Template talk:hot word

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

I disagree with this. Let this thing created on 6 March 2014‎ be deleted unless there is consensus to keep it: no consensus => status quo ante. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

As above, there was a large amount of consensus for it and very little opposition at the BP discussion. --WikiTiki89 20:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Keep both. If we are to include widely publicised protologisms, as has been the consensus at WT:RFD and WT:RFV, we should tag them as such instead of pretending they are in clearly widespread use. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the RFD nomination from the template. It's very clear that this is being discussed in the BP, so RFDing it is only going to annoy people and serves no purpose other than to be obstructive. —CodeCat 21:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree with CodeCat's action; let's keep discussion in one forum (in this case, the BP). - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Keep, at least for now. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Keep, but reduce to a tiny, barely noticeable sliver of its current form, per the BP proposal. bd2412 T 16:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
• Keep, but only in reduced form as in User:Cloudcuckoolander's flamelet version. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  For reference, here is the User:Cloudcuckoolander flamelet version posted to Beer parlour:

  This English term is a hot word. Its inclusion on Wiktionary is provisional.

  --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I've stricken these nominations as they can't be addressed as long as there is still a discussion about it on the BP. See also my statement above. In any case, judging from this discussion, the current one on the BP, and also the one last month, it appears there is no consensus for anything but keeping the templates, and the current discussion is only about what they look like, which is not a matter for RFDO. —CodeCat 19:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
• And if anyone doesn't like nominations being stricken like that, then I'll just say I'm closing this debate with a clear keep as the result. —CodeCat 19:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Unstriking as pending resolution of BP. No apparent consensus to keep. Excessively interested party ought not to closing this matter. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Then where are the delete votes? Where are the objections to the template when it was created last month? I see none, except Dan Polansky's. That's a pretty clear snowball "keep" in my eyes. If you dispute that, I'd really love to know what arguments there are for that. —CodeCat 21:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Delete in their current forms. That's one. I viewed BD's "Keep" as the same. Clearly the author of a template can have impaired judgment when it comes to the author's own creation, hence the good practice of not having such a person close out such matters. DCDuring TALK 21:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm going to invoke WT:NPA here. I feel you're doing this more to annoy me and/or be obstructive to make a point, than because it is actually reasonable to. —CodeCat 21:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I can't accept responsibility for your feelings. Perhaps you might consider lying down until the feeling goes away. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ugliness of the template is addressed by editing it, not by deleting it. You really are being obstructive to make a point here. (Although I agree that it is not CodeCat who should be closing this vote.) — Keφr 05:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am concerned about misconstrual of the closing of such a vote, which misconstrual has some precedents. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Keep: per discussion at the BP discussion Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
• Keep, but only if we come up with some less vague criteria about which terms are eligible for "hot word" status. Two recently started WT:RFVs suggest that we might be too eager to grant this status to neologisms, which is what DP has been worrying about (presumably; he never actually stated a reason for opposing this). — Keφr 05:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Which two recently started RFVs?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

  proalitionist and selfiest. I think "hot word" status should be restricted to terms whose referents have been recently discovered/established and/or for which citations of usage (not necessarily durable) have been shown to exist in a wide range of media; this would include Euromaidan, olinguito, pithovirus, new senses of Crimea and maybe dogecoin, but not airpocalypse (“the presence of dense smog in China”) or selfiest (“in which the most selfies are taken”). — Keφr 19:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Keep; what the template looks like is not relevant to a deletion discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
• RFDO kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply