Template talk:User en-6

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Template talk:User en-6. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Template talk:User en-6, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Template talk:User en-6 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Template talk:User en-6 you have here. The definition of the word Template talk:User en-6 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTemplate talk:User en-6, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Used only on two pages. What does "professorial level" mean anyway? --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think this is a WP imported template. "Professional level" means that the user writes or edits as his/her profession, or perhaps serves as a translator. --EncycloPetey 01:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
But the template doesn't say "professional". It says "professorial". And two of the three users who use this template do so without indicating another language that they speak well (though presumably they speak some coded language well), which would imply that they use this template to indicate something better than native: something like "not only am I a native speaker of English, I speak it really well". (The other user might also mean that, but I don't know: he lists nl.)​—msh210 17:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

BTW, we don't have Template:User en-5. --Vahagn Petrosyan 14:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Keep, it's for the userspace only, and what harm does it do? Can anyone think of any userpage rules that this violates? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

This template if kept should be orphaned (with a note of explanation left on the userpage in its place) and reworded to avoid ambiguity: not both EP and I interpreted it correctly, which implies it's ambiguous.​—msh210 17:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Keep and improve then, I admit it doesn't make much sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, since (I think) it should be orphaned, I therefore shall say delete: it's not so useful that we need to orphan it, inform its users, and reword it.​—msh210 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Keep No harm is done by having this stay on the English Wiktionary, and as it stands, this really isn't a reason to delete it. Razorflame 18:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Kept Mglovesfun (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've blanked the template and informed its users of the reason and what they can do about it.​—msh210 18:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply