![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The issue of template colors has been adressed before, yes. And yes, I'm bringing it up again. Level 5, as I have said before in other discussions on this matter, SHOULD NOT be red, or any shade thereof. In a similar vein, Level 4 shouldn't be the piss-shade of yellow that it is now. Since the trend with these things seems to be a steady hue shift from blue to green (with the exception of the rather soothing colors of level-0 boxes), why not continue that shift by using more shades of blue? The term "professional" is controversial enough as it is, and we don't need angry colors to drive that point home. Any ideas? Cernen 12:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
| ||
| ||
|
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
or:
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
I must say I rather like the one that appears of the farleft for me (I believe the first posted). Ian 13ID:540053 21:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
{{user lanaguage|language code|language level|language}}
{{user lanaguage|en|4|English}}
So when is a decision going to be made on this? Any of the proposed color schemes looks better than the current one. In fact, the color scheme they've got on the Spanish Wikipedia [1] looks pretty good. -- Madler 20:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm hoping that we can get this moving. Babel templates really need to be redone so that the colors correspond in some logical manner to the actual level. Maybe a straw poll should be held? -- Randy Johnston 05:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see userboxes concerning "Adamic" or Proto-World, or are they already made? Satanael 16:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Could someone familiar with Babel templates please take a look at Template:User ng-0?
And yes, I'm aware that xx-0 templates are discouraged. I didn't create it, but now that it has been, I'm just trying to help the poor man using it fix his user page. Any help appreciated.
cheers, pfctdayelise 09:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The templates for xx-5 are currently up for deletion on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Please join the discussion and make some serious and insightful contributions to this discussion, especially if you are using these templates, if you are translating on Wikipedia and have an opinion on whether or not Babel should be limited to xx-4 or not. -- Fenice 06:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I've partially reverted or amended several recent changes to Wikipedia:Babel and related pages to clarify the disputed status of these new templates. If have also nominated Template:User de-5 (unused, recently created) for deletion. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 06:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
If you have ideas about how to quantify a "professional level of English", your input would also be appreciated. Rhobite 07:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
A lot of confusion and some conflict has arisen over the Babel levels, which I believe is in part caused by the different and sometimes conflicting things that the levels are trying to measure. Originally a four-level system of beginner, intermediate, advanced and native, it measured one's proficiency in a language, with the reasonable assumption that a native speaker has mastery of their own native language. The introduction of level 0 (no proficiency in the language) fits well with this classification schema.
However, even before a sixth level, (level 4, "near-native") was introduced, a great deal of confusion ensued, due to the conflict between nativeness (which means you learned it as a child) and proficiency. See, for a start, the first discussion thread on this page. Compounding the confusion was the question: proficiency in what exactly? A lot of suggestions were made: Spoken, as the wording of the templates imply? ("I write well but I'm always picked as non-native by my accent, so I'll put level 3") Written, because that's the mode of language we're using on wikipedia? Spelling? Grammar? Adherence to a particular standard dialect or conventional form? Ability to "argue for or against a legal text or a philosophical thesis"?
The conflict was brought to the fore by the introduction of the "near-native" category, when "proficiency" and nativeness really began to clash (see, for example, Template talk:User en-4). Clearly, one may have strengths in some of the areas listed above, and weaknesses in others. Many if not most native speakers have poor writing skills, and the written form is where second language learners often excel.
The key to this puzzle may be in the the linguistic concept of register. A register is a particluar style of language used in a particular setting, e.g. Legalese. Again, a second language learner may well have better grasp of a particlular register (such as Legalese) than the majority of native speakers do. The register that native speakers tend to be unbeatable in is in fact casual (colloquial) speech, particlarly the casual spoken register of non-university-educated native speakers. No-one is universally proficient in all registers of a language, and this is why the tower of Babel begins to fall down when we start introducing more than three or four levels.
This ever-expanding system is now considering a seventh level (level 5 or "professional writer level"). It looks like the majority sentiment is against it, perhaps because it displaces nativeness from the top of the heirarchy? I would argue that it had already been displaced. I suggest that people with skills in particular registers can have seperate userboxes if they are so inclined, but a one-dimensional numbered system for language proficiency is never going to account for all these different axes if expanded beyond the original four broad levels. ntennis 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree. The original Babel system was nice and simple. There were three levels: 1 = beginner, 2 = intermediate and 3 = advanced. The initial mistake, I believe, was the addition of a separate native level distinct from xx-3. After that, it was more or less inevitable that people would want xx-4, xx-5, xx-6, et cetera. That's because, on one hand, it is only natural to perceive the native level as highest no matter how many other levels there are, yet, on the other hand, there will always be non-native speakers who speak a given language better than most natives. It'd be nice if we could go back to the old 3 level system, but unfortunately I see no way to do that in practice without major confusion, since the deflation has already progressed to the point where xx-2 is now taken to mean "just sufficient" and xx-3 only "decent" skills (see above). Not to mention that every Wikimedia project seems to have different standards, with the number of levels ranging from 3 to 6 or more. I guess the name of this project has turned out to have been rather unfortunately prophetic... — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe one solution would be to modify the boxes so that a person can say they are (for example) en-3N. This will solve both the "using more than one characteristic" problem and the "native trumps numbers" problem. We would leave out impossible combinations like xx-0N, and a user with en-3N would be included in Cat:User en, Cat:User en-3, and Cat:User en-N, so no new cats would be necessary. -- Cromwellt| Talk 23:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The TfD for en-5 was closed as "no consensus". This is the worst possible outcome. If there had been consensus to delete, we would have deleted the template, the category, and the description of the level both on WP:BBL and on the Levels subpage.
If there had been consensus to keep, we would have deleted the word "proposed" from the description and would be creating templates and categories for other languages.
But neither happened. What shall we do now? Keeping the template for English without creating ones for other languages is quite inconsistent...
(Should we decide to keep the xx-5 level, we should also discuss the most proper wording for it.)-- Army1987 15:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I am hereby leaving this discussion. I'll just suggest a possible rewording for the template: "This user can [confidently/<some other adverb, if you can find a better one>] write and copyedit English text in [formal/encyclopedic] style." The reason why I created the template is so that somebody could show they are able to, and would be glad to help to, copyedit or rewrite text. E.g. "The paragraph about foo in the bar article is obscure, but I can't find how to rewrite it in a more fluid manner. As you're en-5, could you help?" or "The article on the Japanese wikipedia about [some very technical topic about something related with Japanese culture] is very good, but I can't decently translate it in English. Since you're ja-N and en-5, could you help?". I am leaving the discussion now. I better spend my time in better ways. Have fun. -- Army1987 21:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be four sets of Babel boxes for each language, to make a distinction between being able to understand, speak, read, and write a particular language. Being a native speaker of Dutch, I have no problem understanding and reading Afrikaans, and having learnt a reasonable amount of Turkish, I can to a varying extent also read other Turkic languages. However, I could most likely not write a single sentence in those languages without making grammatical errors. -- Benne ['bɛnə] ( talk) 21:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Currently five levels are allowed on all languages except German. So I suggest switching near native to 5, and name the fourth level 'working fluency' or 'fluency'.-- Fenice 08:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Repeating my suggestion here, to avoid attention being deflected from it: To deal with the offensive wording on level 5: I suggest switching near native to 5, and name the fourth level 'working fluency' or 'fluency'.-- Fenice 17:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
once again. Needs separate paragraph, because this has nothing to do with deciding how to change the wording in en-5: I said user:Prosfilaes was lying in this diff. Do you want to come to his defense here or are you feeling accused of lying by anything else in this diff?-- Fenice 19:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is the relevant quote from TfD:
If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place. According to this the nomination was abusive.-- Fenice 19:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Moved the following part here because it has nothing to do with discussing the wording of en-5. (EldKatt thinks I committed vandalism, because I had to have him let his will (3RR)make a concession and include his additions, which were factually wrong, in the main text. -- Fenice 19:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC))
Count for yourself. You cannot convince me that they are not important. They are to me and they are not to you. I do not have a problem with that, as I stated above.
You know your additions were factually wrong and still added them again and again, until I ran out of reverts. I had to make a concession and left your beliefs in. There needs to be some explanation. I gave them a source to ask. Don't see anything wrong with that. This is an internal page not an article, I see no reason not to mention individual users.
a half-hearted solution where some xx-5s exist and some are deleted. There needs to be consensus on this, one way or the other. I just learned a better way to express things that I could have ever come up with (need at least en-7 now;-)):
a half-hearted solution where some xx-5s exist and some are deleted. There needs to be consensus on this - days I spent on TfD trying to explain this to you and the others. No one listened. a half-hearted solution where some xx-5s exist and some are deleted. There needs to be consensus on this. Yes. Right. That would have been it. Sorry that it just wasn't and now we have: a half-hearted solution where some xx-5s exist and some are deleted.--
Fenice 19:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Rereading all of these statements I think you feel like I am against you where I am just frustrated with the situation. -- Fenice 19:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Could we make it so that people who use a language level 0 template (eg. {{User en-0}}) not be included in the category of that languages speakers, (ie. Category:User en) ..?
Currently, using any language level 0 userbox places that user into the category Category:User xx-0 (xx of course being the language in question) BUT that category is in all cases a subcategory of Category:User xx - ie. the users who speak that language.
Sorry if I'm being really unclear here, but wouldn't it make more sense for the users who use language level-0 userboxes not to be included in the category of users who speak that language?
In other words, make it so that (for example) Category:User fr-0 is not a subcategory of Category:User fr - I'm sure that would make it easier for people who want to use the Babel project to find a translator for a page, etc.
> <font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000"haz ( user talk) 15:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
¿Can I move this project to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Babel to get in line with all the other userbox pages? This is the only userbox page without a userbox prefix.-- God of War 15:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Per recent debate, I have drafted a proposal for an interproject Babel template standard at meta:Interproject Babel template standardization (proposal). Please review the proposal and improve and/or comment on it. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 17:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The babel level description list with the proposed level included:
Why a new level? Because there is a significant gap between no knowledge at all (and presumably not even a desire to know) and a basic level of knowledge such that someone can read and possibly even communicate in the language. For example, I love Icelandic and am making a free-time effort to learn it, but I can't claim "basic knowledge" of it, but neither do I know "nothing at all" and don't wish to claim absolutely no knowledge. Hence the need for a level between the two. I propose "xx-S" (referring to student) so that the existing boxes don't have to be changed to accomodate the new level.
Note: This proposal has so far gotten unanimous approval from
WikiProject Userboxes members.
xx-s | These users want the proposed xx-s babel box level to go ahead. |
To add the userbox to your user page, just add {{ User: xx-s}}.
20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
|
I have nothing against an extra level of Babel box between xx-0 and xx-1, but xx-s is too ambiguous. How about xx-½?
I've added a description of xx for native speakers to the list of levels at the top of the page. Somehow it got removed. You might want to go back through the history to see how it was worded before it disappeared. - dcljr ( talk) 11:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
IMO, there should be a catergory for the Runic alphabet.
The Frederick 11:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it would probably be a good idea to move the list of ability levels (xx-1, etc.) into a separate template so it can be edited (and therefore watched or even protected, if necessary) separately from the rest of the article. Opinions? - dcljr ( talk) 05:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Or I guess we could do so with the entire set of template-creation instructions (from "Start off with {{Babel-" to "Then finish by adding closing braces: }}"), if that makes more sense. - dcljr ( talk) 05:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If a native speaker of xx moved into a yy-country as an adult only recently, she probably won't consider herself to be a native yy-speaker. Therefore, she would opt for xx. However, the definition seems to demand daily use of xx, maybe even exclusive use. What about changing 'users who employ' to 'users who are able to employ'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jowagner ( talk • contribs) 12:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I want to make a point on these language boxes here: Concerning the "basic", "intermediate" and "advanced" skills, I would greatly appreciate if anybody wishes to show their support on the construction of the "lower intermediate", and "upper intermediate" skills. This would differentiate our language skills more easily and at a better. Without such features, I myself find it difficult to group some of my languages. Furthermore, I find no harm in having these language boxes. Please show your support here, and comments posted here and at my talk page are warmly welcomed, preferably with suggestions and reasons to your oppositions and supports. Thanks! Mr Tan 07:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The instructions currently given on the page -- find a language and just start clicking around -- are not very helpful in practice, in my experience. That is, if I want something translated from German to English, it is really a big pain to go through all of the people who have Babel tags for German, see which ones also have English, and then of those see who has been editing recently.
Someone recently turned me on to this tool, though, which does the trick a little better. It allows you to search for people who have more than one category at the same time, so you can see ONLY the users who are listed as BOTH being native German and English speakers, for example. It makes it a much smaller list to sort through!
Should this tool/method be incorporated into the main Babel page? I'll leave that up to other people more involved in the Babel project to figure out, but it was something I wasn't aware of at all. -- Fastfission 20:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I put a link in Category:en back to Babel. Somebody might want to think about a template to do this for all of the language categories. (I was very annoyed when, as a brand-new user, I hit a dead end at the category, when I was trying to find out what it meant.)-- TJ 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Wondering whether and how perhaps je might donne some indication of comprehension de le franglais. Laurel Bush 16:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC).
Wikipedia:Babel is really long to link someone to if only the guidelines are required. It take forever to load on a slow connection and wastes a lot of bandwidth when one doesn't need to see each language template. Would it break anything to move the list of templates off to another article, link to that, and leave this one and the explanatory guide? - Taxman Talk 16:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Should Canadian English be added? The Coldwood 22:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I propose a rename of the "Natural Languages" section of this page, and move the languages listed under the "language related pages" part to this section. The "Natural Languages" part would then be renamed "List of languages on Wikipedia". THe natural languages section already has one artificial language, esperanto, on it, and it would seem fair that the others (pig latin, Quenya) be placed there as well.
So in the "language related pages" section, would be the writing systems (e.g. cyrillic) and things like IPA and such.
Kailash rouge 02:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Babel has been deleted on wikinews, leading to much conflict & such. An ArbCom request is pending [2], but I thought people here might find it interesting. JeffBurdges 11:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
New language codes are needed, as per serveral inquiries above, for Franglais, also for Bishari, Coptic, etc.
There should be a Roma category, I am Gypsy... but I can barely speak it (like brey, and con son)... -- FlareNUKE 12:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
In the English language Wikipedia, why aren't all Babel boxes in English?
For me it would seem more logical to instead of having:
...change it to:
Reasons:
(Note: I know this subject has been brought up before in the discussion archives but I wasn't satisfied with the answers.)
- Wintran 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd keep the text in the original language, but its not a bad idea if the english name of the language appeared, i.e.
For me it would seem more logical to instead of having:
sv | Den här användaren talar svenska (Swedish) som modersmål. |
Feel free to edit that & make it look better. JeffBurdges 16:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm neutral on this. On the one hand, it is indeed confusing sometimes for users in English Wikipedia what language the template talks about, but on the other it's helpful to have the templates in non-English for users who don't participate in English Wikipedia much to request translations. I support JeffBurdges's idea of using the English name of the language in brackets. -- Y Ynhockey ( Talk) Y 19:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm against changing it. It's clear enough from the ISO codes which language it is, even if you can't recognize it from the text itself, and I see no good reason to change it. Lots of work... And having an English word in a foreign text just looks horrible to my eyes, especially if the language in question is one with a foreign script. Just leave it as it is, this is a solution in search of a problem. — Nightst a llion (?) 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
wtf deleted the 1337 babel templates, possibly vfd?! 66.169.0.252 09:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
We need to interwiki all Babel templates, possibly to Meta or commons, so they can all be used everywhere, so smaller Wikipedia projects are missing even pretty common language's boxes. Is this possible? To relocate all the templates to Meta/Commons and use them from there? +
Hexagon1 (
talk)
07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Babel#kl_-_Kalaallisut_.28Kalaallisut.29
User kl-1 refers to
Kalaallisut, a natural Eskimo-Aleut language.
User kl refers to
Klingon, the artificial language from
Star Trek.
Despite this distinction, they appear in the same section and have the same babel code.
The language code of Klingon (ISO 639-2 and 3) is “tlh”. Please use Template:User tlh instead. - Hello World! 04:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Ethnologue ( http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=grc) listed Koine Greek as a dialect of Ancient Greek. Should we move template:ke to template:grc-ke ?-- Hello World! 08:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The code given by Ethnologue to Alemannisch is gsw. als is a dialect of Albanian. Should we rename the template? - Hello World! 08:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes! Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I need to update my language skill levels. The three-stage scale isn't enough to convey my skills at different languages.
Specifically, I need to:
What do you suggest I do? JIP | Talk 19:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
why do th templates used to make up this page not work so good? I wanna by pass the redirects but it's not that simple is it? Ka- zizzl 05:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
what's category:ser en? /izl 05:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Examples
|
It seems more logical to me if languages from right to left (like Arabic, Hebrew, Persian, Urdu and Yiddish) to have reverse userboxes. There are other languages that are normally written from right to left but the userboxes are written in English. Examples of my suggestion are on the right. What do you think ? -- Sibahi( talk) 10:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I would keep the codes consistent to the left. What is RTL is the foreign text, not the box istself. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Are there any official userboxes saying that a user can read a language's script, but not necessarily know the language it belongs to?
Example -- I can read hangul, but I don't know much Korean at all. See my userpage for my custom hangul userbox.
KevinJr42 21:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please tell me where this weird idea that the language's name is written with a lower-case prefix (like with the Nguni languages) comes from? The name is written Sesotho "natively" (I would know). Just take a look at the text of the categories (which, incidently, I translated). As far as I can tell it's only on Wikipedia and its mirrors where the word is written seSotho (same goes for Xitsonga/Chitsonga). Tebello Thejane. Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 12:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's rediscuss the color scheme for these Babel boxes. There's a previous discussion (currently at the top of this talk page) that presented some much-improved schemes. The alarm-red of xx-5 is particularly in need of changing, but any attempts to do so get reverted. If we form a consensus here, we can fix that. Powers 13:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
A proposal to delete all userboxes (including Babel has been created. Feel free to voice your opinion on its talk page. Grue 08:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, the proposal mentioned above was amended shortly after this discussion to exclude Babel boxes from its scope. HTH HAND — Phil | Talk 14:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Erm... see title. Damiancorrigan 23:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Should Pennsylvania Deitsch (or Pennsylvania Dutch; Pennsylvania German) be added? Here are two links to existing wikipedia articles: (1) (2) -- Thisisbossi 17:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've commented out the NOEDITSECTION command, since I'll be editing quite a few languages names, and I have no idea what it was doing there. Please feel free to uncomment it if I've done a mistake (but please don't simply revert all my changes). Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 08:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've put it back. Obviously editing sections won't work if the sections are part of templates. Sorry about that! Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 08:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I edited a few obviously wrong African language names. I'm not sure if the "native" names for Chichewa and Tumbuka are written correctly (for the same reason that I complained about Sesotho above). It would be nice if people who actually speak these languages were involved with Wikipedia, but goode ol' WP:BIAS will always exist... Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 08:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I have begun development of a replacement for the current system of Babel boxes, which can be found here, which I started as a result of the controversy over userboxes: I felt that if some separation could be made between Babel boxes and other userboxes they would be less likely to face summary deletion.
The system uses two levels of template: one for the box and another for the individual languages. The former will only display those language codes it is coded to understand; the latter encapsulate all available levels of expertise within a single template. Obviously this framework could be adapted to cover other community-approved types of box also, possibly something to show which WikiProjects a user belonged to. Please feel free to comment on the discussion pages as appropriate: please (pretty please!) don't fiddle with the code unless you see something egregiously wrong because it's still under development and I tend to have them open for editing for long periods (so it would be better to drop me a line…). HTH HAND — Phil | Talk 14:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems unforunate to me that our language levels do not map well (or do they) to more traditional rankings of language ability, such as for example the ILR or ACTFL scales.
I list myself as de-1, which I think is fair enough, given that I am not de-0. I have done more than dabble, I actively study daily, and I have moved beyond the very very basics into, I suppose, the basics. I do not understand German well enough to use German Wikipedia articles as a source for English articles -- my vocabulary is primarily conversational, due to the nature of the audio courses that I use for learning. So therefore I seem to be overstating myself as de-1. On the other hand, de-2 says that I can coherently translate most articles by using a dictionary. So perhaps I am understanding, since I could actually do that I think. ("coherently" at least, though not "easily" or "perfectly").
It is probably much to late to do anything about this, but I wish we had instead standardized on something like the ACTFL scales-- Jimbo Wales 19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you subst individual templates in Babel
For instance
User:Rick86 User:Fdewaele User:Davidizer13
I am trying to replace the Deleted & Subst template on their pages. per talk on the Deletion Review.
![]() |
This user supports the use of green energy. |
-- E-Bod 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
May someone add Sindarin and/or Quenya in the list, because i cannot deal with creating a normal userbar, please. Like, "Sen iuithor peda edhellen" or something
What would be considered "sizeable vocabulary" (written here as sizable), as used in xx-2? It's pretty vague. So, its definition would greatly vary from person to person (I can imagine that it would mean 500 words for one person, yet some 3000 to 4000 for the other). It seems to me that an approximate value for sizeable would be quite useful.
I usually sign it (--
JorisvS 10:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)). I must have forgotten it, sorry. I know about "sizeable - sizable", it was just a comment meaning little.
"Know enough words to converse and write without much trouble", that's the problem: I will not be able to truly converse (without much trouble) until I know thousands of words and until I'm certain about most of the grammar (which sounds as a xx-3 to me), while I will be able to understand written text easily (and also write pretty confidently) long before that (like the xx-2 definition). This while many people will just go and talk without much grammatical sense to the point that they will barely be understood. In such cases, I will probably keep my mouth shut until I have figured out the best way to tell it. This takes time and would lead to spoken fragments, not a conversation. However, when I'm excited I don't care and somehow will be able to say a lot (that even won't that bad grammatically), even for say my Greek: el-1.
An example: I rated my Spanish as es-3 (3.0 at present). And although I know enough (by far) words to converse, I will not yet say much easily. Moreover I have knowledge of some of the grammar that many people learning Spanish will probably never see or learn, though I would still make a small mistake here and there. I can also make an accent that sounds pretty Spanish, but will lose it trying to converse with other people.
Where would this leave me with the definitions?
This proves my point: there is way too much subjectivity in the definition. If I were to adapt the definition, it would probably be an upper estimate, as I rather want to do something right (or not) than wrong.
--
JorisvS 10:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
{{Babel|egy-1}}
I've been fiddling with this all afternoon, but It doesn't seem to be working as well as I had liked. Does anyone more technically minded know how to try to possibly reduce size or hyperlink properly? Honestly, is this a lost cause? Thanatosimii 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I am disappointed to hear that the xx-5 userboxes are now restricted to English, French, and Spanish. That decision is both unfair and misleading, in my opinion: To use two examples which I personally don't speak, Mandarin Chinese and Hindi have more speakers than English, Spanish or French. There are probably several American users here who have learned Chinese well enough to translate technical or culture-specific articles: should they have to choose between understating their ability or coding their own userboxes?
Judging by the inter-Wiki translation projects that I've read about, even professional fluency in a less prominent language is useful enough to mention on a userpage. Many of my former teachers have described my fluency in Swedish, Danish and Norwegian as suitable for professional writing; would this justify a level-5 rating if I had been equally fluent in French or Spanish? ISNorden 00:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see my proposal on meta for a unified babel box. Maybe some find it useful. -- grin ✎ 22:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should make a template like the babel one, except it would be for all other stuff, like which projects you were in and what you've done and all... What do ya think? ~VNinja ~ 01:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
There are buttons for all kinds of English other then just normal English. What is the done thing here? I mean obviously if I speak English I know simple English but do you say so? I can also understand 98% of Scots due to being from Northern England but...Its just a dialect of English, not another language. What is the done thing?-- Josquius 11:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
any plans to use ISO 639-3? "zh-min-nan" would become "nan". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The issue of template colors has been adressed before, yes. And yes, I'm bringing it up again. Level 5, as I have said before in other discussions on this matter, SHOULD NOT be red, or any shade thereof. In a similar vein, Level 4 shouldn't be the piss-shade of yellow that it is now. Since the trend with these things seems to be a steady hue shift from blue to green (with the exception of the rather soothing colors of level-0 boxes), why not continue that shift by using more shades of blue? The term "professional" is controversial enough as it is, and we don't need angry colors to drive that point home. Any ideas? Cernen 12:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
| ||
| ||
|
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
or:
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
I must say I rather like the one that appears of the farleft for me (I believe the first posted). Ian 13ID:540053 21:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
{{user lanaguage|language code|language level|language}}
{{user lanaguage|en|4|English}}
So when is a decision going to be made on this? Any of the proposed color schemes looks better than the current one. In fact, the color scheme they've got on the Spanish Wikipedia [1] looks pretty good. -- Madler 20:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm hoping that we can get this moving. Babel templates really need to be redone so that the colors correspond in some logical manner to the actual level. Maybe a straw poll should be held? -- Randy Johnston 05:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see userboxes concerning "Adamic" or Proto-World, or are they already made? Satanael 16:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Could someone familiar with Babel templates please take a look at Template:User ng-0?
And yes, I'm aware that xx-0 templates are discouraged. I didn't create it, but now that it has been, I'm just trying to help the poor man using it fix his user page. Any help appreciated.
cheers, pfctdayelise 09:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The templates for xx-5 are currently up for deletion on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Please join the discussion and make some serious and insightful contributions to this discussion, especially if you are using these templates, if you are translating on Wikipedia and have an opinion on whether or not Babel should be limited to xx-4 or not. -- Fenice 06:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I've partially reverted or amended several recent changes to Wikipedia:Babel and related pages to clarify the disputed status of these new templates. If have also nominated Template:User de-5 (unused, recently created) for deletion. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 06:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
If you have ideas about how to quantify a "professional level of English", your input would also be appreciated. Rhobite 07:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
A lot of confusion and some conflict has arisen over the Babel levels, which I believe is in part caused by the different and sometimes conflicting things that the levels are trying to measure. Originally a four-level system of beginner, intermediate, advanced and native, it measured one's proficiency in a language, with the reasonable assumption that a native speaker has mastery of their own native language. The introduction of level 0 (no proficiency in the language) fits well with this classification schema.
However, even before a sixth level, (level 4, "near-native") was introduced, a great deal of confusion ensued, due to the conflict between nativeness (which means you learned it as a child) and proficiency. See, for a start, the first discussion thread on this page. Compounding the confusion was the question: proficiency in what exactly? A lot of suggestions were made: Spoken, as the wording of the templates imply? ("I write well but I'm always picked as non-native by my accent, so I'll put level 3") Written, because that's the mode of language we're using on wikipedia? Spelling? Grammar? Adherence to a particular standard dialect or conventional form? Ability to "argue for or against a legal text or a philosophical thesis"?
The conflict was brought to the fore by the introduction of the "near-native" category, when "proficiency" and nativeness really began to clash (see, for example, Template talk:User en-4). Clearly, one may have strengths in some of the areas listed above, and weaknesses in others. Many if not most native speakers have poor writing skills, and the written form is where second language learners often excel.
The key to this puzzle may be in the the linguistic concept of register. A register is a particluar style of language used in a particular setting, e.g. Legalese. Again, a second language learner may well have better grasp of a particlular register (such as Legalese) than the majority of native speakers do. The register that native speakers tend to be unbeatable in is in fact casual (colloquial) speech, particlarly the casual spoken register of non-university-educated native speakers. No-one is universally proficient in all registers of a language, and this is why the tower of Babel begins to fall down when we start introducing more than three or four levels.
This ever-expanding system is now considering a seventh level (level 5 or "professional writer level"). It looks like the majority sentiment is against it, perhaps because it displaces nativeness from the top of the heirarchy? I would argue that it had already been displaced. I suggest that people with skills in particular registers can have seperate userboxes if they are so inclined, but a one-dimensional numbered system for language proficiency is never going to account for all these different axes if expanded beyond the original four broad levels. ntennis 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree. The original Babel system was nice and simple. There were three levels: 1 = beginner, 2 = intermediate and 3 = advanced. The initial mistake, I believe, was the addition of a separate native level distinct from xx-3. After that, it was more or less inevitable that people would want xx-4, xx-5, xx-6, et cetera. That's because, on one hand, it is only natural to perceive the native level as highest no matter how many other levels there are, yet, on the other hand, there will always be non-native speakers who speak a given language better than most natives. It'd be nice if we could go back to the old 3 level system, but unfortunately I see no way to do that in practice without major confusion, since the deflation has already progressed to the point where xx-2 is now taken to mean "just sufficient" and xx-3 only "decent" skills (see above). Not to mention that every Wikimedia project seems to have different standards, with the number of levels ranging from 3 to 6 or more. I guess the name of this project has turned out to have been rather unfortunately prophetic... — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe one solution would be to modify the boxes so that a person can say they are (for example) en-3N. This will solve both the "using more than one characteristic" problem and the "native trumps numbers" problem. We would leave out impossible combinations like xx-0N, and a user with en-3N would be included in Cat:User en, Cat:User en-3, and Cat:User en-N, so no new cats would be necessary. -- Cromwellt| Talk 23:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The TfD for en-5 was closed as "no consensus". This is the worst possible outcome. If there had been consensus to delete, we would have deleted the template, the category, and the description of the level both on WP:BBL and on the Levels subpage.
If there had been consensus to keep, we would have deleted the word "proposed" from the description and would be creating templates and categories for other languages.
But neither happened. What shall we do now? Keeping the template for English without creating ones for other languages is quite inconsistent...
(Should we decide to keep the xx-5 level, we should also discuss the most proper wording for it.)-- Army1987 15:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I am hereby leaving this discussion. I'll just suggest a possible rewording for the template: "This user can [confidently/<some other adverb, if you can find a better one>] write and copyedit English text in [formal/encyclopedic] style." The reason why I created the template is so that somebody could show they are able to, and would be glad to help to, copyedit or rewrite text. E.g. "The paragraph about foo in the bar article is obscure, but I can't find how to rewrite it in a more fluid manner. As you're en-5, could you help?" or "The article on the Japanese wikipedia about [some very technical topic about something related with Japanese culture] is very good, but I can't decently translate it in English. Since you're ja-N and en-5, could you help?". I am leaving the discussion now. I better spend my time in better ways. Have fun. -- Army1987 21:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be four sets of Babel boxes for each language, to make a distinction between being able to understand, speak, read, and write a particular language. Being a native speaker of Dutch, I have no problem understanding and reading Afrikaans, and having learnt a reasonable amount of Turkish, I can to a varying extent also read other Turkic languages. However, I could most likely not write a single sentence in those languages without making grammatical errors. -- Benne ['bɛnə] ( talk) 21:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Currently five levels are allowed on all languages except German. So I suggest switching near native to 5, and name the fourth level 'working fluency' or 'fluency'.-- Fenice 08:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Repeating my suggestion here, to avoid attention being deflected from it: To deal with the offensive wording on level 5: I suggest switching near native to 5, and name the fourth level 'working fluency' or 'fluency'.-- Fenice 17:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
once again. Needs separate paragraph, because this has nothing to do with deciding how to change the wording in en-5: I said user:Prosfilaes was lying in this diff. Do you want to come to his defense here or are you feeling accused of lying by anything else in this diff?-- Fenice 19:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is the relevant quote from TfD:
If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place. According to this the nomination was abusive.-- Fenice 19:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Moved the following part here because it has nothing to do with discussing the wording of en-5. (EldKatt thinks I committed vandalism, because I had to have him let his will (3RR)make a concession and include his additions, which were factually wrong, in the main text. -- Fenice 19:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC))
Count for yourself. You cannot convince me that they are not important. They are to me and they are not to you. I do not have a problem with that, as I stated above.
You know your additions were factually wrong and still added them again and again, until I ran out of reverts. I had to make a concession and left your beliefs in. There needs to be some explanation. I gave them a source to ask. Don't see anything wrong with that. This is an internal page not an article, I see no reason not to mention individual users.
a half-hearted solution where some xx-5s exist and some are deleted. There needs to be consensus on this, one way or the other. I just learned a better way to express things that I could have ever come up with (need at least en-7 now;-)):
a half-hearted solution where some xx-5s exist and some are deleted. There needs to be consensus on this - days I spent on TfD trying to explain this to you and the others. No one listened. a half-hearted solution where some xx-5s exist and some are deleted. There needs to be consensus on this. Yes. Right. That would have been it. Sorry that it just wasn't and now we have: a half-hearted solution where some xx-5s exist and some are deleted.--
Fenice 19:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Rereading all of these statements I think you feel like I am against you where I am just frustrated with the situation. -- Fenice 19:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Could we make it so that people who use a language level 0 template (eg. {{User en-0}}) not be included in the category of that languages speakers, (ie. Category:User en) ..?
Currently, using any language level 0 userbox places that user into the category Category:User xx-0 (xx of course being the language in question) BUT that category is in all cases a subcategory of Category:User xx - ie. the users who speak that language.
Sorry if I'm being really unclear here, but wouldn't it make more sense for the users who use language level-0 userboxes not to be included in the category of users who speak that language?
In other words, make it so that (for example) Category:User fr-0 is not a subcategory of Category:User fr - I'm sure that would make it easier for people who want to use the Babel project to find a translator for a page, etc.
> <font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000"haz ( user talk) 15:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
¿Can I move this project to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Babel to get in line with all the other userbox pages? This is the only userbox page without a userbox prefix.-- God of War 15:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Per recent debate, I have drafted a proposal for an interproject Babel template standard at meta:Interproject Babel template standardization (proposal). Please review the proposal and improve and/or comment on it. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 17:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The babel level description list with the proposed level included:
Why a new level? Because there is a significant gap between no knowledge at all (and presumably not even a desire to know) and a basic level of knowledge such that someone can read and possibly even communicate in the language. For example, I love Icelandic and am making a free-time effort to learn it, but I can't claim "basic knowledge" of it, but neither do I know "nothing at all" and don't wish to claim absolutely no knowledge. Hence the need for a level between the two. I propose "xx-S" (referring to student) so that the existing boxes don't have to be changed to accomodate the new level.
Note: This proposal has so far gotten unanimous approval from
WikiProject Userboxes members.
xx-s | These users want the proposed xx-s babel box level to go ahead. |
To add the userbox to your user page, just add {{ User: xx-s}}.
20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
|
I have nothing against an extra level of Babel box between xx-0 and xx-1, but xx-s is too ambiguous. How about xx-½?
I've added a description of xx for native speakers to the list of levels at the top of the page. Somehow it got removed. You might want to go back through the history to see how it was worded before it disappeared. - dcljr ( talk) 11:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
IMO, there should be a catergory for the Runic alphabet.
The Frederick 11:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it would probably be a good idea to move the list of ability levels (xx-1, etc.) into a separate template so it can be edited (and therefore watched or even protected, if necessary) separately from the rest of the article. Opinions? - dcljr ( talk) 05:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Or I guess we could do so with the entire set of template-creation instructions (from "Start off with {{Babel-" to "Then finish by adding closing braces: }}"), if that makes more sense. - dcljr ( talk) 05:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If a native speaker of xx moved into a yy-country as an adult only recently, she probably won't consider herself to be a native yy-speaker. Therefore, she would opt for xx. However, the definition seems to demand daily use of xx, maybe even exclusive use. What about changing 'users who employ' to 'users who are able to employ'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jowagner ( talk • contribs) 12:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I want to make a point on these language boxes here: Concerning the "basic", "intermediate" and "advanced" skills, I would greatly appreciate if anybody wishes to show their support on the construction of the "lower intermediate", and "upper intermediate" skills. This would differentiate our language skills more easily and at a better. Without such features, I myself find it difficult to group some of my languages. Furthermore, I find no harm in having these language boxes. Please show your support here, and comments posted here and at my talk page are warmly welcomed, preferably with suggestions and reasons to your oppositions and supports. Thanks! Mr Tan 07:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The instructions currently given on the page -- find a language and just start clicking around -- are not very helpful in practice, in my experience. That is, if I want something translated from German to English, it is really a big pain to go through all of the people who have Babel tags for German, see which ones also have English, and then of those see who has been editing recently.
Someone recently turned me on to this tool, though, which does the trick a little better. It allows you to search for people who have more than one category at the same time, so you can see ONLY the users who are listed as BOTH being native German and English speakers, for example. It makes it a much smaller list to sort through!
Should this tool/method be incorporated into the main Babel page? I'll leave that up to other people more involved in the Babel project to figure out, but it was something I wasn't aware of at all. -- Fastfission 20:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I put a link in Category:en back to Babel. Somebody might want to think about a template to do this for all of the language categories. (I was very annoyed when, as a brand-new user, I hit a dead end at the category, when I was trying to find out what it meant.)-- TJ 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Wondering whether and how perhaps je might donne some indication of comprehension de le franglais. Laurel Bush 16:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC).
Wikipedia:Babel is really long to link someone to if only the guidelines are required. It take forever to load on a slow connection and wastes a lot of bandwidth when one doesn't need to see each language template. Would it break anything to move the list of templates off to another article, link to that, and leave this one and the explanatory guide? - Taxman Talk 16:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Should Canadian English be added? The Coldwood 22:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I propose a rename of the "Natural Languages" section of this page, and move the languages listed under the "language related pages" part to this section. The "Natural Languages" part would then be renamed "List of languages on Wikipedia". THe natural languages section already has one artificial language, esperanto, on it, and it would seem fair that the others (pig latin, Quenya) be placed there as well.
So in the "language related pages" section, would be the writing systems (e.g. cyrillic) and things like IPA and such.
Kailash rouge 02:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Babel has been deleted on wikinews, leading to much conflict & such. An ArbCom request is pending [2], but I thought people here might find it interesting. JeffBurdges 11:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
New language codes are needed, as per serveral inquiries above, for Franglais, also for Bishari, Coptic, etc.
There should be a Roma category, I am Gypsy... but I can barely speak it (like brey, and con son)... -- FlareNUKE 12:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
In the English language Wikipedia, why aren't all Babel boxes in English?
For me it would seem more logical to instead of having:
...change it to:
Reasons:
(Note: I know this subject has been brought up before in the discussion archives but I wasn't satisfied with the answers.)
- Wintran 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd keep the text in the original language, but its not a bad idea if the english name of the language appeared, i.e.
For me it would seem more logical to instead of having:
sv | Den här användaren talar svenska (Swedish) som modersmål. |
Feel free to edit that & make it look better. JeffBurdges 16:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm neutral on this. On the one hand, it is indeed confusing sometimes for users in English Wikipedia what language the template talks about, but on the other it's helpful to have the templates in non-English for users who don't participate in English Wikipedia much to request translations. I support JeffBurdges's idea of using the English name of the language in brackets. -- Y Ynhockey ( Talk) Y 19:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm against changing it. It's clear enough from the ISO codes which language it is, even if you can't recognize it from the text itself, and I see no good reason to change it. Lots of work... And having an English word in a foreign text just looks horrible to my eyes, especially if the language in question is one with a foreign script. Just leave it as it is, this is a solution in search of a problem. — Nightst a llion (?) 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
wtf deleted the 1337 babel templates, possibly vfd?! 66.169.0.252 09:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
We need to interwiki all Babel templates, possibly to Meta or commons, so they can all be used everywhere, so smaller Wikipedia projects are missing even pretty common language's boxes. Is this possible? To relocate all the templates to Meta/Commons and use them from there? +
Hexagon1 (
talk)
07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Babel#kl_-_Kalaallisut_.28Kalaallisut.29
User kl-1 refers to
Kalaallisut, a natural Eskimo-Aleut language.
User kl refers to
Klingon, the artificial language from
Star Trek.
Despite this distinction, they appear in the same section and have the same babel code.
The language code of Klingon (ISO 639-2 and 3) is “tlh”. Please use Template:User tlh instead. - Hello World! 04:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Ethnologue ( http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=grc) listed Koine Greek as a dialect of Ancient Greek. Should we move template:ke to template:grc-ke ?-- Hello World! 08:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The code given by Ethnologue to Alemannisch is gsw. als is a dialect of Albanian. Should we rename the template? - Hello World! 08:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes! Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I need to update my language skill levels. The three-stage scale isn't enough to convey my skills at different languages.
Specifically, I need to:
What do you suggest I do? JIP | Talk 19:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
why do th templates used to make up this page not work so good? I wanna by pass the redirects but it's not that simple is it? Ka- zizzl 05:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
what's category:ser en? /izl 05:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Examples
|
It seems more logical to me if languages from right to left (like Arabic, Hebrew, Persian, Urdu and Yiddish) to have reverse userboxes. There are other languages that are normally written from right to left but the userboxes are written in English. Examples of my suggestion are on the right. What do you think ? -- Sibahi( talk) 10:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I would keep the codes consistent to the left. What is RTL is the foreign text, not the box istself. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Are there any official userboxes saying that a user can read a language's script, but not necessarily know the language it belongs to?
Example -- I can read hangul, but I don't know much Korean at all. See my userpage for my custom hangul userbox.
KevinJr42 21:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please tell me where this weird idea that the language's name is written with a lower-case prefix (like with the Nguni languages) comes from? The name is written Sesotho "natively" (I would know). Just take a look at the text of the categories (which, incidently, I translated). As far as I can tell it's only on Wikipedia and its mirrors where the word is written seSotho (same goes for Xitsonga/Chitsonga). Tebello Thejane. Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 12:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's rediscuss the color scheme for these Babel boxes. There's a previous discussion (currently at the top of this talk page) that presented some much-improved schemes. The alarm-red of xx-5 is particularly in need of changing, but any attempts to do so get reverted. If we form a consensus here, we can fix that. Powers 13:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
A proposal to delete all userboxes (including Babel has been created. Feel free to voice your opinion on its talk page. Grue 08:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, the proposal mentioned above was amended shortly after this discussion to exclude Babel boxes from its scope. HTH HAND — Phil | Talk 14:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Erm... see title. Damiancorrigan 23:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Should Pennsylvania Deitsch (or Pennsylvania Dutch; Pennsylvania German) be added? Here are two links to existing wikipedia articles: (1) (2) -- Thisisbossi 17:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've commented out the NOEDITSECTION command, since I'll be editing quite a few languages names, and I have no idea what it was doing there. Please feel free to uncomment it if I've done a mistake (but please don't simply revert all my changes). Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 08:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've put it back. Obviously editing sections won't work if the sections are part of templates. Sorry about that! Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 08:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I edited a few obviously wrong African language names. I'm not sure if the "native" names for Chichewa and Tumbuka are written correctly (for the same reason that I complained about Sesotho above). It would be nice if people who actually speak these languages were involved with Wikipedia, but goode ol' WP:BIAS will always exist... Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 08:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I have begun development of a replacement for the current system of Babel boxes, which can be found here, which I started as a result of the controversy over userboxes: I felt that if some separation could be made between Babel boxes and other userboxes they would be less likely to face summary deletion.
The system uses two levels of template: one for the box and another for the individual languages. The former will only display those language codes it is coded to understand; the latter encapsulate all available levels of expertise within a single template. Obviously this framework could be adapted to cover other community-approved types of box also, possibly something to show which WikiProjects a user belonged to. Please feel free to comment on the discussion pages as appropriate: please (pretty please!) don't fiddle with the code unless you see something egregiously wrong because it's still under development and I tend to have them open for editing for long periods (so it would be better to drop me a line…). HTH HAND — Phil | Talk 14:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems unforunate to me that our language levels do not map well (or do they) to more traditional rankings of language ability, such as for example the ILR or ACTFL scales.
I list myself as de-1, which I think is fair enough, given that I am not de-0. I have done more than dabble, I actively study daily, and I have moved beyond the very very basics into, I suppose, the basics. I do not understand German well enough to use German Wikipedia articles as a source for English articles -- my vocabulary is primarily conversational, due to the nature of the audio courses that I use for learning. So therefore I seem to be overstating myself as de-1. On the other hand, de-2 says that I can coherently translate most articles by using a dictionary. So perhaps I am understanding, since I could actually do that I think. ("coherently" at least, though not "easily" or "perfectly").
It is probably much to late to do anything about this, but I wish we had instead standardized on something like the ACTFL scales-- Jimbo Wales 19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you subst individual templates in Babel
For instance
User:Rick86 User:Fdewaele User:Davidizer13
I am trying to replace the Deleted & Subst template on their pages. per talk on the Deletion Review.
![]() |
This user supports the use of green energy. |
-- E-Bod 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
May someone add Sindarin and/or Quenya in the list, because i cannot deal with creating a normal userbar, please. Like, "Sen iuithor peda edhellen" or something
What would be considered "sizeable vocabulary" (written here as sizable), as used in xx-2? It's pretty vague. So, its definition would greatly vary from person to person (I can imagine that it would mean 500 words for one person, yet some 3000 to 4000 for the other). It seems to me that an approximate value for sizeable would be quite useful.
I usually sign it (--
JorisvS 10:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)). I must have forgotten it, sorry. I know about "sizeable - sizable", it was just a comment meaning little.
"Know enough words to converse and write without much trouble", that's the problem: I will not be able to truly converse (without much trouble) until I know thousands of words and until I'm certain about most of the grammar (which sounds as a xx-3 to me), while I will be able to understand written text easily (and also write pretty confidently) long before that (like the xx-2 definition). This while many people will just go and talk without much grammatical sense to the point that they will barely be understood. In such cases, I will probably keep my mouth shut until I have figured out the best way to tell it. This takes time and would lead to spoken fragments, not a conversation. However, when I'm excited I don't care and somehow will be able to say a lot (that even won't that bad grammatically), even for say my Greek: el-1.
An example: I rated my Spanish as es-3 (3.0 at present). And although I know enough (by far) words to converse, I will not yet say much easily. Moreover I have knowledge of some of the grammar that many people learning Spanish will probably never see or learn, though I would still make a small mistake here and there. I can also make an accent that sounds pretty Spanish, but will lose it trying to converse with other people.
Where would this leave me with the definitions?
This proves my point: there is way too much subjectivity in the definition. If I were to adapt the definition, it would probably be an upper estimate, as I rather want to do something right (or not) than wrong.
--
JorisvS 10:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
{{Babel|egy-1}}
I've been fiddling with this all afternoon, but It doesn't seem to be working as well as I had liked. Does anyone more technically minded know how to try to possibly reduce size or hyperlink properly? Honestly, is this a lost cause? Thanatosimii 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I am disappointed to hear that the xx-5 userboxes are now restricted to English, French, and Spanish. That decision is both unfair and misleading, in my opinion: To use two examples which I personally don't speak, Mandarin Chinese and Hindi have more speakers than English, Spanish or French. There are probably several American users here who have learned Chinese well enough to translate technical or culture-specific articles: should they have to choose between understating their ability or coding their own userboxes?
Judging by the inter-Wiki translation projects that I've read about, even professional fluency in a less prominent language is useful enough to mention on a userpage. Many of my former teachers have described my fluency in Swedish, Danish and Norwegian as suitable for professional writing; would this justify a level-5 rating if I had been equally fluent in French or Spanish? ISNorden 00:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see my proposal on meta for a unified babel box. Maybe some find it useful. -- grin ✎ 22:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should make a template like the babel one, except it would be for all other stuff, like which projects you were in and what you've done and all... What do ya think? ~VNinja ~ 01:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
There are buttons for all kinds of English other then just normal English. What is the done thing here? I mean obviously if I speak English I know simple English but do you say so? I can also understand 98% of Scots due to being from Northern England but...Its just a dialect of English, not another language. What is the done thing?-- Josquius 11:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
any plans to use ISO 639-3? "zh-min-nan" would become "nan". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)