Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Language/Written

message: instead of creating 100 userboxes we could make Template:User iso15924 and then let people simply pass parameters. "{User iso15924|-ISO 15924-|-level-}" e.g. "{User iso15924|Cyrl|4}". Maybe an advanced template coder could do this. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, but we'd still need boxes for (semi-)scripts like gugyeol that don't have ISO codes yet. Wikipeditor 00:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User iso15924 

message: Level N and 5 are up for deletion 
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_26#Category:Writing_systems_categories
Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TfD and CfD

message: Can an admin state whether this was properly deleted, i.e. according to WP policies? was it marked for deletion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Template:User_ipa-0
I think ipa-0 can in fact be usefull since it is used in en:WP, as en-0 is usefull for languages in en:WP. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a TfD discussion about this and other 'level 0' templates, but the template itself was never tagged for deletion and thus the ~50 people using it were likely unaware of the discussion. That is out of process so I have restored this template for now. --CBD 14:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ipa-0

message: Right now, there are 6 proficiency categories for each writing system.  This mirrors the structure of Wikipedia:Babel, but it's not clear how (for example) there can be 6 separate proficiency levels for the Greek alphabet, or what each level would mean.
Some writing systems can be learned in days (Latin, etc.); others involve a modest amount of specialist knowledge (the four runic alphabets, the N different Old Italic alphabets), several take years of education (the Han-based writing systems), and a few are accessible only to scholars (Cuneiform, or anything beyond the simplest hieroglyphics).
Given that many writing systems are too simple to require 6 proficiency levels in any meaningful sense, and that--in any case--the levels aren't defined anywhere, I'm not sure what purpose they currently serve.
One solution might be descriptions of each level, similar to the ones found at Wikipedia:Babel and Wikipedia:Babel/Levels. Another solution might be combine the six categories into just two or three, at least for the simpler scripts. Any thoughts? -emk (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that sounds reasonable enough. -emk (talk)
=== Proposed categories ===
OK, here's a very, very rough draft of some proposed definitions for categories 1 through 5. Like the Wikipedia:Babel categories, they'll all based on the ability to read and write content for Wikipedia (which seems a good way to organize things).
These descriptions are just to start a discussion; please feel free to suggest revisions.
Choose:
* xxxx-1 if you can interpret individual words in this script, in the context of an encyclopedia article. For example, Grek-1, implies you can understand the Greek letters in the phrase, "hieroglyph comes from the Greek  (hieroglyphiká)", and IPA-1 implies you can understand the IPA symbols in the phrase, "Canada is pronounced [] in English and [] in French."
* xxxx-2 if you can identify at least some mistakes involving this script (enough for very basic proofreading), but you wouldn't feel comfortable making the corrections yourself.
* xxxx-3 if you can add content involving this script, but might benefit from a more experienced proofreader. For example, IPA-3 implies that you could add new pronunciations to Wikipedia using IPA, at least for the names of cities in your area, but wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable with adding IPA for foreign words.
* xxxx-4 if you understand this script at a native or near-native level, and can work with it fluently when contributing to Wikipedia.
* xxxx-5 if you understand this script at an academic or professional level, including obscure and/or historical variants.
I'd be completely happy with a different breakdown, too. Any suggestions? -emk (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Either explain, combine or delete -1, -2, ... -N categories? 

message: OK, here's a very, very rough draft of some proposed definitions for categories 1 through 5. Like the Wikipedia:Babel categories, they'll all based on the ability to read and write content for Wikipedia (which seems a good way to organize things).
These descriptions are just to start a discussion; please feel free to suggest revisions.
Choose:
* xxxx-1 if you can interpret individual words in this script, in the context of an encyclopedia article. For example, Grek-1, implies you can understand the Greek letters in the phrase, "hieroglyph comes from the Greek  (hieroglyphiká)", and IPA-1 implies you can understand the IPA symbols in the phrase, "Canada is pronounced [] in English and [] in French."
* xxxx-2 if you can identify at least some mistakes involving this script (enough for very basic proofreading), but you wouldn't feel comfortable making the corrections yourself.
* xxxx-3 if you can add content involving this script, but might benefit from a more experienced proofreader. For example, IPA-3 implies that you could add new pronunciations to Wikipedia using IPA, at least for the names of cities in your area, but wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable with adding IPA for foreign words.
* xxxx-4 if you understand this script at a native or near-native level, and can work with it fluently when contributing to Wikipedia.
* xxxx-5 if you understand this script at an academic or professional level, including obscure and/or historical variants.
I'd be completely happy with a different breakdown, too. Any suggestions? -emk (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed categories 

message: This page has been listed in :Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for two days now. Please fix. Thnaks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and the othe cyrl tempaltes had speedy tags included on them. When those tempaltes were transcluded onto tis page, that put this page in :Category:Candidates for speedy deletion alos. That is a knmown problem with taggign templates with speedy delete tags while they are still being transcluded. This should normally not be done. DES (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please fix this page

message: On the list of codes and boxes generated it starts with the lowest level of understanding and goes up to the highest, however I believe the last two are in the wrong order, as from the babelboxes I had understood that a native level of understanding is higher than a full level of understanding.  I do not want to change this myself because I am relatively new here and this looks like quite an important page.
Benpage26 22:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the last is for at all. It is not consistent with the ISO 15924 template generated ones. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Edit: IPA userbox Order 

message: Why were templates added? Cyrl:  Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brai + Cyrl 

message: Shouldn't Tengwar or Cirth be on here? It's a writing system, isn't it? Bunny Flying in the Sky Talk Contribs 05:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Writing systems? 

message: I was wondering if I could post this new userbox I made:
I though it was a interesting idea, so I made it. Since it is sorta different from the others I didn't know if I should post it or not... ~_~ – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kanji of the Day 

message: ...it's used extensively in some parts of the world--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for new writting system: devanagari and hindi/indian 

message: :For writing systems codes the ISO 15924 standard is used.
But the ISO 15924 code for Shavian is "Shaw", not "Shavian". Marnanel (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shavian = "Shaw" 

message: Could we get a box for the Thai alphabet? Badagnani (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thai