Template talk:BabelMsg

How to use this? --Xeeron 05:12, 13 April 2006 (CDT)



Placed inside Template:EN-1 maybe Skuld  05:55, 13 April 2006 (CDT)


 * That thing messed up the screen for me. Placed nowiki tags around it. --Xeeron 07:52, 13 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Don't use it. It's unfinished and ugly.  If you want, copy code directly from my user page d-: -PanSola 10:35, 13 April 2006 (CDT)

Done. Hopefully documentation is self-explanatory.

I tried adding an entry for eng-N, and it seems to have automatically created a category - but not for other languages I've tried (tlh). Is their built in logic to only attach the category to certain language codes? --161.88.255.140 13:24, 18 April 2006 (CDT)
 * It's supposed to create a category unless it's level 0. No point in categorizing ppl who can't speak a language.  Let me know which one is behaving erratically and I'll check the code. -PanSola 13:36, 18 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Okay, that would explain it, the other one was at level 0. But on a related note, I noticed on my user page that you corrected the language used from "eng" to "en"; is there a reason to prefer ISO 639-1 over the ISO 639-2 codes?  I had expected the newer standard to be the one in use; but I'm not familiar enough with the ISO community to know if the ISO-2 simply never caught on. --161.88.255.140 13:50, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Actually, the alpha-3 codes are only supposed to be used when the alpha-2 codes aren't available, so "en" is preferable to "eng". They added redundant alpha-3 codes because certain librarians and their software vendors were too lazy to update their software to use the alpha-2 codes instead of their bizarre alpha-3/B codes. F G 15:49, 18 April 2006 (CDT)

contribute with or contribute at a level?
Does one contribute with a level, or contribute at a given level of proficiency? (Obviously I prefer the latter.) &mdash; Stabber (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2006 (CDT)

Why are all the babel categories their own subcategories?
Even Shub Niggurath, the Abomination, the Black Goat of a Thousand Young, the All Mother and the Wife of the Not-to-Be-Named-One... even she wouldn't dare call herself her own child. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Using the Babel template on a page automatically creates that page as part of the category (for example, see the categories that were created on your user page). By including just the template on the category page makes it easier to link on user pages by just needing (for native English):
 * instead of each user needing to enter:
 * --161.88.255.140 17:55, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
 * No categories are created automatically, and my question should be read as criticizing the design rather than a query about the reasons for it. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
 * --161.88.255.140 17:55, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
 * No categories are created automatically, and my question should be read as criticizing the design rather than a query about the reasons for it. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2006 (CDT)


 * In fact, if we are to follow Wikipedia's scheme, we should create Template:user en-N, etc. (cf. Wikipedia:Template:user en-N) for inclusion. Transcluding category pages is just simply boneheaded. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree with the scheme of using an alternate template to simplify the entries as being the better solution. However, using the Babel template does, in fact, add category links without any further category tags being required on the page.  As an example of this automation, you can see the categories "Users/Language/R/E-4" etc on your own user page.  Perhaps my terminology is incorrect, and I should have said that "the Babel template is currently setting up the category links for the user when the babel template is used" instead of saying "automatically".  Obviously my assumption that I didn't need to spell it out that far was mistaken. --161.88.255.140 18:22, 19 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Actually, I was the one who was imprecise. I simply meant that the category page itself is not created by the template. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2006 (CDT)

Categories and general design
I really don't like the fact that these things create so many categories. There really enough people using these things to justify it, I think (since most users don't put things on their user pages). How about one category per language rather than one per language/level, or none at all?

Also, what is the purpose of these things: to offer yourself as a translator for alternate-language versions of Guildwiki or just to say "I speak this". Because, well, if it's the latter, we definitely shouldn't have categories on them. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 19:51, 19 April 2006 (CDT) )
 * I tend to agree. While it's nice to give the community another toy to add to their user pages, I really don't see the value of having categories for them.  What benefit is received from having an explosion of unused categories? --Barek 20:03, 19 April 2006 (CDT)