Talk:frictional-unemployment

RFV discussion: March–July 2015
Attributive form? --Type56op9 (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Msh210 apparently created hundreds of these back in 2007 by more or less systematically hyphenating terms listed as noun phrases and re-entering them as adjectives. Should they be taken to RFV one-by-one? --Hekaheka (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If necessary. They're all nouns, in any case (that's the point of "attributive"!) and need to have their POS headers fixed. - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One of these was deleted, though it took two tries, and it was only because it was unattested: see Talk:alpine-chough Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think they all need RFV but they all need fixing because they're nouns, as the definitions say. 95.144.169.113 21:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The hyphenated attributive form is an adjective, by my lights. But I do not know how to search for it to attest it: returns occurrences with space instead of hyphen. Anyone has an idea of a search strategy for these hyphenated forms? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in BGC and the Google hits for search "frictional-unemployment" are chiefly for the unhyphenated form. Among 100 first hits there's only one hyphenated form and it is from a web dictionary which copies its content from Wiktionary. Why couldn't mass-created dubious forms be mass-deleted as easily and without consideration as they were born? --Hekaheka (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This one doesn't seem attested afaIct, and I apologize for creating these en masse without checking for cites first. They are of course plausible terms and I see no cause for deleting them en masse, but this one probably can be deleted. But maybe cites will turn up…. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How about making them hard redirects en masse? DCDuring TALK 16:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Or let the search engine do it. Equinox ◑ 16:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would speedy delete all of these mass created hyphenated forms that have zero hits on Google Ngram Viewer (GNV), which is easy to decide. frictional-unemployment has zero hits there, just like grey-heron, green-woodpecker, tectonic-uplift, abominable-snowman, abundant-number, accident-blackspot; non-zero GNV hits are found for griffon-vulture, great-tit, sandhill-crane, trumpeter-swan. Thus, I would let non-zero GNV hitters go to normal RFV, and mass delete those that have zero GNV hits. The justification for this extra-RFV measure is that they were created en masse without checking for attestation in the first place (creation visible here), that the tool used for the first filtering is reasonably lenient, and that if we RFV them one at the time, that will be really onerous because of how many they are (see the link just provided). For the speedy deleted items, editors can still place putative attesting quotations into Citations namespace, and start restoring the attested ones, if any. Note that GNV does distinguish terms with hyphens vs. those with space, unlike Google web and Google books search. See, and . --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Donnanz (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)