Wikipedia talk:Babel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is part of WikiProject Userboxes. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as part of the userboxes system. WikiProject Userboxes itself is an attempt to improve, grow and standardize Wikipedia's articles and templates related to the userbox system, used on many users' pages. We need all your help, so join in today!

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Contents 1 Nervous about latest edit comment 2 making these meta 3 The Sample box problem...! 3.1 A: by number of native speakers in the world (1 per continent) 3.2 B: by number of wikipedia articles: 3.3 C: by number of members in the template category: 4 Personality userboxes 5 Babel nomination on CfD 6 ROT13 7 can I add my spoken language's template 8 New level 9 Question of whether category xx-0 needed 10 WikiProject Munich

[edit] Nervous about latest edit comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] making these meta

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

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

My proposal is:

• principles: allow variation but encourage conformity

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The Sample box problem...!

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

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

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

(Using English for Australia in all of these)

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

Source:List of languages by number of native speakers

Wikipedia:Babel
zh 這個用戶的母語是中文。 这个用户的母语是中文。 es-5 Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel profesional de Español. en-4 This user speaks English at a near-native level. am-3 ይህ/ቾ አባል በከፍተኛ ደረጃ አማርኛ ማቀነባበር ይችላሉ። qu-2 Kay ruwaq chawpi Runa Simi yachanawan ayninakunman. nah-1 Inin tlatitlanini tlahtoa tetepitzin in Nahuatlahtōlli.
Search user languages

[edit] B: by number of wikipedia articles:

Source:m:List of Wikipedias

Wikipedia:Babel
en This user is a native speaker of English. de-5 Dieser Benutzer beherrscht die deutsche Sprache wie ein professioneller Schreiber. ja-4 この利用者は母語に近いレベルで日本語を話すことができます。 af-3 Hierdie gebruiker het 'n uitstekende begrip van Afrikaans. ht-2 Moun sa ka degaje nan kreyòl ayisyen. qu-1 Kay ruwaq wamaq Runa Simi yachanawan ayninakunman.
Search user languages

[edit] C: by number of members in the template category:

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

Wikipedia:Babel
en This user is a native speaker of English. fr-5 Cet utilisateur parle français à un niveau professionnel. ja-4 この利用者は母語に近いレベルで日本語を話すことができます。 af-3 Hierdie gebruiker het 'n uitstekende begrip van Afrikaans. nah-2 Inin tlatitlanini tlahtoa tepitzin in Nahuatl. qu-1 Kay ruwaq wamaq Runa Simi yachanawan ayninakunman.
Search user languages

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

[edit] Personality userboxes

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

[edit] Babel nomination on CfD

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

[edit] ROT13

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

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

[edit] can I add my spoken language's template

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

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

[edit] New level

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

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

[edit] Question of whether category xx-0 needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] WikiProject Munich

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