Category talk:English basic words
From Category talk:1000 English basic words edit
Terms edit
I've carefully checked this kind of w:Swadesh list and there isn't any reason to rename it to 1000 English basic terms. JackPotte 14:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- These are all single words though, no spaces. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Deletion debate edit
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.
As above. Thankfully, there's no Category:10000 English basic words --Volants 12:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete for these reasons:
- Doesn't contain 1000 word, more like 900
- Subjective
- What purpose does this serve? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Reply to stated deletion rationale:
- Seems like a reason to improve, not delete.
- How do you know? How was it created? It would be unfortunate if the methodology were not documented. It would be more unfortunate if it were deleted and there was some documentation. Whether the category is a faithful replica of the Ogden list is unknown, but it seems to be. Ogden provided some documentation of his method in his publications. It seems that it would be an interesting benchmark on its 100th or 80th anniversary (2010).
- Much of our content has no demonstrated or even explicit purpose beyond making us resemble or appear superior to other reference works. Some other reference works or texts have such lists. It may be that the membership in the category needs some kind of updating against a more modern list than Ogden's.
- Keep DCDuring TALK 15:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep unless this is an indubitable copyvio. --Dan Polansky 21:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Dan Polansky. Razorflame 20:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits.
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.
...including Category:100 English basic words and Category:200 English basic words. These particular numbers 100, 200 and 1000 aren't currently respected (by having these exact quantities of members) even after years, and I don't think they should be. We may define standards for deciding whether an English word is "basic": for example, by appearing at hundreds of sources or merely by expressing "simple concepts commonly used in everyday life" as defined by the introduction of Appendix:Basic English word list; or we may simply open discussions on whether each word is simple when necessary without depending on any specific policy. Either way, I don't see how exactly these quantities improve Wiktionary. That said, I'd like to merge the three basic word English categories into Category:English basic words. --Daniel. 07:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support merging. --Yair rand 05:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose merging. Whatever standard we choose for "basic", we can cut off the resulting ordered list by 100, 200 and 1000. --Dan Polansky 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- A standard for "basic" was not chosen, so no organization of results exist. I oppose keeping category titles for such an arbitrary purpose. --Daniel. 17:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose merging per Dan Polansky. DCDuring TALK 09:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- 1000 words may not translate exactly into 1000 members of the category, for example if (deprecated template usage) be is decided to be a basic word, presumably its other forms (e.g. (deprecated template usage) is, (deprecated template usage) am) will also be put in the category without being separate words? More certainly, (deprecated template usage) colour/(deprecated template usage) color would generate two entries for one basic word. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
No comments for six months. No consensus, striking. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Losing words edit
Where are the words in this category going? They are disappearing! There were, in 2009, only ~900 words. In January of this year, it contained 747 words. Now, it contains 721... - -sche (discuss) 05:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- We were up to 997 a few months ago, and now 999. - -sche (discuss) 20:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- 996 now. - -sche (discuss) 18:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Completion edit
There are now exactly 1000 words in this category as of 08/23/26. 2601:85:C000:8EA0:D098:A7DA:15DE:AC71 20:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)