Category talk:200 English basic words
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 --Volants 12:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete for these reasons:
- Doesn't contain 200 word, more like 170
- Subjective
- What purpose does this serve? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep See above and below. DCDuring TALK 16:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep unless this is an indubitable copyvio. --Dan Polansky 21:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Dan Polansky. Razorflame 20:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: the request for cleanup
The list that appears here is clearly inaccurate and unsupported by any references. I'm having trouble figuring out how the list is embedded, as I'm a very infrequent contributor.
There is also the added ambiguity here that this list seems to contain the second most frequent set of 100 words, while the title would suggest all 200 are listed here. Very confusing and misleading, and with no supporting references to serve as a saving grace. Not sure why the deletion request failed, in fact, though I do think a good list here would be appropriate, so perhaps that was the logic?
Many possible sources exist, the following are not necessarily the best, but merely the first I found after realizing these lists as presently formatted are grossly misleading.
Examples: http://www.lexiteria.com/word_frequency/english_word_frequency_list.html (a commercial list, so probably not first choice) or http://www.wordfrequency.info/files/entries.pdf Ebbixx 15:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).
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.
This page is misleading due to the embedded list of words at the end. No references of any credibility, and the inclusion of a user's sandbox page as one of the links leaves the entire thing suspect. One suggested reference included on the talk page for the page. Ebbixx 15:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, if this particular page was ever accurate at all, it is further misleading because it purports to contain only the most frequent words from 101st through 200th. Ebbixx 15:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)