Template talk:User sgn-4

This template was created by User:Mysekurity, but had several errors and broke the established template (see Category:User sgn and the associated talk page). I am not a fan of the "user xx-4" templates myself, and especially so for sign languages. It is widely believed by sign language linguists and the signing community that adult learners never achieve "near-native" proficiency in a sign language unless they are already native signers in another sign language; perhaps because of the very different spatial organisation of sign languages to the linear structure of spoken languages. Anyway I wouldn't oppose this template if properly constructed but as it is it is just likely to create problems, so I blanked it for now. User:Ulayiti reverted to the broken template for some reason without correcting it. I would be happy for an administrator to delete the page (no one is currently using this template); however, if a number of other users feel strongly about the need for it, then please correct the errors. ntennis 01:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Blanking is not the solution for 'broken' templates, TFD is. What comes to the template having errors, {{sofixit}}. I've unblanked the template again, since as I said blanking is never the solution, and it doesn't matter anyhow if nobody's linking to the template. If you want this template deleted, you should follow correct procedure and take it to TFD, not unilaterally blank it. - ulayiti (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Now marked as Template for Deletion. By the way, it wasn't "unilateral" - the only two people to have edited here, including the creator of this template, agreed that the template isn't necessary. The only unilateral action has been yours. As I said, if you feel strongly about about the need for it, then why not fix it? ntennis 00:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what the problem with this template is. I've altered it to match {{User sgn-3}}, leaving a variable to allow the user to specify which sign language he's a near native user of. You say adults cannot become near native signers unless they're already native signers of another language; fine, but there are undoubtedly such people and they can use this template. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

TfD debate

This template survived a debate at TfD. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 04:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The case against User sgn-4

Sign languages are different to spoken languages when it comes to nativeness. Most people for whom a sign language is their main or preferred language are not "native" signers; i.e. only about 1 in 20 Deaf people have Deaf parents (according to recent research in both Australia and the U.S). Are we to relegate 95% of the signing community to sgn-4 rather than sgn-N?

At the same time, many more hearing people than deaf have Deaf parents, and even though a sign language is their native language, it is not their main or preferred language. Additionally, many deaf people first encountered a sign language as adults, after incompletely learning a spoken language, but the sign langugage is still their main language more than the spoken one. So if we follow the strict logic of the "near native" User sgn-4 category, it would be populated by deaf people who have a sign language as their main or preferred language, and the category of usr sgn-N would be populated by hearing people who have a spoken language as their main or preferred language. It's a slightly sensitive issue, and I can't help but feel the concept of sgn-4 goes against the culture of the signing community (at least where I'm from). ntennis 11:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)