Moderator: Forum Administrators
vijayjohn wrote:My understanding was that the 4-star system was meant as an alternative to the CEFR system, not really as an alternative representation of it.
Also, how would this practically be implemented? A lot of us have levels already specified for our languages in our profiles.
dEhiN wrote:vijayjohn wrote:My understanding was that the 4-star system was meant as an alternative to the CEFR system, not really as an alternative representation of it.
Well if it was meant as an alternative, then perhaps we should just simply remove any CEFR references? For example, where it says "Known at an intermediate level (A2,B1)" we just have "Known at an intermediate level".
księżycowy wrote:If we're going to go with the CEFR system offically, I think a six star system is the way to go, personally.
How hard is it to add stars?
Karavinka wrote:I think it's fair to keep national variants with the languages where there is some form of standard for each national variant, but going regional and subregional? Feel free to separate this into a different topic if you see fit, Luis
Karavinka wrote:Ancient South Arabian
Native name: N/A
Luís wrote:Adding stars per se is not hard, but there's a huge database of users that would have to be migrated to the new values (and even that is not so obvious... for instance would 3-stars become B2 or C1?). Without this, all the language information would be displayed incorrectly unless you changed it manually. But of course, even if people haven't logged in years, their profiles should still display properly.
So... I'd say this is pretty much off the table at the moment.
Luís wrote:As for Japanese dialects... it's up to you guys to reach a consensus and I'll implement it.
Luís wrote:Changing the meaning of each of the 4 stars is possible, though.
księżycowy wrote:I'm not going to cry if they're taken away, but I see no reason why we can't list them. *shrug*
Michael wrote:Also, now that I've been reminded of it from viewing the Language List, the English name for should be Greek, Puristic, as "Greek, Katharevousa" (i.e. Katharevousa Greek) sounds somewhat redundant,
Katharevousa on its own already meaning "Puristic Greek". I don't know what I was thinking when I had first suggested that way back when.
Are we talking Japanese dialects, or just dialects in general?vijayjohn wrote:I do: Because there are way too many of them.
księżycowy wrote:Are we talking Japanese dialects, or just dialects in general?vijayjohn wrote:I do: Because there are way too many of them.
Whatever the case, I think, given his knowledge in the area, we should let Karavinka make the final call for Japanese dialects.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest