Template talk:Language

Personally, I think the level 0 one is a bit strange. – Smiddle/ TC 11:17, 1 March 2007 (PST)
 * Hi Smiddle, I think, I have made a mistake with my last edit on the template, can you look at it. The categorization isn't right. We should bring it to work like in the wikipedia version. Categorization of wiki index people by language and level too. --Wolf | talk 13:08, 1 March 2007 (PST)
 * You mean different categories for each level? I'll see what I can do. – Smiddle/ TC 06:29, 2 March 2007 (PST)
 * I mean both, cats for language and subcats for language level, double categorization. --213.23.174.67 06:41, 2 March 2007 (PST)
 * Mission failed – Smiddle/ TC 06:52, 2 March 2007 (PST)

Look at these subpages
The following links lead to the subpages of Template:Language, the link captions are combined of level names an language names, i have made a demo-Template (the second parameter is english defaulted). The mechanics are similar. or Would you integrate the idea into the original main template? The language categorization schema would be as follows:


 * EnglishSpeakers
 * BasicEnglishSpeakers
 * NativeEnglishSpeakers
 * NonEnglishSpeakers
 * ItalianSpeakers
 * BasicItalianSpeakers
 * NativeItalianSpeakers
 * NonItalianSpeakers
 * Language+Speaker
 * Level+Language+Speaker
 * Language+Speaker
 * Level+Language+Speaker

What do you think? Best regards, --Wolf | talk 08:19, 3 March 2007 (PST)
 * I think I get what you mean, you mean i.e. "This user is a NearNativeEnglishSpeaker"? I'll see what I can do. – Smiddle/ TC 01:26, 4 March 2007 (PST)

It works! – Smiddle/ TC 01:55, 4 March 2007 (PST)
 * Great!!! --Wolf | talk 03:24, 4 March 2007 (PST)

Gramatically Correct Writing
I changed the displayed text from e.g. "NativeItalianSpeaker" to "native Italian speaker" since the latter is correct English. Feel free to revert, if you had good reasons to make it different, which I am probably not aware of.

I suggest to alter "&hellip; is a non Chinese speaker." to "&hellip; is not a Chinese speaker.", too, since that is better English. I did not do that, since it is a bit more complicated than the above change. Let me know if you agree, and want me to make it so. --Purodha 07:38, 6 September 2007 (EDT)