small errors might occur."

You need a good ability in a language to be able to edit and discuss . So if you are in that level(2), you can write in that language without any problem, although some mistakes might still occur

Can someone explain this to better to me, please? Maybe I'm not getting the idea well... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eusourei (talk • contribs) 02:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

I just discovered the expanded explanations of each level, but I still think that they should be better explained in the Babel page.

I still can't say to which of these levels I belong, 2 or three. I'm clearly not a fluent or almost native speaker. When it comes to understanding the articles I can understand pretty much everything, including articles with a more elaborated usage of the language. I have a little trouble when trying to write in an encyclopedic way from scratch, but when it comes to oral understanding I get along pretty well, and I can speak fluently if I push myself, but my vocabulary isn't very elaborated, so I usually have a hard time when doing that. So in which level do I fit?

PS: Thanks to the bot for signing for me up here, this time i will not forget! eusourei^(talk) 03:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian French, Québec French, and Acadian

I'm not sure how you go about creating userboxes but somebody should create userboxes for Canadian French, Acadian French, and Québec French. My grammar is not good enough to do Canadian or Québec French and I have no knowledge of Acadian. If you do have the sufficient knowledge, please consider making these userboxes. There are many English language userboxes, which is great, but the differences between metropolitan French and the various dialects of Canadian French are greater than UK/US differences yet there are no userboxes for these. (This is somewhat self-motivated as I'd like to be able to add I understand Québec french and Canadian French lvl 1, but I am sure others would be interested). By the way, sorry if this is the wrong place to make this request.  :) Basser g 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Learner status?

I am currently attempting to make a userbox for those who cannot understand the language, but wish to show others that they are trying to learn some basic phrases. Comment? Josh Lee_PAGE|TALK 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are my latest efforts:

Wikipedia:Babel

ro-0.5Acest utilizator învatează Romǎn la un nivel bazic şi nu înţelege limba bine.

en-0.5This user is learning English at a basic level and does not understand the language well, if at all.

fr-0.5Cet utilisateur apprend le français, et ne comprend pas bien la langue.

Search user languages

Romanian:template:ro-0.5 or template:user_ro-0.5

English:template:en-0.5 or template:user_en-0.5

French:template:fr-0.5 or template:user_fr-0.5

Josh Lee_PAGE|TALK 20:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In favor, if it doesn't have to mean that the user is learning the language, just that it implies that he/she has a sporadic knowledge of it. Emil Kastberg (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I created a hu-½ babel box for my own wikipedia page :) 213.120.126.47 (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Level 0.5 is ridiculous and should not be used. Level 1 is sufficient for these cases. --LA2 (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Abkhazian

I'm trying to learn Abkhazian. Is there anyone who can create an userbox? Does anyone speaks this language here? If yes, please write at my discussion page. Timpul 17:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Professional Icelandic?

{{babel|is-5}} Hmm..Ég er Almar 19:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

and he is 14, not bad... I wish I could use "professional" spanish, and im 19...Canislupusarctos 19:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't speak Polish well? ;>

Special template for Polish:template:pl-0.5 or template:user_pl-0.5

Wikipedia:Babel

pl-0.5Ten użytkownik dopiero uczy się języka polskiego i nie rozumie go jeszcze zbyt dobrze.

Search user languages

Timpul 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I'm glad someone caught on to the 0.5 idea. :) Josh 23:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sranan Tongo

Not sure the best place to post this request, but I tried once at the Userboxes/Ideas page only to have it sit there for a month before being archived here, having never been touched, so I'll try again. Would someone be so kind as to put together a simple language Userbox for the creole language Sranan Tongo? If one were to exist I would use it, as it is a second language to me. There would ultimately need to be several levels of proficiency for it, but for now can we start with the Near Native one? It would need to read "Disi sama kan taki bun Sranan Tongo" (This person can speak Sranan Tongo well) or "Disi sama sabi taki Sranan Tongo bun" (This person knows how to speak the Sranan Tongo language well) or just simply "Disi sama sabi Sranan Tongo" (This person knows Sranan Tongo). When this Userbox is created, I will provide additional translations for the remaining Userboxes. Feel free to respond here or on my talk page - I will be checking both. Thanks! Brian Adler 11:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I can help you with this, I'll respond at your talk page but lets see if the userbox has been made: Template:User srn. -Sox207 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

IELTS

I think Wikipedia should endorse the IELTS scale (used by Britain, Australia and Canada) as an accurate measure to determine language competence, not just for English but other languages.

en-1 = IELTS levels 3-4 ("extremely limited user - Conveys and understands only general meaning in very familiar situations. Frequent breakdowns in communication occur."). If you think this is too generous for somebody claiming some fluency we can go up to level 4 ("limited user - Basic competence is limited to familiar situations. Has frequent problems in use of complex language.")

en-2 = IELTS level 5-6 ("modest user - Has partial command of the language, coping with overall meaning in most situations, though is likely to make many mistakes. Should be able to handle basic communication in own field.").

en-3 = IELTS level 7-8 ("good user - Has operational command of the language, though with occasional inaccuracies, inappropriacies and misunderstandings in some situations. Generally handles complex language well and understands detailed reasoning.").

en-4 IELTS level 9 ("expert user - Has fully operational command of the language: appropriate, accurate and fluent with complete understanding."

any comments? Kransky 02:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a good scale, but I think we're already too far along with the current system to do a complete overhaul. Josh 04:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 07:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Babel boxes: too much?

Shouldn't babel boxes only contain the users laungage, port of living, and means of contribution to wikipedia?

Stealthrabbit ^{Say it, baby, say it!} 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

While it's true that userboxes originated with the Babel project and were limited to language skill, they have long since spun out of this scope and can be about anything now, however, it's advisable not to put them in the template space. For more information, see WP:UBX. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Manga?

I was looking at someone's userpage, and in the Babel box they had a userbox that said "This user can read manga." and instead of a language code it had ^_^. I looked at the language list and couldn't find anime or manga, and was wondering if anybody could tell me how to do this. *silver* 16:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Colour of 0-level

Why has the colour for those boxes changed from pink to grey!!?? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 15:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been wondering about the same: see Template_talk:User_en-0. It seems like the pink was the best. Also, this is the color used on other Wikis, where the level 0 typically exists for the language the wiki is written in.Greswik (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NOEDITSECTION

Do we really need this here? - dcljr (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. -Sox207 21:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and removed the magic word before even seeing this section. Now, having just looked at a section, I see the problem with editing as such, but that means the method we use to display should be different; making people wade through absolutely everything to make a single addition seems counter-productive to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It was to stop bad edits that people would make in certain sections. -Sox207 20:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For instance you did not know that when you press [edit] it sends you to edit the template being used, not the section. I am putting it back on. -Sox207 21:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Pressing edit where sends you to what template being used? Which templates are these and why do they have header tags in them? —Random832 22:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians by language category

This may be a stupid suggestion, but does anyone else think it would be a good idea to list the languages on the main category page ([Category:Wikipedians_by_language]) by their (latinized) names, rather than the ISO-639 codes? I'm not proposing changing the category titles themselves, rather the title they're listed by (e.g. instead of "la" it would say "latin" on the wikipedians by language category, but the page name itself would stay the same). I feel like it would make things simpler for less advanced users, as well as making the page more attractive. Thoughts? I'm willing to go through and change the names on the page myself. -Elizabennet | talk 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: <n templates

What about a template for languages to level "<n"? i.e. "{{babel|la|<2}}: this user used to speak Latin to level 2, but has since forgotten it." It would be amusing, at any rate, and would reflect my current (and presumably many others') genuine situations. ArzelaAscoli 22:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User xx-0

In Category:user mk, there are links to users with mk-0 templates. Shouldn't that category be for users who understand (to some degree) the language? If this has happened for other languages as well it should be fixed. Alex 202.10.89.28 03:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I may have been editing a lot of pages on a given language's Wikipedia, but only to clear up the format of the text or to create needed templates or something. Other People who see my edits naturally expect me to know the language. Being able to put xx-0 allows me to quickly let people know that I don't actually really know anything about that language. Banaticus (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand things, the Templates:User xx-0 are valid for Wikipedians in the early stages of learning a specific language; as an example, I am in the process of learning the Japanese language and, as of 18:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC), haven't the basic grasp necessary for Category:User ja-1. I do have a sufficient grasp of the German language to meet Category:User de-1, and formal schooling in the language and culture of present-day Germany and Austria was a needful herefor. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

xx-*

Archived from Wikipedia talk:Babel/Levels.

How about a category like xx-*, to indicate: This user wants to learn language xx

de-*	This user wants to learn German. Dieser Benutzer möchte Deutsch lernen.

I think it would be good, because then other users might help or teach them... or language partners could find together! 亮HH (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be great, but it should be a whole new system of templates stating a certain level of understanding of the language and, (maybe) a wish for further learning.Emil Kastberg (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wanting to learn

Don't know if this is the right place to put a suggestion, but what about user-boxes denoting a preference for wanting to learn a language. Like if I want to learn Persian, a userbox that says fa-? "this user is interested in learning Persian" (or would it be Farsi? Gah! ;) ), etc. This might have been brought up before (if so, is there any standard?), but I think it's a cool idea. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That probably wouldn't be a good idea. The point of the babelbox is to indicate what languages you are proficient in as an assistance to other Wikipedians who may wish to communicate with you. 83.70.230.93 (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. I understand that the Babel codes can't be expanded infinitely for every level of language skill or every attitude towards a particular language, but I certainly think there would be a demand to identify those who (1) want to learn a language, and (2) those skilled language-users who might be willing to communicate occasionally with beginners (pre-level-1). I think codes for those two types of users is a great idea.Hwhitbread (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

xx-5 and xx

Archived from Wikipedia talk:Babel/Levels.

There seems to be some confusion among Wikipedians between xx-5 and xx. Would a foreigner with a native accent and more technical knowledge than most natives be considered xx-5 or xx? What if such person just moved to the native country? Does "professional" refer literally to "engaged in a profession", or is it just being used as "advanced knowledge in such language"? Anyways, just wanted to clear some things up. GnomesRuleTheEarth (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Babel#"Professional"_level_(xx-5) -Eric ^(talk) 19:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding new languages to the Babel template system?

Is it possible to add new languages to the template system? I am a native speaker of Jutish, a major Danish dialect very distinct from Standard Danish, and I would like to show it on my profile. I developed a writing style for it too, so I would really like to be able to find fellow speakers. --Sasper (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Moved this to Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Non-ISO Languages#Jutish --Sasper (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Professional level of Danish

Hi, I've made a da-5 userbox:

da-5Denne bruger kan bidrage med dansk på et professionelt niveau.

Wanted so badly to show it off on my user page. =P

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil Kastberg (talk • contribs) March 21, 2008 (UTC)

Addressing the ambiguity of the levels?

Archived from Wikipedia talk:Babel/Levels.

Despite the contents of this project page, I feel that something more concrete would help people decide which template to use. Namely, a series of if-you-can-read-this-you're-in pages (see this for an example of what I mean; more here) seems the most obvious option.

Similarly, a timeline-shaped diagram going from no knowledge of to fluency in a language would be helpful, with various milestones placed in-between. Therefore, people would be able to find the answer to questions such as "Where does my A at GCSE (French) and my B at A-Level put me?".

Thoughts? It Is Me Here (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, but the question is who will implement it. It requires not only someone with the patience to create tests for countless languages, but also someone with the appropriate professional skill. I don't think there are more than a few users on Wikipedia with a true professional proficiency (xx-5) in any language. Even fewer of them are involved in teaching the language and would know what goes into such tests. If you can think of a solution, I'll gladly support it. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello IIMH and Ynhockey- have you looked at the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Babel#.22Professional.22_level_.28xx-5.29 lately? There's a related discussion there. -Eric ^talk 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The links to http://www.sis.gov.uk (British Secret Service) seem not to work now; https://www.sis.gov.uk/careers/roles/language-specialists/test-your-skills.html seems to do the job, though I only see comprehension tests there. PJTraill (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

French level 3 userbox

Does anyone object to changing the colour of the French level 3 userbox to green (as most of the other xx3 boxes seem to have been)? Stephen Shaw (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong Cantonese

I was wondering why aren't there templates for this language? is it because it doesn't have a ISO code? -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 10:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

Hi, i'm pretty new on this so maybe this issue has already been discussed before. What about including tamplates for those users who can certify language levels according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages ? --Monturiol (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suspect it hasn't, since it's NIH (not invented here). And of course, CEFR shares the problems of all such frameworks with Babel: you cannot really measure language skill in one dimension. --jae (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it was discussed... back in 2005. Not really important for anyone then.--jae (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What does 'near-native' means?

What does 'near-native' means? For example if one wrote the post-high school exams in English, use it on nearly daily basis and fell confortable in those language (in some areas more then in native language) but still sometimes makes mistakes is it near-native or advance? Uzytkownik (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Babel/Levels, altough I would agree to make those descriptions more meaningful. -- Army1987 (t — c) 16:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Should the descriptions be made clearer?

Archived from Wikipedia talk:Babel/Levels.

1. As for the level 1, the current wording ("well enough to use an article as a source for writings in your own language") would allow me to display xx-1 templates for a dozen or so Romance languages which I can understand to some extent in their written form due to their similarity to my native language (Italian) and to languages I used to study (French, Latin), although I never studied them. In particular, it would allow almost all speakers of any Romance language, and a large percentage of reasonably educated speakers of English, Russian or German, to use {{User ia-1}} (see Interlingua). IIRC, once upon a time, that lever also required "and to ask and answer simple questions in that language" – IOW, if you don't speak English well enough, feel free to write me a message in this language in my talk page, and I'll hopefully manage to reply in that same language. I'm going to add "and to ask and answer simple questions" before the comma in that sentence, if no-one objects in a week. Also, the second sentence ("You can also use this template if...") sounds redundant to me, it might well be removed.
2. Why are Eastern Asian languages treated specially?
3. I was the one who initially created the xx-5 level. In retrospect, maybe it wasn't a very good idea, as the way it is used now is probably not what I intended, considering the huge number of user pages in [4]. I propose changing the description to something like:

   You work in a field in which proficiency in the formal written language is essential, for example as a writer, a copy-editor, a teacher, etc.; you are willing to give advice about language issues (grammar, punctuation, etc.) if requested (for the language of the project on which the template is used, English in this case), or to help in translations from this language (for other languages).

4. It was proposed several times to show (indicative) mappings from commonly used frameworks such as Common European Framework of Reference for Languages to Babel levels. They were met with silence, but I think they might be useful.

What do you think?

Army1987 (t — c) 16:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your points, except point 2 (you imply that East Asian languages should get no special treatment). East Asian languages are clearly different because Wikipedia is a written encyclopedia and requires you to be able to read and write a language (not just/necessarily speak it). A large percentage of students of these languages can speak them very well, but not read/write, because there are thousands of Chinese characters and they are not easy to learn (and some students forego this entirely). The level explanation needs to be clear on where we stand on the issue of Chinese characters and any other langauge with a disproportionate amount of letters. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that; but focus should be on written language, rather than spoken language, for all Babel templates (except the ones about native languages), not just for East Asian languages. -- Army1987 (t — c) 17:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, somewhere (e.g. immediately before the top of the list), add: "Since the Babel system is intended to [...], proficiency in written language should be more relevant than in spoken language when choosing levels; for example, someone who can fluently speak Chinese but knows a limited number of ideographs should choose a relatively low level." -- Army1987 (t — c) 19:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've written a draft of the way I'd change the descriptions of levels. -- Army1987 (t — c) 23:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The draft is a good start, but I disagree with its general idea, because apparently you re-wrote some of the points that there was no problem with (why fix something that ain't broken?). I still disagree about the removal of the East Asian language clarification—I believe that it was highly useful and in the draft was dumbed down to the point of being irrelevant. IIRC, the entire reason I even came to be involved in WP:Babel was the ambiguity about East Asian Babel levels (in my case, Japanese), so from experience I can say that this distinction is useful and important.

About xx-4: This happenned a very long time ago but IIRC, there was a long discussion about this level, and the general agreement was that it was identical to xx, and xx was superfluous and not a replacement for xx-y templates (it was kept mainly for technical reasons). I'd say that the note about colloquialisms is incorrect and unneeded, because it's very similar to the note in xx-3 (where it belongs), and because it implies that every language has a native region/country, which is not true especially for European languages. This might need further discussion, but personally I'd expect an xx-4 user to be able to contribute to Wikipedia just as well as an xx user (or better). I also have some minor issues with the wording of xx and believe the previous wording was better.

Finally, I support the changes you've made to xx-5 (but would change 'teacher' to 'language teacher' or something similar).

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason why some wordings is different is that I copy&pasted a piece at a time, so I didn't actually copy some of the "glue", rewriting it instead. I'm going to make it worded the same way as the original unless when needed. (Changes such as using the semicolon–colon list type, the use of xx for the code and xx for the language as opposed to just xx for everything, etc., make the document more "well-formed" as far as markup is concerned, but they don't actually change anything about the choice of levels, so I might as well apply them to the current version of WP:Babel/Levels, and I'd probably mark them as minor.) The changes that I did make on purpose were:

• Merging the three cases of xx-0. I don't think there is a fundamental reason why the several reasons why one "might be expected to understand a language" should be kept distinct, nor that a distinction between "don't actually understand it at all" and "may have dabbled in a language" should be made (I don't even believe that the line between these is so hard-and-fast as it seems). So, keeping the three points separated is just istruction creep with no significant advantage.
• In xx-1, I've added the clarification I was talking about at the beginning of this talk page section (plus one about bilingual dictionaries which doesn't hurt, and is consistent with the mention of monolingual dictionaries below on that page).
• In xx-3, I removed "You will likely be fluent in speech and oral understanding." – not very relevant, these are supposed to be about fluency in written language. That sentence is what kept me from using {{User en-3}} for a very long time, because the pronunciation of English is so complicated, I usually cannot understand more than 80% of words in an English song, and I have some fluency problems when speaking – I'm more fluent in spoken English than most of fellow citizens (but that's not a great deal) but I'm less fluent than, e.g., most German people. On the other hand, my level in written English is somewhat higher than xx-2 (I'm not using any dictionary for writing this post), so I had been undecided for a long time until I thought "What the hell does spoken language have to do with this?"
• Some clarifications of xx-4 vs xx (see below).

As for your points:

• Agreed with the stuff about kanji, but "East Asian languages" might sound too broad (surely that stuff isn't about indonesian or Hindi, right?); the next most obvious possibility is "CJKV languages", but anyway, "K" and "V" use Hangul and Latin script nowadays, respectively. We're left with "C" and "J". As for Chinese, if you don't know enough ideographs you won't be able to read or write nontrivial texts anyway, so, given that focus is on the written language, what one should do is obvious (take in account the number of ideographs you know the same way you would take in account the numbers of words you know, e.g., in Polish). Japanese is the true exception. If one is fluent in Japanese but knows few kanji, this doesn't hamper their ability to write – they'll just use kana for words whose kanji they don't know – but they will have problems in reading texts using many kanji. This is the only case I can't think of someone having better active than passive proficiency in any written language, whereas the Babel levels might well assume the reverse in the general case, as it is almost always true. So, now I realize that a special provision might be needed. But is this the right place to add details about a specific language? Maybe, a better idea would be to add them to template documentation pages (e.g. on {{User ja-3}}), and noting "In specific cases, there might be additional clarifications on the template pages themselves, for example on {{User ja-3}}."
• As for the distinction between xx-4 and xx, I agree that they should be identical as far as the ability to use the written language for encyclopedic purposes is concerned, but:
  1. The wording "This user is able to contribute with a near-native level of English." suggests that the user is not a native English speaker.
  2. A Russian editor might be able to read and write Italian in an encyclopedic style with the same ease as Russian, but he might have no idea of what Striscia la notizia is; or a Japanese might have no problems with written English, but be unfamiliar with baseball metaphors for sex or with imperial units; in addition, if he says he read a novel/watched a film, he has probably seen the Japanese translation/dubbing. Such info might be useful in some cases. (Yes, it might seem hard to see how this can apply to languages spoken in different places, but I believe that, for example, many cultural aspects of English-speaking countries are closer to each other than, e.g., those of UK are to those of France – If an Englishman watches a Hollywood film, he sees the original version, and an American doesn't have to make any conscious effort to understand the lyrics of a Led Zeppelin song.) Maybe other words should be used in place of "idiomatic expressions" in xx-3 and "colloquialisms" in xx-4, to show more clearly that you might encounter the former in the task of helping writing an encyclopedia, but probably not the latter unless you're specifically contributing to xx-related articles.
• As for "change 'teacher' to 'language teacher'", I'm going to do that. (That would not be perfect either, as the average English teacher in Italy is less fluent in English than the average shop clerk in Prague is, but the context should make clear what is meant.)

Army1987 (t — c) 09:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The above compromises are fine with me, except for the xx-4 level. An xx-4 speaker living in any country should be able to watch xx-based movies/shows/music without subs/dubs and would be expected to understand colloquialisms within reason (except possibly region-related ones, like British slang). I still don't think there should be a distinction between xx-4 and xx, and the only reason why it says 'near-native' (IMO) is because it said that from the start, and no one wants to go around changing over 200 templates to make a simple wording change. However, if such a change was made, I'd propose: This user is able to contribute in XX language proficiently. No need to clarify too much; in the programming templates for example, using User PHP, for example, would get This user can program in PHP.

On a side note, some language templates, notably Japanese, currently use the word "speak", and not contribute or anything like that.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very sure about that; I can use and understand technical/formal written English with few problems – very few physics textbooks and articles beyond the freshman level get ever translated to Italian, so I need it. Right now I don't feel like classifying as en-4, but maybe I will some time in the future. OTOH, I am a very long way from being able to understand more than 50% or so of films such as American Pie in the original version. (Yes, in other countries English teachers are less incompetent than here in Italy, so I realize that this might sound very unlikely to you; but I picked up most of my knowledge of written English from computer games/programs and from the Internet, not from school.) Also, your native language is the language in which you usually think; see the first paragraph of the "6000 Hours a Year" section of this to see what I mean. (No, I do not advocate Esperanto; that paragraph just happens to make the same point I'm making but much more clearly.)

BTW, I changed my mind about where to mention the special treatment of Japanese: see here. Allowing it to be discussed on individual template pages might open the doors to all kinds of instruction creep, such as "You must know all of the Jōyō kanji to be ja-3" and the like. -- Army1987 (t — c) 12:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you just proved my point about the xx-4—you classify yourself as xx-3 precisely because you can't understand many colloquialisms and expressions in the English language, although you can write using basic language with a high level of grammar. Someone who would consider themselves xx-4 (myself, for instance), and not xx-3, would do so precisely because they can understand all of the above. The version you propose makes xx-4 practically indistinguishable from xx-3, while xx-5 is way out there, so there's no in-between level for the majority of a language's speakers. Again, xx is not a replacement for xx-y and they can be used together. The xx-3 proficiency, on the other hand, is precisely for those who have studied xx on a high level (from the internet, langauge courses, or whatever), but aren't familiar with the culture related to that language, so they naturally don't understand many things obvious to a native speaker (or xx-4).

In fact, I think we need to clarify that point—most users assume that xx is somewhere between xx-4 and xx-5, which it is not.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

←But the reason why I don't classify myself as en-4 is not the fact that I'm not very familiar with the culture of anglophone countries. After all, the box itself says "This user is able to contribute with a near-native level of English." And understanding the anglophone culture isn't needed to contribute to the encyclopedia, unless you plan to make significant edits to an article with "[s]trong national ties to a topic". Indeed, most of my edits are on scientific articles, some of which never even use imperial units. As for the clarification that xx used alone is neither below nor above xx-4, I'm removing comparable from my draft. -- Army1987 (t — c) 15:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, while I agree that xx-3 and xx-4 are too close, I'd rather make xx-3 lower than xx-4 higher. The gap between xx-2 and xx-3 is way too large, if the sentence "You will likely be fluent …" is retained; as I said earlier, with the current wording I don't fit in either category. (In my draft, I've even changed "have minor trouble with [...] idiomatic expressions" to "have trouble with some of the most peculiar features of the language".) -- Army1987 (t — c) 15:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose removal of xx-5 rating altogether. If I am correct, it was perceived as an honorary title for professional editors well above the average educated native speaker. Think of it as a community award, not as a self-declared "me good too". There are plenty of informal community awards for copyediting contribution, FA input, etc., they are sufficient. NVO (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is merit to the removal of xx-5, but at this point it would be pretty difficult to do this from a technical point of view, so I think we should focus on clarifying the level so that it's not a self-declared "me good too", as you say. I believe that it is helpful to have this level if used correctly, because users who display it may be asked to copyedit or help with copyediting articles. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have created the en-5 template in the first place, if I expected that that 'self-declared "me good too"' usage. The description at User:Army1987/Levels would make clear what the use I intended was. And maybe, if this page is eventually changed, we could request a bot to post a message such as "The criteria for xx-5 level of Babel templates have been changed; consider removing it from your user page if you don't qualify anymore." to all user talk pages of people using one of those templates. (But I wouldn't be sure that the request would be approved.) -- Army1987 (t — c) 09:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and the bot indeed mostly likely wouldn't be approved. On a side note, I already came across two userpages with en-5 and a glaring grammatical error right on the same page! It's amazing how self-promoting some users can be. I think an interesting solution would be to ask some en-5 users complex grammar questions, but I guess it would kind of be a WP:POINT action (despite not directly violating the policy). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Should the descriptions of levels be made clearer?

See the discussion at /Levels#Should the descriptions be made clearer? -- Army1987 (t — c) 22:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Learning Speakers

What should learning speakers of Spanish put —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrainiacMatt (talk • contribs) 05:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)