Template talk:User en-5

color change proposal
The "firetruck red" color scheme is harsh and nerve-rattling. I am not a partisan for a specific alternative color scheme, but *anything* has got to be better than the extremely harsh red. Can someone with expertise in web design please provide some input? Can someone please propose an alternative before simply reverting the template back to the "in your face" red? Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 03:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really an expert but I believe that the red "firetruck" scheme is standard for all Level 5 babel languages. I'm sure someone will pop along to explain it in more detail, but for now it should be left the same as is the standard. — Manti  core  13:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a change in color. The scheme on the category page is more pleasant, and might alleviate some of the snob-/elitist-factor discussed on its talk page. RJC Talk 01:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "standardization." wiki will rest where ever its users choose. fr-5 is not red. level 5 does not exist for many languages. it-5 is red, but not the same red as en-5. the discrepancies continue. i'm going for some martha stewart colors that are popular here at wiki--Hollerbackgril 21:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.siteprocentral.com/html_color_code.html -- have fun --Hollerbackgril 21:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent change. RJC Talk 03:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Thanks for getting rid of the ExTrEmE rEd . It was harsh and sorely in need of change. If anyone feels the need to change it back, don't do it. Just stare at this message for a few seconds ... There now, annoying, wasn't it. dr.ef.tymac 21:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, many times it was proposed to change the colors of the Babel system (Wikipedia talk:Babel/Archive2 is the most recent one with proposal for new colors). Apparently nobody ever gave a damn. But the current colour scheme is nonsensical. Army1987 11:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD Debate copied

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the templates's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was no consensus, wait for babel policy. → Aza Toth 19:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User en-5
Arrogant, non standard, horrible. The en-4 -> en-N should be adequate. -- Cool CatTalk 17:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC) -->Since this is an important policy decision, and policies are frequently not decided by TfD because that makes no sense, I have asked Cool Cat to draw up the corresponding policy proposal. --Fenice 08:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why didn't the people who made up en-5 draw up a policy proposal first? Why don't we delete this and let the policy be made?


 * Because of course this decision is final. I don't know how long you have been here, but any attempt to recreate template en-5 will be speedied within a few days. There are numerous precedents where it was decided to not delete because a proposal should be discussed first. What Cool Cat did is in bad faith and against the policy on top of this page. Obviously nobody cares. Cool Cat avoided a discussion with people who know something about the subject by bypassing the usual policy discussion and bringing it up here. It is much more likely for it to be destroyed by a bunch of regulars on TfD who enjoy destruction rather than having a serious discussion on the sensibility of this action with people who are actually using this template.--Fenice 14:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your POV judgement that you find it horrible is a fairly weak argument for starting to delete a project that is as successful as Babel. If we delete level five what argument is there for keeping level 1?? No language evaluation system in the world has only four levels. The American Standard is 5 levels ILR scale (excluding natives) the European Standard is at 6 levels (TELC). As Babel currently stands (4 levels) it is pretty useless. The language skills of people within one of these levels differ enourmously. It is hard to categorize yourself in one of only four levels. For your information, and I think you should have done some research before just suggesting a user template for deletion: we have hundreds of these templates here, which deserve deletion according to your reasoning. The template you are so keen on deleting facilitates work and life on Wikipedia for about forty users who are in that category. This deletion request is obviously in bad faith.--Fenice 22:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice straw man argument, there.--Srleffler 23:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice straw man argument, there, Srleffler. (?) --Fenice 23:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * First place, en-5 doesn't help make it any easier to categorize yourself; if en-5 is deleted, en-4 or en-N should be used. For a system that can't use testing, I found it fairly simple to categorize myself; much easier than to decide whether I speak English at a "professional" level. And whatever happened to assume good faith?--Prosfilaes 23:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your argument lacks logic: '...For a system that can't use testing...' - why shouldn't it be possible to use standard test results to categorize yourself - don't you want it to be comparable to standard tests or are you trying to claim that WP's Babel should be set in stone... or? I don't understand your argument. Or are you trying to argue that if we had levels comparable to standard test this will make people act in bad faith and make false statements about their skills. That would not be possible. Other users would notice anyway. --Fenice 23:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You can disagree with someone without claiming their arguments is illogical, and claiming such does nothing to encourage calm discussion. We can't use test results, because serious testing is expensive and complex. I fail to see how it's relevant; en-5 has nothing to do with standardized testing anyway.--Prosfilaes 23:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I did not express myself clearly: many people already have some kind of test result, and can judge their skills on the 5-part ILR-scale or the 6-step TELC scale. Some people may have taken a TOEFL (Test of English as a foreign language), which ranks participants on a scale from 330 to 660 points. These scales give a realistic possibility of categorization. en-5 does have something to do with language skills and language skills can be measured by standardized testing. The wording is another issue (it is as of yet unclear whether 'professional level' means native or not.) And the wording can easily be changed, that's no reason to delete a Babel template.--Fenice 07:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The wording is not another issue. We aren't arguing over whether we should go to a five or six step scale equivalent to a standard test. We're arguing over whether this template that refers to a professional level of knowledge should stand. Whatever it means, it doesn't have anything to do with the standard test scales. And I seriously doubt that even 25% of our non-native English speakers at Wikipedia have recently taken one of those three tests, nor do those tests extend across anywhere near all the languages Wikipedians speak.--Prosfilaes 09:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Again I have problems following your logic if there is any in what you are saying. People want this box deleted because they believe the following: this box is being used by other native speakers to claim that they are better at English than other native speakers. (Which is of course not true, the box is being used by natives and non-natives.) If what people call 'offensive' as a reason for deletion is not in the wording where then is it, do you think? Is it the concept that unfortunately "we can all calculate, but mathematicians do it better"? Sorry but this concept is undeleteable. This will remain a fact (though disputed by the no-voters here), even if you delete the template. I respect your private opinion that for a reason you cannot name even after trying several times language skill evaluation has nothing to do with testing, but please, in return, accept the fact that the world sees this issue differently. And yes you are absolutely right, the tests that test English do test English language skills, and thus do not extend across anywhere near all the languages Wikipedians speak, like you say.--Fenice 13:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said that language skill evaluation has nothing to do with testing; I said that this template has nothing to do with the language tests. If this box is being used by non-natives to claim that they are better than natives, that's just wrong. Mathematicians don't calculate better; they are notorious for calulating worse. Likewise, just because you write professionally, doesn't mean you're any better at writing English than the millions of us who don't. We don't need a Babel system that is inconsistent across languages, so using tests that test English doesn't help at all.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This template evaluates language skills, which are evaluated by language tests. Also, your sentence: Mathematicians don't calculate better; they are notorious for calulating worse. And another example: right here on this page you are voting for it to become impossible for the Babel-level 5 to be on en-5 for the English language, Prosfilaes. At the same time you are saying here that the Babel system should not be inconsistent across languages? I don't think I am the right person for you to talk to about these psychotic statements. The discussion is also completely beside the point and will lead nowhere; this is Wikipedia and idiotic things like the deletion of this template do happen. Babel of course is not static and can adjust to this problem - we will have to have a non-standard scale for the English language, because obviously nobody seriously discusses this. I think a discussion with you about the logical breaks in your arguments makes no sense, sorry.--Fenice 10:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. What is the standard for a "professional" English speaker? Little known fact, I can contribute with a double secret level of English. Should I create Template:User en-6? Rhobite 17:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not really needed, as en-4 and en-N both cover it - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» Talk 17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is an option to do some research before a drive-by-shooting on an established project: en-4 is near-native (which of course does not imply that that person is a linguist or professional writer, don't know what could have given you that idea). En-N is only for native speakers, not for people who write professionally and have some other native language. Shouldn't the people who vote here be required to do _some_ at least basic research on exactly what they are destroying??--Fenice 10:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Those who write professionally and don't have English as a native language are en-4, "near native". It doesn't imply that the person is a linguist or professional writer, but the argument that there's no need to put that in the Bable template is key to the opposition against en-5. What does a linguist know about how to write, in any case? They study the theory of languages at a level not useful for actual writing.--Prosfilaes 10:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Profilaes. Just no. Those who write professionally are in en-5, not en-4. I don't understand how you could have possibly missed that since you are actually having a discussion on this topic for days. And it illustrates the point that your and my perception of reality and logic differ too widely for us to have a productive discussion. As mentioned on your talk page, I will not discuss any further because obviously this issue is already decided, there are more votes for deletion at this point and it is unlikely that more people will vote. Babel will have to deal with not being able to use the name user xx-5 for the English language. I am not available for further discussion and explanation, because this discussion cannot fulfil the aim of saving template en-5 or of initiating a policy discussion.--Fenice 12:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep No harm. --Thorri 17:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Again not really needed, breaking the standard for no good reason I can detect. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 17:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; I think a level 5 is useful, I personally have problem with defining the step from expert to native. A professional level for me indicates that the person in question have learned the language to a native level, but it's not his/her nativ language. For example a translator could use it to define it's profession is the language. → Aza Toth 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But all other language templates have four levels. Why break the standard for English? Not only that, this template implies that the user is somehow a better English speaker than most other people. Rhobite 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there should be a lever 5 to the other languasges as well. Also, perhaps this user is a better English speaker that most other people, perhaps a professor in the English language for example. → Aza Toth 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Changing all other language templates just to accomodate this one userbox is a bit much IMO - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» Talk 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * According to your reasoning we would have to delete half of en.wikipedia because other languages are not as complete as this one is. --Fenice 23:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, AzaToth, you have just illustrated one of the problems with this template. I believe it is not intended to represent English ability equal to native English level (but without being native.) It is intended to indicate that the user's ability to write in English exceeds that of a typical native speaker. Hence, the description "professional"&mdash;this is intended for people who are professional writers, and who therefore (claim) to have better command of the English language than the rest of us. There are all kinds of problems with this, as others have pointed out. The fact that the tag is prone to misuse and misunderstanding, as you have shown, is only one of them.--Srleffler 23:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The wording can easily be changed, that is no reason to delete the template.--Fenice 07:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: This would be useful if it was actually used by editors who write prose for a living, such as journalists, novelists, and certain academics and technical writers. As it is, however, I see this userbox adorning pages of 15-year old high-school boys who struggle with basic punctuation. Still, it is harmless, and no worse than putting a User vain on your user page. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't use it, but professional editors and English scholars should. These users can then be consulted about stylistic and grammatical conventions. Primetime 18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment #2: This template really doesn't belong on the en-x scale. Here's an alternate approach: let's replace it with a new userbox called User pro-writer which would be used in addition to the standard en-N box. Such a template could say, "User writes prose for a living, and would gladly help with stylistic issues in languages listed above". The box would be placed between the boxes for the languages which the editor writes professionally, and those that he can only use at an "amateur" level. This way it's also not restricted to English. A PD version of an icon such as this would be nice for the new template. Owen&times; &#9742;  19:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree complete with OwenX's points. In it's current form it's useless and tries to change the Babel system. In a form of professional writer it would be useful. -- Sneltrekker 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment like any userbox this could be misused - but this has real potentional for use. Imagine writing a featured article and needing some help with the writing, as the standards have risen a bit there - you could theoretically do a lookup of people with these templates and ask for advice, etc.. OwenX has a point but I think seperating the two could be clunky as having prof. writing skills in one language doesn't neccesarily apply to another. WhiteNight T 19:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What OwenX said. the wub "?!"  19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as en-4/n is understood to have an average vocabulary and understanding of English. En-5 can help us track down people who can help punch-up prose for articles recently mentioned in the media. Level-5 should be implemented in all other languages as this would help Stewards find people to help with interwiki work and disputes. - RoyBoy 800 19:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Do what OwenX suggested - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» Talk 19:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's all sorts of xx-5. ubx-5 is an example and is used on many pages (my own included).--HereToHelp (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As above, delete en-5 but create a seperate identification for professional writers that's not part of the en-x scale. Oh, and we already have Category:Wikipedian writers.  Dragons flight 22:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neutralitytalk 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Though I couldn't resist a look to see what experts we have among us. Mark1 01:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Gene Nygaard 04:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. A professional editor and English scholar, that's what I yam. I'd like to put my expertise, teaching experience, and compassion to use on Wikipedia. Halcatalyst 05:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How does this help you? It doesn't change your editing, and I, for one, am more likely to look at en-5 and think you're a twit rather than someone who actually knows something.--Prosfilaes 23:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP Hmmm. another tfd away from the official policy page on userboxes - but this one is more hidden so only you deletionist will find it and not the general populus of wikipedia that votes to keep these boxes.--God of War 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but create a separate template to identify professional writers, per the suggestion of User:OwenX.--Srleffler 07:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-standard template.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-standard template per nomination. A template identifying professional writers, as others have mentioned, may be useful, but it should not masqueride as a Babel template. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 08:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonstandard template in the Babel-series. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Those who vote keep: prepare to have en-99 soon. If you need to emphasize it, an optional argument may be easily added to a template of your choice. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 10:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Week Delete and Comment As it stands, it is not well defined, and thus the reason for it is hard to tell. Is a “professional” level better or worse then native? What context is it “professional” in, translation, business, ...? --Bky1701 11:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not seeing the problem with this - it seems to be a perfectly logical extension of the Babel box. Turning it into a non-language template would be the non-standard implementation.  Leave as is. --Dschor 11:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep np with it Larix 13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - It doesn't need to be sneering superiority. Create a new template that talks about being a professional in the subject of the English language - as in an English linguist or philologist. En-5 is the wrong place for this. - Cuivienen 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is a limited case, but a non-English professional translator would speak English at better than an en-4 level, but not be a native speaker (en-N). The en-5 template seems to cover that circumstance. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; Could someone define exactly what a native speaker is? I understand it to be ones mother tounge. For example, I'm a native speaker of Swedish, but I'm not a professional in it's grammar. → Aza Toth 15:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I agree based solely on your confusion of its and it's! I kid, I kid ;) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)


 * Delete or rename per User:OwenX. Appears to be attempting a reform of the Babel system's structure in its own sneaky way. Whether more levels are needed could be discussed, but in its proper place, and if it meets acceptance by consensus, it should be implemented in a proper way. Also, in this particular case it seems to imply that a "professional" speaker (in itself an ill-defined concept) somehow differs in skill or level of authority from a native or near-native speaker, which, I would argue, is patently false. The main (and probably sufficient) argument for deletion is that it poses as a Babel template but does not follow the standard form of Babel templates. EldKatt (Talk) 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename and revise as per User: OwenX. DES (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Rewrite text as the term "professional" has so many different meanings (is it someone writing or translating as a living? Is it someone holding a provincially-issued licence of some sort, in the same way "professional engineer" and "registered nurse" each have a specific legal meaning? Is it someone who knows just enough English to use it in the workplace when practicing some other unrelated profession? Or is it just a perceived level of linguistic quality somehow rated a little better than merely "unprofessional"? If the meaning is that this person's employment is that of a linguist, author or teacher of English, by all means say so. The current wording is too vague to impart any meaning beyond that of en-4 and therefore useless. --carlb 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. &mdash; Dan | talk 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. &mdash; Many native speakers/writers of English can and do write at a near-illiterate level. A way to distinguish the better practitioners is needed, even if English isn't their native language.  However, I'd rather see the template in a less-provocative color than the shades of red that it now uses. Another color might avoid offending the tender sensibilities of certain users. --QuicksilverT @ 20:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is a distinct difference between being native in a language and taking college classes to learn the grammar.--God of War 21:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Look at all those people who contribute using textspeak, slang, "it's" in the wrong place, etc.. etc... They may be native speakers, but they definitely don't deserve the en-5 label. en-5 is a way to show people that you know when to use apostrophes, that you can spell correctly, etc.... You don't have to have written books to show that. Anyway, if it is deleted, people can just create a userbox on their own page, defeating the whole point of deleting it. Just look a second at all the people who have en-5 on their user pages. They can all contribute with a high level of English and spelling correctly. At least three people on the first page of the en-N category can't spell or, even worse, don't use proper grammar. After all, what's the point of deleting a userbox, why the fuss? If people want to put en-5 on their userpage, leave them alone... Nippoo 21:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Nippoo. Hi-cal usage isn't common even in native speakers; the en-5 suggests encyclopedia-caliber competence, which is to be desired. Add it to other languages, too, I've no problem with that; if you're de-5 (or Klingon-5, for all that), good on ya. Trekphiler 22:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If you're a professional editor, and want people to know it, why not write it in English on your user page?  Why does it need to be in a stupid box? -- SCZenz 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Nonstandard (and sets a terrible precedent), pointless, arrogant (by what standard do we judge "professional", other than just how well a person thinks of his own writing?), inaccurate, misleading, wasteful, unreliable (with no consistent standard, we'll have some of our best writers and some of our worst writers listed together, making the template useless), ugly. Has nothing to do with the Babel templates, which deal with whether you're a native speaker of the language or one who's learning it at some level or another. A distinct template should be created for things like "user is a professional writer", "user has an exceptional grasp of vocabulary and grammar, "user is a copyeditor", etc., if necessary. The Babel template deal with how fluent you are in English, not how skilled you are; whether your prose is masterful or not should be an unrelated template. Also, I have to say that I couldn't agree more with SCZenz; very good point. -Silence 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The non-standard-issue can easily be changed - what color do you want it to be? en-4 is yellow, so that would also be non-standard, should we also delete it? Why else could this template be nonstandard? Why would this template be more misleading than other levels? I personally believe en-2 is way more misleading. It can mean anything. To some people intermediate means advenced, to others it means beginner. According to your reasoning we should urgently delete the native template because it does not identify a person who is learning the language (?) (I think, hope, we can assume that everybody who writes for WP is trying to improve his language skills -> so lets delete all babel templates?). And could you expand on your notion that fluency has nothing to do with skill?--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete this non-standard and unnecessary template, although, as are said often above, a seperate userbox and category to show that you're a professional writer isn't a bad idea. Lord Bob 00:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Escapes the purpose of the Babel project, I believe. Plus, there's a duality difficult to resolve: this "professional speaker" could be a "über-native", that is, a native who also possesses a "professional knowledge" of the language, or a "über-level 4", that is, a person who is not a native speaker but who has studied and understands the language on a "professional level", such as an English teacher/professor in a non-English speaking country.  Those two should not even be mixed to begin with, since it's not quite the same thing.  Since this is not essential to the project, we'd be better off leaving this alone &mdash; plus what Silence said.  Redux 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ...A duality difficult to resolve...says Redux. We can't list all articles for deletion that have dualities that are difficult to resolve. Doing that in this case sets an uncanny precedent.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Pretentious as hell, and completely misleading. I lost track of the number of grammatical mistakes and misspelled words on the user pages of people with this userbox. Yeah, I'm a copyeditor. FCYTravis 04:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This bears some relevance in considering user:Silence's argument above, who dreams of all natives and copyeditors having no more need to learn and improve.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)]
 * If someone is going to be pretentious enough to slap an "English professional" userbox on their userpage, they'd better not have a single freaking mistake on it. FCYTravis 05:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete levels 0 to 4 plus -N should be enough. Why break the norm for one language?. CharonX 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are breaking a norm by suggesting to delete this. 'Normally' there are more evaluation levels for language skills, as I mentioned above.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * All of which are completley arbitrary. 4 sounds about right; I could decipher a message, I could communicate at a basic level, I'm pretty good in the language, I'm a native.--Prosfilaes 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They would not have to be that arbitrary if they would correspond better to what is done in real life: have more levels. To me 'being able to decipher a message' is en-0, basic level is en-1, pretty good sounds more like advanced (en-3). The more productive users are the ones that categorize themselves as "fluent" or having "a working knowledge", both terms are often found on resumés and are non-existent in Babel as of yet -> we need more levels on Babel.--Fenice 07:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Being able to decipher a message is not en-0; that's I don't speak English. Adding more levels is just going to make it more confusing; if you don't know what the difference between en-2 and en-3 is, then making them en-2, en-3, en-4 isn't going to help. If you're fluent in English, you should be able to tell that that's en-4. And whether or not we need more levels is orthogonal to whether or not this particular level defined roughly as it is should stay. Arguing that this should stay because the Bable system needs to be more finely tuned is like arguing that User GWB should stay because the users from Green Water Bay need a userbox.--Prosfilaes 09:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can 'decipher a message' you won't be able to contribute much and that is the criterion for en-0 (can't contribute). If you set fluency equal to current e-4, which is near native, we will need at least en-6 to cover the full spectrum. As to the Bay Water Green analogy, I have no idea what that is or where that is, but everybody here knows what English is. The analogy is faulty.--Fenice 12:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're changing the meaning of the template mid-game.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pretentious, unhelpful, offensive. If you're a professional who uses English, say that; there's a difference between that and "speaking English at a professional level".--Prosfilaes 20:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the wording, change it, be bold, click the edit button on top.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not the wording I have problems with; it's the fact that the Bable tool is being abused to look down at the people who only speak the language at a "native" level. It's an elitest and linguistically absurd concept.--Prosfilaes 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The user template deletion craze is really going beyond comment. --Fenice 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per arguments above. --Fang Aili 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is ridiculous. Using that reasoning, we can delete every user template because it is "arrogant" and the user must be a "twit," right? Most languages have at least 5 levels, as the first comment noted. There is absolutely no reason to delete this, as it can be extremely useful in determining people who can help significantly with grammar. The argument that people with terrible grammar will use this is irrelevant, since someone could just as easily put a level 4 when they really speak at a level 2, and this would be apparent from the user page anyways. Using that reasoning, again, we can just delete all language templates because all Wikipedia users can be arrogant twits and lie, right? Wrong.
 * Tests (not languages) may have a level 5, but that doesn't mean that we should be that granular, and it espeically does not mean that we should have level 5 mean what en-5 does. Yes, they could put a level 4 when they speak at a level 2, but it's not really being an arrogant twit to say you're as good as most speakers. en-5 is misleadingly defined, since there's no linguistically accepted level of language knowledge beyond native, and there's no evidence that it's being used in a useful way.--Prosfilaes 00:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete a 4-level system is currently used for representing any user skill. So, an arbitrary fifth level does not fit in any way. --Angelo 23:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant difference between native and professional master in thr written form of a language. --Valmi &#10002; 04:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It seems like some of those voting keep here do so because they desire more levels in the Babel system. Consider, then, that there are babel templates currently listed here for 232 languages. Do you think an effective way of introducing a reform in this system (where the 5 levels, including native, are the currently established way of doing things) is to create an extra template for English that cannot easily be found and hoping that people will therefore adapt to some new, non-existent standard? If you really wish to change the Babel standard, raise the issue in a place where it can be discussed and, if consensus is reached, implemented properly. Please realize that, currently, this template breaks the 5-level (or 4-level, depending on how you see it) system that Babel currently follows, and keeping this can't really result in anything but confusion. EldKatt (Talk) 10:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how you got the idea that there are currently 4 levels (en-1 to en-4), when we are here obviously talking about deleting an existing level en-5. As you can see the link above is still blue, so 5 levels do exist. Level en-5 was created months ago and about 40 people have it on their userpages. You are twisting the facts. You are right, this is not the place to change the Babel standard, which is currently en-1 to en-5. En-5 was created the same way en-4 was finally created because there was a demand for it. --Fenice 11:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why, then, do no other languages have a level 5? Why does Babel explicitly list and describe the four levels at the top? Babel/Levels does mention it, but it is referred to as a proposal, not yet implemented. (Incidentally, I can't find any other references to this proposal, or it being discussed anywhere, which surprises me.) Please provide evidence of your claim that "the Babel standard [...] is currently en-1 to en-5", now that I have provided some evidence to the contrary. EldKatt (Talk) 12:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Some other languages have only three levels, some only one, see [Wikipedia:Babel]]. If there is no description of the fifth level it should be added and if en-5 is seen by some as just a proposal it should be discussed and not just deleted. I am saying it is standard because en-5 exists and is in heavy use. There is nothing more formal to that. From what you say I can draw no other conclusion other than there needs to be discussion, not deletion. The demand is there for en-5 and it it will be created again in some form sooner or later anyway. But if this deletion goes through and sets a precedent we will have to resort to calling it en-4.5 or something.--Fenice 12:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If 45 users&mdash;compared to 108 for en-1, 799 for en-2, 1601 for en-3, 755 for en-4 and many thousands for en-N (is there an easy way of counting pages in a category?)&mdash;qualifies as "heavy use" by your standards, then there's not a lot we can discuss. I am still of the opinion that reforms of established systems (such as Babel with four levels) should be attempted in the proper place, to enable serious discussion and successful potential implementation. I am also still of the opinion that en-5 is not standard, as you have claimed. EldKatt (Talk) 15:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, we have different notions of what is standard. It's nice however to see that someone sticks to the rules on top of this page and admits that this was not the right place to decide that policy.--Fenice 15:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, now that we have the exact numbers, again the suggestion: why not sacrifice en-1 with 108 users instead?--Fenice 15:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it has twice as many users as en-5. And more importantly, I don't see the point of having a system where "intermediate" is the lowest level. It evidently fills a gap satisfactorily. EldKatt (Talk) 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said above, or was it below - the people on level en-1 will make nowhere near as many contributions as the ones that are on level 5. My rough estimate is that by deleting category en-5 you are chasing off about 100 times more edits than by deleting category en-1. Just imagine when these people discover this absurdly strange discussion here in a few weeks and find out that they are not wanted because their abilities are considered 'offensive'. Cool Cat, the user who initiated this stunt, is gonna have a good laugh. --Fenice 21:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If they're going to be driven off by a deletion of one template, they don't have what it takes to survive at Wikipedia. And no one has said their abilities are offensive; they said this way of expressing them is.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue here&mdash;according to me as well as the majority of delete voters&mdash;has nothing to do with anything being offensive, as you claim. The issue is that it is non-standard. If this were named anything but "en-5", and thus made no claim of being part of the Babel system, a lot of those voting delete wouldn't mind it at all, as I interpret the discussion. (The notion that people would feel unwanted and leave Wikipedia because of a template being deleted is, to me, absurd.) EldKatt (Talk) 20:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are enough levels as it is and Wikipedia is not a translating agency. / Peter Isotalo 13:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. Shouldn't users who vote here have some knowledge of what they are talking about?--Fenice 14:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it isn't. Wikipedia does not take material in for translation; we don't even straight-forwardly translate Wikipedia articles between different languages.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Very funny. I was really amazed that anybody could actually be so remote from reality, judging by your statements above, and I am now kind of relieved to see you are only joking, Prosfilaes. Very funny. --Fenice 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC) - Now watch Profilaes put all the translation pages up for deletion on the grounds that he feels offended by them.--Fenice 22:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? EldKatt (Talk) 22:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (*Whispering at EldKatt:*)Have a look at Profilaes userpage. He knows perfectly well that there are translations. He has a link to them on his userpage. --Fenice 22:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete en-4 is good enough.--MONGO 14:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest deleting en-1 instead. Makes more sense, since people on that level won't contribute much anyway.--Fenice 14:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid reason to delete en-1, and it's rather offensive. Even someone with en-1 can make suggestions and help clarify articles within their field of expertise. Making the facts right is worth a million minor grammatical fixes.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Djegan 15:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep BRossow 17:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I recognise that there is a difference in being a native speaker of the English language and being able to write a text that is of encyclopedic quality. The problem is that it is difficult for many people to judge if their own writing style is truly "professional". Then again, the user page is there for whatever people want to say about themselves, so I can't see why this shouldn't be available to them to use. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 17:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I just ran across this discussion by chance, since I'd stopped following, or caring about, the Babel template discussions some time ago. This discussion, and the mentality behind the whole notion of xx-5, xx-6, what fits here, there, etc., is the straw that breaks this camel's back. Combined with the whole proliferation of absurd, stupid, juvenile userboxes that have crawled up out of the primordial Babel ooze, the only conclusion I can come to is that far too many people are more interested in process than content here. I am going to remove my own Babel labels since their meaning and usefulness have been debased and will only become more so in the future. Good work, Wikipedians. -EDM 20:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. What happened to Template_talk:User_en-5? There was some discussion there a few days ago.--Prosfilaes 10:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Change so it's not on the en-x scale. En-x is 1-4 and native.  Let's not mess with that now that's it's nicely setup. Change to pro-writer or some of the other options above. gren グレン 13:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Babel is fundamentally a 5-step system: 1, 2, 3, 4, N.  Period.  There is no need to bloat it with en-5, en-6, en-0, en-666, en-2.5, en-π, en-i or any such nonsense.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, even en-4 is a somewhat non-standard extension. The original Babels at commons and meta only go up to 3.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a perfectly valid suggestion, Ilmari. Changes in policy can be made. The problem is that the standard way which would correspond to the instructions on the top of this page is to suggest a policy - Policy proposal Guillotine Babel with an extension by Ilmari to also cut the feet off and have it discussed by the people who are interested. (I like your suggestion to delete en-0). Taking out one single brick of the building makes no sense whatsoever. There should have been an attempt to change the concept behind Babel and ban en-5 entirely from the English wiki. Now we will forever have users putting on en-5 on their pages and finding out that on en-wiki this is a red link because here on this page people could not cope with someone outing  himself as capable of anything. --Fenice 22:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're the one who keeps pushing these new xx-5 levels without any consensus or policy behind you. I notice you've been creating more of these and editing the Babel pages to make it look like there's been an official change to the system.  It's true that Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but this is starting to cross over from "bold" to "sneaky".  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No need for personal attacks, Ilmari. "Sneaky" is one. And yes, I am obviously pushing xx-5. I am glad someone is reading the discussion. Bravo. --Fenice 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments on somebody's behaviour do not equal personal attacks. (Your sarcasm above approaches it, though, but I don't see any need to discuss that any further.) Your swiftness in jumping to the conclusion that everyone is out to get you isn't really helping anyone. EldKatt (Talk) 16:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the diffs you provide: I cannot see a single one that proves that the policy has been proposed and not opposed for months. You are presenting a onesided picture of the story to discredit another user. Can I call you sneaky for that one, Ilmari? --Fenice 06:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * -->Here are the links Ilmari has omitted so gracefully: Proposal on talk page, one objection by user:EDM, others agree or don't mind:Wikipedia talk:Babel. And: [diff]- this is a Proposal "Levels" with a link to it on top of the Babel page with no objections since then.--Fenice 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Reading that section on the talk page, I count one user besides the nominator (Ynhockey) supporting, one (EDM) opposing, one (The Dogandpony) indifferent and one (Bo Lindbergh) proposing en-∞ instead (with Cernen supporting him). This does not, in my opinion, consensus make.  Besides, this TfD nomination itself shows that there in fact are multiple people who consider the new level needless.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Why not create a seperate template for "professional copy editor" or some such, outside of the babel language-level heirarchy? A user could be en-N or en-4 and add the "professional English" infobox as well. Obviously some non-natives are going to be more skilled at using a "professional" register than many native speakers anyway. ntennis 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, my vote for this template is Delete. And or the record, I'm against the user-4 category as well. A four-level system of beginner, intermediate, advanced, and "native or native-like" is plenty as far as i'm concerned. ntennis 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

'''I have now invited people on the talk page of Babel to comment here. I know that this is something that is despised by some as vote rallying and have not done it so far. However, Ilmari has written on this talk page first and placed an attack against my person on the talk page of Babel (I removed the personal attack), so I guess that gives me the right to inform those who are competent and concerned with these templates about this discussion.''' And: ciao. If nobody responds to this invitation, I have done my job here on this page at defending Babel. Unless someone officially allows me to do more efficient 'vote rallying' I won't discuss xx-5 here any more. I have said my share. But I will watch and remove all future personal attacks agains me on this page. --Fenice 06:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. I'm the person who created that template. When I created it, on Wikipedia talk:Babel some people were favourable to the creation of a "professional" level template, others weren't. I created it expecting that, either consensus would be achieved that it's useful, and someone would make similar templates for other languages, or consensus would be achieved that it's useless, and it would be deleted.

The reason why I created it was, a box for writers, teachers etc. of a language to show that they can help e.g. to copyedit articles in that language. Maybe the wording isn't the best possible one, if someone has a better idea, feel free to change it. (However, I disagree with the idea of making one category for professional writers of any language, IMO it's better to make a category for each language.)

Yes, this template may be deemed 'arrogant' or 'vain', and could be used by trolls, but even xx-4 templates used by non-native speakers have the same identical problem, haven't they? That's not a good reason to delete it. If someone makes inappropriate use of it, they are to blame, not the template... --Army1987 15:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Changes likes these to the babel system should be discussed on meta and not on a single language version of Wikipedia. If we follow this course, the babel system would mean different things on each language version of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. --Maitch 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In case you don't know, there are some Wikipedias which don't have xx-4 levels. Anyway, levels 1, 2 and 3 would stay unchanged, and only a part of the xx-4 people will go to xx-5. --Army1987 20:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per babel standard. It is my opinion that a fifth level does not enhance the current classification system. There is an important distinction between levels 4 and N, but the only difference between 4 and 5 or N and 5 is occupation. If a user really wants to have something on their userpage that describes their occupation, they can create their own private userbox easily enough. &#126;MDD4696 03:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rhobite --- Charles Stewart 15:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, since Wikipedia is planning to have a level 5 Babel template. --Terence Ong Talk 11:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, since it's not going to be like this. - ulayiti (talk)  11:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Babel-5 has special purpose  D a Gizza Chat  (c) 11:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.