Talk:List of three-letter English words

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on April 9, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep, no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents

[edit] from VfD

This is not encyclopedic. Joyous 03:00, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
[Formatting by Jerzy(t) 20:58, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)]

  • Keep. If it is not, then make it so. -- Taku 03:03, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please, stop all these lists! List of 5 letter words, list of chairs in one room at one time, list of keys on a keyboard, list of actors who were once bullied but then became bullies, etc etc etc. SOMEONE PLEASE STOP THEM ALL!!!!! Dr Chicken
    • Lists are useful references. I don't understand list-bashing with no clear motive except than to try to be funny. --Pgreenfinch 18:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, there's no reason to delete this useful list. —siroχo 03:30, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Recycling Troll 03:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't even have definitions here, it's just a list of words. - RedWordSmith 03:57, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Cannot be encyclopedic under any circumstances. Step #1: enter favorite dictionary ASCII into a database (e.g. WordCruncher). Step #2: Define length at 3 letters. Step #3: Print. There is not one possible way of making this discursive, and I challenge anyone reading this to make it so. Please, prove me wrong. Geogre 04:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 05:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. My only gripe is that I'm not sure if CPU and MP3 are words. Acronyms, maybe, but not words. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 05:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: useful if you play Scrabble but not encyclopedic and unremarkable. Why, we should otherwise include the lists of 4 letters words, 5 letters words... Ad nauseam! Alfy 05:20 (UTC), 20 Nov 2004
  • Comment: Unsure. It's nowhere near complete as is, E for example has only eat, what about ebb, egg, eke, eel, elm, elf, elk, ego and lots more I'm sure? No vote at this stage. Andrewa 05:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. Unless someone does what Geogre suggests and replaces the text with that, and then does the same for all values from 1 up to antidisestablishmentarianism or floccipaucinihilipilification, it's absolutely indefensible. Delete. If, however, you can come up with A list of three-letter words in history...Dr Zen 05:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, I can't see any worthwhile encyclopedic content here. —Stormie 06:25, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a dictionary --fvw* 10:42, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
  • Non-Vote (?). Perhaps this is more suitable elsewhere, perhaps Wiktionary? Average Earthman 11:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Han-Kwang (talk) 11:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. 3-letter words aren't special like long words are. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and I have no clue why else someone would look it up. Some lists can be useful, this one can't. Delete. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:37, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, essential for Scrabble players. - SimonP 13:16, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Do you know anymore three-letter words with more than one syllable? I sure as hell would like to discover some more --Thewayforward 13:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Aha! (not listed)
Aji (not listed, Japanese borrowing that I believe has passed into English only as a technical term in the game of go
Ado (not listed, and certainly a common word)
Ego
Emu
Obi (not listed, Japanese borrowing that I would say has passed into English).
-- Jmabel | Talk 01:31, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. However if Scrabble is taken into account, then this needs massive expansion. A brief decription for each word wouldn't go amiss either. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 16:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another damned list. Not encyclopedic. --Improv 16:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. Don't see any real potential here. Scrabble players use dictionaries, not encyclopedias. If you don't have a dictionary already you really shouldn't be playing Scrabble. The list has no other real purpose. Delete. -R. fiend 17:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This belongs in Wiktionary. Fredrik | talk 17:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mark Richards 17:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Have you verified it? Can you verify it? Is it useful? How?
  • Keep. I see potential--but my head may be screwed up like that. --Billfred 17:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • keep--Pgreenfinch 18:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • And what have you been using this list for?
      • Checking my knowledge, something wrong with that? --Pgreenfinch 22:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Do you think that people who are looking into an encyclopedia are searching for that and for that reason? Geogre 03:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • It's solely for you to decide whether there's something wrong with feeling the need to "check your knowledge" of three-letter words.Dr Zen 00:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Exactly. --Pgreenfinch 08:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Del (??) & transwiki . Useful (especially for players of Scrabble and other word games), but not an encyclopedia article. This looks like a good candidate for transwiki to wikisource or possibly wiktionary. --L33tminion | (talk) 19:53, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. WTF? This is NOT an encycolpedia article. Scrabble nazis go home! Kaldari 22:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and
delete. Lists of words don't really belong on WP, though they would be quite welcome and useful on Wiktionary. I wonder how many of these "keep, Scrabble rulzor" voters are actually aware of the existence of Wiktionary? -Sean Curtin 01:56, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Question: Will Wiktionary want this? I'm serious. I don't think Wiktionary has a removal process, and I did get a note from an admin there basically saying, "Let up some, you guys." Geogre 03:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Del Dlt... I mean, delete. Not really encyclopedia material. --Idont Havaname 02:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Not useful. DCEdwards1966 02:52, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment (I've already voted above): "List of" pages are for listing articles, not data. This list is pointless since Wikipedia is not a dictionary and therefore the words listed will (should) never be linked. I would support an article with the title three-letter English word, if something interesting could be written about the topic instead of raw data. Wiktionary has a "By word length" section under Wiktionary:Alternative categorization schemes. This would be much more useful there. Fredrik | talk 09:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete (changed from no vote above). Good point. List of... pages are navigation aids, or should be. This one isn't, and many of its items will never be Wikipedia article titles. Andrewa 17:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree that lists should only be navigation aids. Whether they are called List of characters from Welcome Back, Kotter or just Characters from Welcome Back Kotter, they are still a good way to compile such things that do not warrant individual pages, and are often used as such. That said, no change of vote; this one is still useless. -R. fiend 18:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: This seems to be purely about how articles are to be named, and I think it's an important point. Have you an actual example? I agree that articles such as minor characters in the Book of Genesis are a good idea, but notice it's not called List of minor characters in the Book of Genesis, nor should it be IMO. No change of vote, or reasons yet. Andrewa 19:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with George--this is a database query, not an article. -- WOT 17:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. WOT said it best. Also, encyclopedias aren't for helping people play to scrabble. Go start a scrabble wiki or something. Or maybe just grep /usr/share/dict/words ~leif ☺ HELO 00:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. Database query or, at best, belongs in a dictionary. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps the best home for this would be a Scrabble dictionary in Wikibooks, but not Wikitionary. CheekyMonkey 13:06, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. Perfectly sensible list of interest to linguists and scrabble players. Let's link as many as possible. Robinh 21:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless. Denni☯ 01:50, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any article that's no more complicated than the results of a regular expression on a dictionary doesn't even come close to being encyclopedic. - Lifefeed 16:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - We can not go on this way in Wikipedia. or else I am going to make new articles: "Four-letter words in Portuguese", "Ten-letter words in potuguese"- I think I'll just classify every single word I know in POrtuguese, Albanian and English, then make new articles on them! This is just an absurd!Fabioburch
  • Keep - Why is this page on Votes for Deletion while many other pages like it are not? Here is a list of many pages like the current page that have not been subjected to VfD:
    1. One-letter English word
    2. Three-letter abbreviation
    3. Four-letter word
    4. Three-letter vowel-less English word
- 67.84.138.44, 00:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Because they should be put in VfD and are voted for deletion as well? -- Taku 00:38, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and you can't vote 67.84.138.44 unless you're logged in. NeoJustin 03:16, Nov. 23 2004 (UTC)
    • Not entirely true. He can most certainly vote, it just might not get counted. Also, comment is OK. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and you can't vote 67.84.138.44 unless you're logged in. NeoJustin 03:16, Nov. 23 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful list. jni 09:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete it can be mostly generated by a proper DB query of i.e. Webster on-line, active script for such would be sufficient. Oneliner 13:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep The Steve 14:26, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete- As has been said by others, this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.--AnywhereAT 00:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable, list of words, we are not a dictionary, etc, etc. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. are we going to have separate pages for "six-letter words", "seven-letter words with letter a in the middle", "seven hundred and fifty six-letter words in german"? they all might be useful for a scrabble player. Takalak 09:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Intrigue 17:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. Useless, despite claims otherwise, except for Scrabble and other formal or impromptu word games such as "Checking my knowledge". But this info is far too specialized to be part of our coverage of word games. --Jerzy(t) 20:58, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 21:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry for being late, I somehow missed this one. Keep. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 21:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Votes as of 20:14, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

(Copied by Jerzy(t) 20:14, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC))

end moved discussion

[edit] Accuracy

It seems that this page is undermaintained, to say it politely. It contains quite a few suspicious links. I clicked several of them, and my suspicions were confirmed. mikka (t) 01:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May

How does having may rather than may help? Rich Farmbrough 11:44 13 June 2006 (GMT).

[edit] 71.224.24.99 14:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That can't be all of them, can it?

[edit] Deletion proposal as of 12/12/06

I don't understand how this page was not deleted. It (seems to me to) clearly fall under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and past votes seem to have confirmed that the majority of individuals did not want this page. There was a debate as of April 2006 which arrived at no consensus, so I would respectfully request to open this back up for inquiry. Djma12 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_three-letter_English_words_72b9.html"