Wiktionary talk:Frequency lists/top 2000 German Wikipedia words

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

1. It's not reliable and not correct and not helpful as it includes
   • English non-German words (the, of, by, with, and, is, University, World)
   • Latin or French non-German words (de, et)
   • Italian non-German words (di, del)
   • Dutch or Low German non-High-German words (van)
   • proscribed terms (z.B., u.a., d.h.)
   • inflected forms (amerikanische, amerikanischen, Weltkrieg, Weltkrieges, Weltkriegs)
   • miscapitalised forms (Obwohl, Später, Und)
     -- neuter substantivations of particles do exist, but that's obviously not what's meant here. What's given here are particles as they are written at the beginning of a sentence
   • other questionable terms (m, San, Santa)
     -- The letter m? Maybe a misabbreviation of maskulin or männlich (cp. m.). "San" as in "San Francisco", "San Marino" etc.? It's not the Greek letter known in English as san.
2. It's from an old and unreliable source as it's
   • "From the 09.02.2005 dump. Copied straight from de:Wiktionary:Fehlende Einträge/Top2000 Wörter"
3. Compared with old versions and fr:Wiktionnaire:Listes de fréquence/Wikipedia de Top2000 something is wrong. Old versions and French wiktionary have for example "Die" and "Weblinks". "Weblinks" was removed in English Wiktionary in September 2011. So the given source isn't correct anymore as it was altered in English Wiktionary, and the number might be wrong now too. That is at the very least it has to be correctly restored or updated somehow.

-84.161.23.112 17:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Delete, it has served its purpose. If we want frequency lists, the corpus shouldn't be Wikipedia. --Barytonesis (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Delete indeed. When Wonderfool made it back in 2006, it was to look for common words. Now it's pretty pointless. --P5Nd2 (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
• Keep: I find the rationale overall irrelevant, especially "unreliable": the reader knows it is from Wikipedia and it is from an old dump; we could note that certain kinds of edits were made. As for "inflected froms", en wikt frequency lists often include them; as for "proscribed terms", en wikt is a descriptivist dictionary. Wiktionary:Frequency_lists#German has links to frequency lists from "TV and movie subtitle"; these are no more relevant, correct or curated than the present list. I don't see why "corpus shouldn't be Wikipedia"; for English, we have a frequency list from Gutenberg, which for the purpose of frequency list is no better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • We might want to delete that frequency list from Gutenberg as well, then. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
• RFDO-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply