Requests for new languages/Wikipedia basic English

Basic English Wikipedia[edit]

submitted	verification	final decision

	This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process. This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy. The closing committee member provided the following comment: This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 22:02:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal summary
Language details: Basic English (bc [invented]) Editing community: oui (P) List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your name if you are a native speaker of this language. Relevant pages: — External links: —
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

Basic English is in my opinion really different of "simple".

No rules have existence for Simple English; and no clearly marked out book in ABC etc. order, giving the official words of the language. it is a chief error. the use of Basic English is clearly marked out. chiefly the use of the different words forming the language is clearly marked out in two greater wordbooks (The General Basic English Dictionary, 22.000 records, and The Basic Dictionary of Science with 15.000 records more on the field of all branches of science of the present time and science of arts, process, of industry making Basic English usable to get way in to all this fields of knowledge). in the new pages at bc.wikipedia.org, I make the suggestion of the use in high degree of the opinion exchange pages to make better part of pages not in harmony with the rules and what is clearly marked out in the word books of Basic English. I see this detail as important if the idea is a true and serious thing desired.

An important printed material have being for the language, chiefly the complete bible (it is almost certain the only one not natural language with this important speciality because this books has being in all natural languages and let to do the comparison of part of books with those of the mother tongue of the owner.

It would get to be an important usual step in the education of languages coming from outside if it would get the acceptance of the organizations working for the education in the different countries... Oui 23:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC) changed into BASIC English ;-) Oui 23:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the concept of the current Simple English Wikipedia is not very convincing. But I don't really think that a 'Basic' edition would be a greater success. Who would benefit from it? Those who know English will surely prefer en:. Those who don't are surely better off with a Wikipedia in their native language. And those who want to learn English will probably learn most if they deal with texts that are actually written in real English and not in an artificial version. Arbeo 16:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I am clear about what you say but it is not so simple! an truly important number of men and women would not have interest at all to use English, if it would be possible, would never do it! But please see at this place!!! It is for example not possible to give an opinion without English in Meta.Wikimedia! Men and women of France, as I am, for example, see English as very hard, and have completely no desire in learning English well. A great number of men and women in France did have 7 years learning in English or German at school and don't have some good outcome with that! The opinion of me is that they are free to see that so or would you better see that they are forced to do (it is, certainly, the most official point of view in Germany and I did see that you are probably German)! Basic English is equal because it is doing the same in agreement with full English. And it is a language with a well formed system of laws. The important point of view in addition is how unlike is the time for learning the two forms of English doing the same in agreement: 40 schoolhours for Basic English and 7 years are not enough for different peoples for full English! Oui 13:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC) - errors (only a few! sorry I dont find all...) amended Oui 22:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is excelent for non-native english speakers.Now, I'm neutral, I have several doubts about this --Taichi - (あ！) 06:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, though it is much better and more precisely defined that the current Simple English, I think separate Wikipedias in in what is in fact the same language in another way of cultivation need to be avoided. We can think, however, of new projects such as the formerly proposed Wikijunior. A BASIC Wikipedia imo goes counter to Wikipedia's aim to provide information to anyone in his/her own language, since it suggests that people who can't read en: should do with a slighter version of the English language instead of their native tongue. Caesarion 15:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ceasarion please, can you rewrite that in an understandble English? Thank you! Oui 21:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oui please, can you quit attacking me here, on li: and on de:? It is very unpleasant and I really have no idea what I did wrong to you! Caesarion 17:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC) (fyi: an IP address, probably Oui, placed grave insults to me on my talk pages at de: and li:).[reply]

support for the reason that it will help non native speakers of english in britain (immigrants, welsh, corns, scots). THEMOOMIN (oh yeah i do exist btw)
Oppose. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 06:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I renonce definitively! Wikipedia will never act for handicapped people but is only a giant manipulation to erase the printing industry and workers of European countries... to Angela, to Anthere, already discussed with Ceasarion, theoreticaly preace but his infame "oppose" in Solresol is yet here!, erase all my contributions. Bye Oui 21:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nice idea for people who learning English! --Pokrajac 17:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special opinion I think this will not be useful, just as not useful the Simple English Wikipedia. It cant be used to learn English by non-English speakers and even mostly more difficult than conventional English. Also I think this is not good precedent to multiply wikipedias in the same language. Why not then create Wikipedia in pre-1917 Russian? Or even in St.Petersburgish Russian? With different admins and rules. Though if this is unavoidable step to deletion of the dibilous Simple English Wikipedia, I will vote "pro".--Nxx 16:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Basic English is far, far too limited for informational writing. With a vocabulary of 800 words, you need to thoroughly manhandle the meanings of words to express even moderately sophisticated ideas, such that we would be better off sticking with the Simple English Wikipedia that already exists. --Kwekubo 02:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kwekubo, giving an opinion about somewhat you absolutely don't know you show only a big sum of ignorance and self sufficience... ;-) Basic English is the work of c. k. ogden and i. a. richards, two eprouved language specialist but also of serious staff of the Havard University! You opinion is absurd and unqualified! Please read the introduction in the Publications of the Christine M. Gibson (1946, Language Research Inc., Cambridge) 85.212.42.214 20:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. People should stick to the normal english Wikipedia, this is just sensless. 84.179.240.217 15:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We already have the Simple English Wikipedia, as others say. Keeno 14:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose dumbass idea