Wiktionary talk:Frequency lists/English/Wikipedia (2016)

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary talk:Frequency lists/English/Wikipedia (2016). In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary talk:Frequency lists/English/Wikipedia (2016), but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary talk:Frequency lists/English/Wikipedia (2016) in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary talk:Frequency lists/English/Wikipedia (2016) you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary talk:Frequency lists/English/Wikipedia (2016) will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary talk:Frequency lists/English/Wikipedia (2016), as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Word separators

It would be fine if there weren't words on here that are multiple words, it makes words like to, the, etc. appear like they are on this more than once. TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

agreed the software used to generate this needs looked at, i would suggest pulling the page until it's fixed it's not fit for publication as is. ~~JC 78.149.141.125 02:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Invalid and Unusable

This Wiktionary page and all of the related multilingual ones and their huge sub-pages are not appropriate here.

1. The frequency lists are practically useless in this form. References should be provided to external links containing real lists in machine readable form, not multiple giant jumbles of unindexed, unsorted data that cannot be used for anything without substantial work to scrape and edit together.

2. The data appears to be invalid. E.g., the words "adieu", "alibi", "amaze", and countless others don't appear, yet are clearly more frequent than entries like "Aquitania" or "the Galilean" or thousands of others. Even for the first 100 words in the list, the ordering grossly mismatches with other common frequency lists. Only on Wikipedia could the 46th most popular word be "citation", and this doesn't have any particular importance or use.

3. Whole swaths of the entries are evidently in alphabetical order rather than frequency order. These are not actually frequency lists, or at best, not statistically significant in any useful way, as there is no point in comparing frequencies of the absolute rarest of words and phrases on Wikipedia.

4. These entries will only serve to mislead people into trying to use the lists or make updates to them, only to waste large amounts of time before discovering the information is meaningless and disorganized.