Archive 1

A userbox is a small rectangular box that looks like this. More examples below.

Userboxes can come in many different styles and colors.

Userboxes can have one or two sideboxes.

A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX) is a small colored box (see examples to the right) designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly or indirectly help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles.

The first userboxes were introduced to support the Babel inter-language effort by indicating the skills of users in other languages.

Be mindful that like anything else you add to Wikipedia, userboxes you add will likely be public forever, even if you later have your user page deleted. (Like other Wikipedia pages, your user page will be regularly archived in the database dumps and may be archived by third parties such as the Internet Archive.)

Userboxes belong on their users' pages. In some cases, it may be considered uncivil to place userboxes on other users' pages without their permission (especially in a mean-spirited way—such as accusing a user of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.). However, userboxes may be placed on non-mainspace talk pages by anyone. (See also Wikipedia:Talk page.)

The {{clear}} template can be placed after the plain userbox if text is added on a new line immediately after it.

A gallery of existing userboxes can be found at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries.

Syntax

The standard syntax for adding a userbox to your user page (also known as transclusion) is: {{user name_of_box}}.

If you do not have any userboxes on your user page yet, you want to begin using them, and you want to add them down the right side of your user page starting at the top, then edit your user page and, at or near the top of the source for your user page, add {{Userboxtop |}}, add the transclusion(s) for the userbox(es) you wish to include, and add {{userboxbottom}} just after the last userbox transclusion. Please see the #Grouping_userboxes section for other ways of grouping and placing userboxes.

Optional substitution

You may decide to substitute the template code onto your user page using the syntax {{subst:user name_of_box}}. The use of "subst:" will ensure that the template is always displayed in its form when you add it to your user page (i.e. it will not reflect subsequent edits to the template). This method will lead to large amounts of code on your user page.

If you wish to offer an idea for a userbox, do so on the ideas page.

If you have designed a userbox that you would like to make available to others, you may wish to first display it on the New Userboxes talk page for community comment.

Namespace

The namespace you place your userbox in matters. Userboxes may only be created or displayed in the User, Project (Wikipedia), or Template namespaces.

So which prefix is best for your userbox: User:, Wikipedia:, or Template:?

Since content in User:space represents individual editors more than the community, they are traditionally given more leeway than in other namespaces. Thus, userboxes in User:space may not be as directly collaborative in nature as those in Template:or Wikipedia:namespaces, which are expected to adhere more tightly with certain policies and guidelines, especially Neutral point of view and What Wikipedia is not. This should also be considered before moving a userbox from userspace to any other namespace.

User:

To host a userbox in the user namespace, create a subpage of your own user page or User:UBX.

Wikipedia:

Userboxes in the project namespace are generally for WikiProject or task force usage. Simply create it as a subpage of the WikiProject (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Userbox).

Template:

In the template namespace, userbox names must begin with "User " (e.g. Template:User Brazil or Template:User en)

If you are uncertain if your userbox is in the correct namespace, consider presenting the userbox at the New Userboxes talk page for community comment.

Userboxes and category use

A userbox can be coded to autocategorise any user pages which transclude the userbox into one or more user categories. However, do not use autocategorisation without good reason.

• Most userboxes refer to a single isolated characteristic of the user; unless the characteristic directly relates to the user's ability or willingness to collaborate on certain areas of or topics within Wikipedia, a user category should not exist for it and the userbox should not be used for categorisation.
• Users of the userbox can be located using the Special:WhatLinksHere tool from the userbox template. Networking between editors with similar interests or views is best done using a projectspace essay with a signup section for editors interested in networking.
• If there is a good reason for the user category, first create the category pages and include a description that explains its purpose and scope.
• User categories must be sub-categories of Category:Wikipedians.
• Names and descriptions of user categories are subject to the same rules and restrictions as userbox content.

Content restrictions

• All userboxes are governed by the civility policy.
  • Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.
  • Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive.
• Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for:
  • Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise)
  • Opinion pieces, particularly on current affairs or politics
  • Self-promotion or advertising

Simply: If content is not appropriate on other parts of a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes.

Caution about image use

Wikimedia Commons has a large range of icons for use within boxes. However, if you select an image from somewhere else, make certain the image has a free license. Templates (which includes userboxes and topicons) on user pages may not contain any copyrighted content not under free license; so, for example, "fair use" images are explicitly forbidden. This is interpreted strictly and without exception. See Wikipedia's fair use policy guidelines for more details.

Caution about colours

Please be mindful of the colour contrast guidelines at WP:COLOUR – low-contrast colours present accessibility barriers to people with colour-blindness or other visual disabilities.

Content examples

The following section is not to be considered all-inclusive. As such, other word combinations (both appropriate and inappropriate) are obviously possible.

Typical userbox content:

• This user <verb phrase> <noun phrase>.
• This user <verb phrase> <noun phrase> <prepositional phrase>.

Typical verbs:

• verbs of action: contributes (to), drives, eats, edits, plays, uses, watches
• verbs of comprehension: reads, speaks, understands
• verbs of preference: enjoys, likes, loves

Additional examples, using the linking verb is:

• This user is <noun phrase>.
• This user is a fan of <noun phrase>.
• This user is a member of <noun phrase>.
• This user is interested in <noun phrase>.

Another option is to allow changing the verb phrase using a template parameter. This is especially useful in location userboxes:

• This user {{{1|lives in}}} <location>.

To avoid the awkward third-person phrasing ("This user"), you can use "{{#titleparts: {{PAGENAME}} | 1 | 1 }}" (without the quotes) to insert the name of the user that includes it on their page (e.g. "{{#titleparts: {{PAGENAME}} | 1 | 1 }} uses second-person phrasing" produces "Babel uses second-person phrasing").

Potentially divisive words

Avoid verbs (often followed by the word "that") which may be used to suggest negative comparison and would thus be potentially divisive, such as:

• believes, considers, finds, knows, prefers, thinks, wishes

Avoid negative verb phrases which can be potentially divisive, such as:

• dislikes, despises, hates, loathes

Also avoid compound sentences which are positive and negative, such as:

• This user likes <noun phrase>, but does not like <another noun phrase>.

Essentially: Express what you do like, rather than what you don't like. Express what you comprehend, rather than what you don't comprehend. Express what you do, rather than what you don't. Express who you are, rather than who you aren't.

Design: How to construct the box

There are a number of box types to select from when deciding to make a userbox. The most commonly used design is the "Standard box". It has one square shaped area on the left ("id label") and a larger rectangular space on the right ("info area").

For ease of use, userboxes are typically made using maker-templates that have a number of parameters.

The id label and info content area can include text, links, and/or images, using the usual Wikipedia syntax. Typically, the info box will contain a sentence with a link or two, while the id box will contain a few letters, a symbol, or a 43px image.

Userbox types

Userbox sampling templates

To make it easier to quote the generation code for a userbox in a uniform format, a template {{Userbox sample compact}} has been made available, which produces a picture of the userbox along with the code necessary to create it. To use it, just give it exactly the same parameters you would give the {{Userbox}} template. You must use subst:, or the template will not work properly. An example is shown below:

{{subst:Userbox sample compact|id=UBX|id-c=red|info=This is a '''[[WP:UBX|Userbox]]'''.}}

Produces:

There are not yet any similar templates available for userboxes created by the templates Userbox-r, Userbox-2 and Userbox-m.

Using the Userboxtop template

Example 1 This user is a participant in WikiProject Userboxes. This user is interested in ancient Rome. This user wants to be your friend.

As with the Babel box, there is a box to group userboxes together. Just make a list of userboxes with {{Userboxtop|box-name}} at the top, followed by your list of userboxes, and {{Userboxbottom}} at the bottom. For example, the box to the right is created using the following list:

{{Userboxtop}}
{{User WikiProject Userboxes}}
{{User:UBX/Rome}}
{{User:Nihiltres/Userboxes/Friendly}}
{{Userboxbottom}}

Using collapsible tables

Example 2 My yellow userboxes Sample userbox #1. Sample userbox #2. Sample userbox #3. My purple userboxes Sample userbox #4. Sample userbox #5. Sample userbox #6.

If you wish to group your userboxes into expandable lists in the {{Userboxtop}} template, one way of doing this is by using collapsible tables with certain classes. Wikipedia's Mediawiki configuration attempts to make this happen through a combination of ECMAScript and CSS. This method is accessible to users with ECMAScript (jScript/JavaScript) disabled, and should work in most modern browsers (it is the method used by {{Navbox}}).

Using the codes in Help:Collapsing works much better and simpler using normal wiki table markup!

 {{Userboxtop|Example 2}}
 <table class="collapsible collapsed" style="width: 100%; background: transparent; color: inherit;">
   <tr><th style="background:lavender;">(Caption)</th></tr>
   <tr><td>
     (Place your userboxes here...)
   </td></tr>
 </table>
 {{Userboxbottom}}

Include 'collapsed' if you want the box to start closed, omit it if you want the box to start open. You can also use multiple tables to get separate collapsible parts like in the example to the right.

You can now use {{Userboxgroup}} to create this kind of box.

Using the Babel grouping system

The Babel grouping system can also be used, e.g. {{Babel|sv|no-4|in Rome}}, which generates:

Wikipedia:Babel
sv Den här användaren talar svenska som modersmål. no-4 Denne brukeren/brukaren behersker/meistrar norsk på morsmålsnivå. This user lives in Rome
Search user languages

However, it only works for user boxes with the "User" prefix, which must then be dropped for the arguments.

Also, boxes that need arguments of their own (such as {{User:UBX/Monty Python}} or {{User Translator}}) are difficult to use with the Babel system. They can be used by including parameters with magic word replacing the vertical bars and equals signs, e.g. {{Babel|fr-5|ja-2|Translator{{!}}fr{{!}}project{{=}}no}} (result below), but this behavior is not officially supported by the template, and may not work in all contexts and break at some point in the future.

Wikipedia:Babel
fr-4 Cet utilisateur parle français à un niveau comparable à la langue maternelle. ja-2 この利用者は中級の日本語ができます。 - This user likes to translate articles from French to English.
Search user languages

Using tables

Another alternative would be to table your userboxes:

{| style="margin: 1em auto;"
|+ example 6
|-
| {{User:AusTerrapin/Box:Jazz Fusion}} {{User_USAFo5}}
|-
| {{User helper}} {{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Warm}}
|}

would produce the following:

example 6

This user enjoys jazz-rock fusion. This user is a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force.

This user helps out newcomers. This user prefers warm weather.

To center one userbox use this coding:

{| style="margin: 1em auto;"
|+ example 7
|-
| {{User:Saoshyant/Userboxes/User oops}}
|}

which produces:

example 7

This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.

• Wikipedia:Jimbo on Userboxes
• Wikipedia:List of userbox deletion nominations
• Wikipedia:User page design center
• Wikipedia:Userbox Maker
• Wikipedia:Userbox migration
• Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries
• Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries/alphabetical
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes

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)[reply]

I agree that this topic warrants additional discussion. Ideally, the color coding and the numeric codes should be redundant. The current blues that are used to denote level 1 and level 3 proficiency are too similar and are easily confused. This is a problem given that these levels represent quite different levels of proficiency. I also agree that the current yellow is too saturated.

Jigen III's proposed palette (copied from above) has merit. The extremes of this scale are clearly anchored (pink 0, yellow tint 1, green tint for native proficiency). I think the blues used for levels 2 and 3 are too similar in this proposal, but at least they are adjacent points on the scale. (In truth, it's hard to discern intermediate and advanced levels semantically, so perhaps the ambiguity of the corresponding colors is not such a problem!) Lingster 13:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The whole current color scheme is meaningless IMO. We should begin with red for xx-0 and use higher-frequency colors for higher levels. And xx-N does not belong to the xx-0 to xx-5 scale. For example:

or:

--Army1987 16:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see userboxes concerning "Adamic" or Proto-World, or are they already made? Satanael 16:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be {{user ad-0}}? if you actually speak Proto-world, I'm sure there are lots of linguists who would love to meet you! (Sorry, couldn't resist!) --Singkong2005 03:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Note that some userboxes were not adding to the relevant category. I have fixed this for id-3 & id-4 but it may also exist in other userboxes.
• A bigger issue is that the userbox for native speakers usually has no suffix, e.g. for Indonesian they have {{user id}} rather than {{user id-N}}. However, non-natives such as myself are added to this category as well. This makes it impossible to list a category of just native speakers, as they are mixed in with everyone else (e.g. users with id-1 through id-4 are all in Category:User id). Should we make a -N userbox and category for every language? --Singkong2005 14:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• So _now_ you are starting to ponder. I am going to file an RfC on the abusive way xx-5 was deleted. Since Rhobite has some strange urge to discuss (?) what he has deleted, I suggest that we will then draw up a subpage for Rhobites discussion needs there. For the future: think first, write later, Rhobite. --Fenice 08:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We voted, you voiced your complaints, and other users responded to you.. how is that abusive? I think you're getting way too worked up over this, it's just a userbox. Rhobite 08:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Responded to me? hmmh. Let me see. We should really nominate the article on Response (communication) as an urgent request to be written. Response implies that you hear or read what the other person says. In this case, I already said on the deletion discussion, what I am going to tell you again. Policies are decided by drawing up a Policy proposal. There have been several cases of abuse like the ones by Cool Cat and Ilmari, but usually voters acknowledge that there should be a policy discussion first. Just putting up something for deletion in order to skip a discussion with people who have an interest and a competent opinion on the subject is abusive. You are living proof that this kind of abuse works perfectly. it's just a userbox - if it just a userbox, why vote (you could not possibly have missed that it is part of a larger project). You were obviously voting for the fun of destruction. You don't care. To you its just the fun of disrupting other users. Both nominations were abusive because it clearly states so on the top of the TfD-page. --Fenice 08:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fenice, I strongly urge you to calm down. Nominating a template for deletion on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion is not abusive. And please don't make ridiculous statements like "you were obviously voting for the fun of destruction" or "to you it's just the fun of disrupting other users". They are not helpful. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Quote from the top of 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. No comment on that, Knowledgeseeker. I am one hundred percent sure that some people on the en-5-deletion discussion do not take the issue seriously. It is obvious from some statements, see Profilaes for example, I am not sure about Rhobite however. And I disagree with you: most of the times it is helpful to communicate your feelings. And I do think TfD is a circus most people don't take as seriously as other places on WP. --Fenice 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please assume good faith. I would like to know in what respect "some people" are not taking the issue seriously. I took a look at Profilaes's comments, and I see no reason to believe he isn't taking it seriously.

• As for the alleged "abuse", nobody is trying to prevent a policy discussion. The template is up for deletion because there has not been any discussion justifying its existence. If a policy proposal had been filed first, all of this could have been prevented. Regarding your quote from TfD, please explain in what way en-5 is part of the functioning of a policy or guideline. Also please explain where "the discussion for that guideline is taking place". Again, this is a result of the lack of a proposal or discussion before the TfD. EldKatt (Talk) 16:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• EldKatt - unbelievable. Just read the page you are complaining about. Claiming here you took a look and you obviously didn't does nothing to give you credibility. (Profilaes was obviously lying about their being no translation on WP. He claimed he did not know there were translations on Wikipedia and that was obviously a lie. He has a link to the translations on his userpage. You'd have to be a mindless idiot to believe he is not lying.)
• I posted the quote from TfD which says the TfD for a Babel-template is abusive (wsn't my idea, I did not write that). You fail to read that. Now let me have a good laugh and tell us all again how serious you are and how much you are acting in good faith. Deleted proposals by the way are not being rediscussed or something. They are speedily deleted. I don't know how long you have been here. But in case this is new information to you and you are taking this seriously, you would have to change your vote.--Fenice 17:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can see, continuing this discussion would not lead to anything positive for either you or me. Before I take a much-needed vacation from this whole conflict, I want to point out that I have not lied about anything here or anywhere else, and I have not insulted or attacked you or anyone else. I regret to say that I lack the energy to deal with this conflict (although honestly I doubt it can be dealt with at the time of writing), and this is the last you will hear from me regarding this issue. (I'm cross-posting this to relevant pages.) EldKatt (Talk) 18:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't like the current en-5 designation, but I fully support a five-level babel. And a friendly boxing match between Fenice and Eldkatt. Grandmasterka 09:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half the people with "En-5" have massive, glaring spelling and grammatical errors all over their userpages, that no true professional writer would make or leave up. Is it OK if I just unilaterally remove their claim to be a "professional"? En-5 is fundamentally broken because it makes a rather pretentious claim that nobody can verify. A 12-year-old kid can slap "professional" on his or her userpage. I *am* a professional writer and think it's pathetic as hell for people to splash it on their page "omg hai im professional LOLL!!" FCYTravis 05:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Fist of all: those are their userpages - they can do just about anything on them if they like. You are a native speaker making fun of non-natives - no comment on that. Also, if you are a professional writer you probably know that professional writers almost always have copyeditors to correct their spelling mistakes for them. A professional writer (other than a copyeditor) is good at other things: style issues, sentence building, text structuring, keeping the readers attention, judging what to include in a text and researching.--Fenice 08:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction. I'm a native speaker and professional writer making fun of people who are non-native speakers who CLAIM TO BE PROFESSIONALLY PROFICIENT IN ENGLISH! If you make a false claim, expect to get ripped for it, sorry but that's life. If you don't want to be judged on a professional level, don't pretend to be a professional. Someone who can't spell "societies" is hardly a professional writer. You've also just proved my point, that the userbox in question is utterly worthless because it doesn't tell us anything about the person other than that they've slapped something they like on their user page. It's pure 100 percent vanity. I've edited the box in question to more correctly explain the situation. To do otherwise is to lie to our readers. FCYTravis 11:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would be amazed if you had ever learned a language. I think what you are saying is a result of your complete lack of knowledge of what you are talking about. At that stage (level 5), I'd assume a second-language-student to pick up native mistakes, such as misspelling a plural on y(I assume it was misspelt societys). And as I said, professional "writer" does not mean good spelling abilities. It means you can write, not spell. 'Professionally proficient' is a term used in ILR scale, as I have said several times. There is an explanation of what it means in our article and it does not mean what you are saying. You are jumping to conlusions, see cognitive distortion. A user with this template will most likely not try to tell a native speaker that he is better at English. To me that is completely absurd.I believe that the concept behind 'native' is an entirely different one, it implies a certain level of cultural knowledge that a non-native can't achieve.--Fenice 13:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If someone can't use good grammar and spelling skills, they're not really a good professional writer. Hate to break it to you, but that's just the truth. I'm not interested in the "who is what" and your accusation of "nativism" is absurd. I'm saying that a userbox which claims that someone is a professional is entirely useless because it tells us NOTHING. Someone with a "professional" userbox might be a 10-year-old kid, for all we know. It's misleading and pointless. You're jumping all around these psych buzzwords. If you want a fifth level, such as ""This user contributes with a natively-proficient level of English," that would seem supportable. But to slap "professional" on a userbox implies something that is clearly flat-out false in several cases. I'm a professional writer and I would never be pretentious enough to put a box claiming I was such on my userpage. Our babel categories don't line up with the ILR, so who cares what it says? FCYTravis 18:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I really wonder how proficient you are in doing interviews, as a professional writer: it is fairly obvious from your 'answer' that you did not read my statement. Still not up to scratch on the meaning of 'professional' in a context of language skill evaluation, even though you have been told several times, for instance. ...your accusation of "nativism" is absurd... ...break that news to me... you don't read my answer but you are inventing something. Sorry but in return, for all those you insulted: LOL. --Fenice 18:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're obviously not clear that the userbox is not being *used* in that manner, because that is not the common meaning of "professional level of English" outside the State Department. The vast majority of those with the userbox are native English speakers claiming "hey I can contribute with a professional level of English." FCYTravis 18:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC) FCYTravis 18:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well here we go again in circles. The wording could have been changed. It would have been a good idea (and the rule) to have a concept first (clarifying levels) and discuss a proposal instead of a drive by shooting for the fun of disrupting other users. Then the erroneous use by natives wouldn't have happened or could have been clarified. 'Professional proficiency' is a term used in Human resources around the world, by the way. Trying to limit its application to the state department is really tabloid style.--Fenice 18:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Which is why it would have been a good idea to float and agree upon a level standardization format before creating userboxes which could create more strife in an area of the encyclopedia that is already under high tension ;) FCYTravis 18:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • With that sort of pessimism you should put all of Babel up for deletion. I would support.--Fenice 19:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • What sort of pessimism? I'm sure that if a policy proposal had been made and put through before xx-5 templates were actually created, all this trouble would have been avoided—it would either have succeeded or failed, and that would have been that. Acknowledging this is not pessimistic; it's realistic and pragmatic. EldKatt (Talk) 17:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• The only really necessary template in the Babel tower is en-0. All others are useless because they say almost nothing about the users proficiency, if there are only three or four levels, and six levels would improve this situation only slightly. This page is full of user comments who have trouble placing themselves in one of the categories. In an Asian language the situation of the learner is completely different because they also need to learn the characters. You named some of the areas that cause problems: registers (talk vs. encyclopedic text), spoken vs written, technical terms.

• Obviously this whole topic is prone to many misconceptions:
  
  • Many if not most native speakers have poor writing skills
    
  • the written form is where second language learners often excel
    
  • en-5 ... displaces nativeness from the top of the heirarchy
    --Fenice 07:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, xx-1 means you can read xx, but you don't feel able to contribute to an article in xx. xx-2 to xx-4 mean that you can write xx, respectively at a "just sufficient", "decent" and "like an average native" level. xx-N is for being a native speaker (not necessarily it must be the first language you have learned as a children, but at least you are used to use it in all everyday situations). For example, I expect almost all en-N speakers, no matter how illiterate they are, to know what pepperoni is, whereas there are hordes of foreign English learners who, no matter how well they can write in formal English, never learn what pepperoni is, and some of then are even mistaken about that. (Peperoni means "bell peppers" in Italian, and most English-Italian dictionaries lack an entry for pepperoni.). Therefore, if I'm writing in the talkpage of someone who isn't en-N, I'd rather talk about a "pizza with spicy salami" (or about a diavola if they are it-N...) than about a "pizza with pepperoni" if I want to be sure to be understood. Actually (I'm it-N and en-3), a few months ago, when solving a crossword game in English, I was astonished noticing that I did not know the words for many everyday concepts (for example "segment" of an orange), even though I know even very technical words about specific topics. --Army1987 15:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...and six levels would improve this situation only slightly." Personally, I believe it would, on the contrary, make it more difficult. I had no trouble deciding any of the Babel levels you can find on my user page. If there were more levels, I might have had more trouble. Fenice states that en-1 to en-N are useless because they say almost nothing about the user's proficiency—what alternatives are there that could say more, though? Only formal language tests, I guess, and that's not really realistic for Wikipedia. EldKatt (Talk) 17:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative is to delete Babel, because it takes up too much server space and is completely useless as it stands. People deleting parts of it for no conceivable reason whatsoever will happen again and again, and the deletion discussions also takes up lots of space. So the whole thing should be deleted now.--Fenice 19:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does not answer my question. I ask what alternatives there are that could say more, and thus be adequate replacements. EldKatt (Talk) 15:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have exactly two options: leave it as it is or delete it, are you kidding?--Fenice 16:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be kidding? EldKatt (Talk) 17:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Babel system is helpful as long as the levels are clearly defined on at least one page - no matter how long the definition gets. I've already been asked to translate articles based on my Babel boxes and I was of some help to the person who requested it, so it's not useless. As for how many levels are needed, I don't have a strong position on the issue - either 4 or 5 is fine IMO. However, I do strongly believe that the Native level is completely pointless. The problem with removing it is that most people who use Babel use it and it would create a disaster among users who use Babel. The reason I think native should be deleted is that it's ill-defined and no two users agree exactly on what it means and where it stands compared to xx-3, xx-4, etc. -- Ynhockey 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I suspect that the problem that appeared together with xx-N was caused by the involvement of additional factors besides skill. Separating native from non-native serves no purpose in a system concerned with representing the level of skill. Native speakers of a language exist, in practice, at all levels of skill. Categorizing by skill level alone—despite the difficulties involved with registers etc—is quite one-dimensional (and thus less likely to cause confusion) compared to—as we have now—a system taking into account skill level and cultural background (native or not)—or, if you want to count en-5 as well, skill level, cultural background, and also profession. The original Babel system was indeed nice and simple—not because it had three levels as opposed to any other number, but because it took only into consideration only one factor. EldKatt (Talk) 15:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO a "native" level (even not taking the word "native" to mean its strictest sense) is useful for communication in Talk pages: see the pepperoni example above, or even for popular culture reason. For example, if someone is it-N, that means that they live, or have lived long enough, in Italy, and therefore I can reasonably assume that they know what Striscia la Notizia (the most popular Italian TV programme until 2 years ago, and still one of the best known ones) is about, or who Vasco Rossi (one of the most popular living Italian pop/"rock" songwriter) is, and similar. But if they are not it-N, and I have to talk about those on their talkpage, I would refer to them as "the Italian satyrical news programme Striscia la Notizia" or "the Italian popular "rock" songwriter Vasco Rossi". Similarly, if someone says to be a fan of The Simpsons, and they are it-N, I guess they watch to the Italian dubbed version of it, and they know the Italian names of characters, idioms, etc., maybe unaware that they are different in the originar version. (For example, Wiggum is known as Winchester in the Italian version). Etc. --Army1987 21:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly see your point; it is not, however, error-proof: an it-N who moved to the U.S. at a reasonably early age is probably not going to consider himself an en-N, yet he will most likely know as much as anyone about American popular culture, as well as have no idea what Striscia la Notizia is. "Native" thus doesn't necessarily tell you anything about a person's knowledge of either language or culture, although in many if not most cases I admit it does. The practical problem for Babel comes when you consider "native" its own level on the skill scale, and that's when people like the fictional Italian above might have doubts. It would perhaps have been better if it were used only in addition to a numerical value—telling people unambiguously how well a user speaks a language, and then, in addition, his native language(s). Helpful though the current system may be, I do think it would be better to use a scale with fewer axes. EldKatt (Talk) 21:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Babel/Levels, I guess that an it-N who moved to the U.S. "at a reasonably early age" will consider themself an en-N... (Even the first language article agrees that one can be considered a "native speaker" of any language they learned through immersion before puberty.) And if the "early age" is very early, e.g. six years, they probably are no longer fluent in Italian and they probably won't consider themself as it-N... BTW, xx-N used alone means that your knowledge of the language is comparable to that of an xx-4 person, else you should use both xx-N and one of the xx-# levels. See also my post about Neapolitan at the end of Wikipedia talk:Babel/Archive1#Don't change the templates yet, and rethink where this is going. (Notice that, despite being unable to fluently speak Neapolitan, thanks to my parents, I know much about Neapolitan popular culture which many Italians outside Campania don't know).

Therefore Wiggum could mark himself as it-N and it-1 assuming he knows Italian language the same way I know Neapolitan... --Army1987 21:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of Wikipedia:Babel/Levels, but the procedure listed there looks good enough. Judging by the confused questions ("am I native?") that occasionally come up, though, I suspect that not everyone knows about it, and that usage does not always conform to this practice. EldKatt (Talk) 12:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made it more evident. Before, that page was only linked by a link whose caption was "here". Now it is more visible. --Army1987 13:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Nothing to decide, we cannot decide not to keep it, it stays as per TfD. No strategy proposal or anything concerning en-5 could be reasonably created since you cannot build on it, because you cannot create the ones in other languages because de-5 is being deleted. So I don't think you can do anything, anything reasonable except for delete Babel entirely. I think that this event is an important precedent for the viability of this project: There will always be someone who feels that hu-1 is really out of place on Wikipedia for no reason whatsoever. Or someone on tr-2 who feels offended that another person speaks turkish at level three. Just puts it up for deletion. They will get only support votes because no one can read the template anyway. --Fenice 16:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed as "no consensus, wait for babel policy". Now, I wonder, is there actually a policy proposal? Is there any policy on the way that we can actually wait for? If so, the outcome of the TfD is reasonable. As far as I've seen, though, this does unfortunately not seem to be true.

Fenice, the TfD for de-5 is not closed yet. It's too early to say that it "is being deleted". More importantly, why are you claiming that the whole idea of an xx-5 level would be doomed if de-5 were deleted? Why wouldn't it be possible to undelete it if new policy were made? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Your other doomsday prophecy is also rather unlikely. xx-1 and xx-2 are well established parts of Babel, and have been ever since the start, and would never pass a TfD. This was not the case with en-5, and that is why it was nominated. It has nothing to do with anybody feeling offended. EldKatt (Talk) 16:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a bureaucracy (we have rules on what colors templates on talk pages have - LOL). It is just an odd headless planless one. The public I met on this TfD is not exactly prone to research, reason and reality. It won't be any different on undelete. I challenge you to pull through the experiment and let someone with the necessary credibility put hu-1 up for deletion. It will be deleted. Who is going to draw up a proposal under these circumstances. There is no one but me and an occasional Army on this page.--Fenice 17:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the TfD debate for en-5, you'll find that the main delete argument was that it was non-standard. If there were a policy to back it up, it would probably be different on undelete. And seriously, what arguments are there in favour of deleting hu-1?

As for the proposal, I agree with you. There doesn't appear to be a lot of general interest in this at the moment, so I don't reckon anything will happen soon. That is what bothers me about the TfD result: while it's true that there was no consensus, we can't really "wait for babel policy" that isn't even contemplated by anyone. EldKatt (Talk) 17:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...that isn't even contemplated by anyone...no comment. --Fenice 17:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that you understand what I mean. There's clearly not a lot of discussion going on. Do you for some reason feel obliged to disagree with me even when I agree with you? EldKatt (Talk) 17:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Too bad you are leaving, you seem to have some pretty interesting thoughts on the subject. Come back sometime soon, if you can!--Fenice 14:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I understand and I believe that this is a common phenomenon, also when you haven't spoken a language for twenty years you may understand everything but can't say a straight sentence any more. This would be like a level tr-2a or Af-3a. I'd need a it-3a for myself I believe.--Fenice 08:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You do realize that if we do this, the next person who feels their skills are better than just "near native" will then propose an xx-6 level, right? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, near native should always be at the top, you could not quote serious sources to claim a stage above near native. If there are six levels an additional stage should be added further down, like a "clueless newbie to this language" stage between 0 and 1.--Fenice 15:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago somebody created a stage above near native, namely en-5. I am sure you are aware of it. In light of this, Ilmari Karonen's argument makes perfect sense.

And this is a side-note, but it's stretching the truth to claim that five levels "are allowed", and to suggest that the whole Babel system should be adjusted based on it. There is no consensus. en-5 even got a clear majority (though not enough) of delete votes. Redesigning Babel to the extent you suggest requires more consensus than there actually is. EldKatt (Talk) 15:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just redescribe "native" as "native or near-native"? The point isn't how well you would score on a test, but how well you feel you would be able to interpret something in that language. There is little significant difference in the two levels in this regard. Thryduulf 16:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would work well with the culture we are exposed to here which is basically American. We were having a problem with the en-5 template because natives (mostly Americans from what I can tell), felt insulted because they thought it means a non-native is as good or even better at English than they are. I think we would insult many people by equating native and near-native.--Fenice 17:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say this again, but did you even read the TfD debate? I do not recall a lot of people expressing that opinion. EldKatt (Talk) 17:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't. Maybe the 'discussion' was kept somewhere, so you can check. It was the reason for nomination and it was explicitely ('offensive, arrogant, pretentious' and circumscriptions) restated by several others. --Fenice 17:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't imply once again that I lie about having read things. Disregarding that, anyway, you omit that the nomination also stated "non-standard", and that the vast majority of delete votes appear to have this motivation, along with the difficulty in defining "professional" (not related to offence or arrogance) as well as lack of point because of overlap with en-4 and en-N. After a quick glance, I can count the people voting for the reasons you specify on one hand. The log of the discussion is here if you want to check. EldKatt (Talk) 18:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well fine if you wanna insult them, I don't, ok? For me one hand full is enough, there are probably lots more. You are dealing with a foreign culture, and if they find it offensive, they find it offensive. I did not say you lie, I think that this is either a distortion in your perception or you are making a different judgement about the importance of these statements, and, in addition to that, obviously your values are different.--Fenice 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then please cite examples.

And on a sidenote, regarding the recent reverts, where you have now resorted to vandalism, I now see the problem. I failed to notice that the text to which I reverted stated that the TfD is under discussion. The point of my revert was merely to avoid stating, essentially, that "xx-5 is okay and a standard part of Babel, but inexplicably not for German". The text should of course be altered appropriately now that the TfD is closed, and I hope (but doubt) that you will forgive me for this mistake. I will, however, leave it up to you to remove your vandalism, because I lack the time, patience and energy to deal with you for now. EldKatt (Talk) 19:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]